Between Creativity and Pragmatism: a Structural Analysis and Quantitative Survey of Federal Competitions for Yugoslav Monuments and Memorial Complexes (1955–1980)

Between Creativity and Pragmatism: A Structural Analysis and Quantitative Survey of Federal Competitions for Yugoslav Monuments and Memorial Complexes (1955–1980)

Horvatinčić, Sanja

Source / Izvornik: Modern and Contemporary Artists' Networks. An Inquiry into Digital History of Art and Architecture, 2018, 124 - 165

Book chapter / Poglavlje u knjizi

Publication status / Verzija rada: Published version / Objavljena verzija rada (izdavačev PDF) https://doi.org/10.31664/9789537875596.06

Permanent link / Trajna poveznica: https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:254:617158

Rights / Prava: In copyright

Download date / Datum preuzimanja: 2021-10-04

Repository / Repozitorij:

PODEST - Institute of Art History Repository An Inquiry into Digital History of Art and Architecture Editors Ljiljana Kolešnik Sanja Horvatinčić Institute of Art History Online Editions, book 11 1 Modern and Contemporary Artists’ Contents Networks. An Inquiry into Digital History of Art and Architecture 6 Ljiljana Kolešnik On Digital Art History: The Objectives and the Results of the Project ARTNET Editors Ljiljana Kolešnik and Sanja Horvatinčić 14 CASE STUDIES

Zagreb, 2018 16 Irena Kraševac, Petra Šlosel Networking of Central European Artists’ Associations via Exhibitions. The Slovenian Art Association, Czech Mánes and Polish Sztuka in Zagreb in the Early 20th Century

38 Dalibor Prančević Between Art Nouveau and the Avant-Garde: The Personal (Ego) Network of Ivan Meštrović and the Map of Critical Reception of His Work during the 1910s

64 Tamara Bjažić Klarin, Nikola Bojić CIAM Network Visualisation – Detecting Ideological Ruptures in the CIAM Discourse

84 Ljiljana Kolešnik The Transition of New Tendencies from Neo-Avant-Garde Subculture to Institutional Mainstream Culture. An Example of Network Analysis

124 Sanja Horvatinčić Between Creativity and Pragmatism: Structural Network Analysis and Quan- titative Survey of Federal Competitions for Yugoslav Monuments and Me- morial Complexes (1955–1980)

166 Željka Tonković, Sanja Sekelj Duality of Structure and Culture: A Network Perspective on the Independent Cultural Scene in Zagreb and the Formation of the WHW Curatorial Collective

196 Contributors

202 Literature, archival and online sources This book is the result of the research conducted within the project ARTNET (IP- 201311/6270) supported by the Croatian Science Foundation. Between Creativity and Pragmatism: A Structural Analysis Introduction competitions for war memorials, such as the and Quantitative Survey of Federal Competitions for Yugoslav Vietnam War Memorial in the United States, Monuments and Memorial Complexes (1955–1980) Public competitions for monuments and and the growing number of memorials to memorials have always attracted the at- Holocaust victims and victims of “totali- DOI: https://doi.org/10.31664/9789537875596.06 tention of historians of art and architecture; tarianism” in Europe and North America, whether due to the formal innovations and/ have played a significant role in tackling or visionary concept they tend to generate, contemporary relationships between aes- or their role in establishing new standards thetic and political concerns.229 and procedures for the evaluation and If research on 20th-century architectur- selection of public art and architecture. al competitions – itself a relatively young Needless to say, some of the major inter- field of academic enquiry230 – is still pre- national public competitions and their dominantly focused on the big centres in winning projects, such as that for the Un- known Political Prisoner in Berlin (1953), or the competitions for monuments commem- The Nineteen-Fifties in a Divided Europe, orating victims of the Holocaust in the for- ed. Ljiljana Kolešnik (Zagreb: Društvo mer Nazi concentration camps in Germany povjesničara umjetnosti Hrvatske, 2004), 227 and Poland, have become indispensable 37–56. references in the history of the post-war 229 See, for examples: Peter Carrier, modernism, and important case studies for “Memorial fixation. The Monument for studying underlying mechanisms of Cold the murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin,” 228 War cultural politics. More recently, public Život umjetnosti, no. 64 (2001): 118–131; Peter Carrier, “Anti-Totalitarian Rhetoric Sanja Horvatinčić 227 See, for example, literature on in Contemporary German Politics (Its the Monument to the Victims of Fascism Ambivalent Objects and Consistent in Auschwitz: Katarzyna Murwaska- M eta p h ors),” Human Affairs, no. 21 (2011): Muthesisus, “Oskar Hansen and the 27–34. DOI: 10.2478/s13374-011-0004-x. Auschwitz Countermemorial, 1958–1959,” in 230 The academic interest for an ana- Figuration/Abstraction: Strategies for lytic approach to this topic appeared in Public Sculpture in Europe, 1945–1968, the late 1980s to early 1990s. See, for ed. Charlotte Benton (London: Ashgate example: Helene Lipstadt: The Experimental Publishing Limited; Henry Moore Institute, Tradition: Essays on Competitions in 2004), 193–211. For competitions for the Architecture (Princeton Architectural Pr, international memorial in Dachau, see: 1989). One of the reasons for such inter- Andrea Ridle, and Lukas Schretter, eds., est in that particular time period “may Das internacionale Mahnmal von Nandor be found in the deregulation and market Glid. Idee, Wettbewerbe, Realisirung orientation of the building constructions (Berlin: Metropol-Verlag, 2015). sector during the 1980s and the reregu- 228 See, for example: Joan Marter, lation in the 1990s through the European “The Ascendancy of Abstraction for Parliament and Council directive”. Jonas Public Art: The Monument to the Unknown E. Andersson, Gerd Bloxham Zettersten, Political Prisoner Competition,” Art and Magnus Rönn, “Editors’ Comments,” in Journal. Sculpture in Postwar Europe and Architectural Competitions – Histories and America 1945–1959, vol. 53, no. 4 (1994): Practice, ed. Jonas E. Andersson, Gerd 28–36; Robert Burstow, “Western European Bloxham Zettersten, and Magnus Rönn (The Modernism in the Service of American Royal Institute of Technology and Rio 124 125 Cold-War Liberalism.“ In Art and Ideology: Kulturkooperativ, 2013), 7–8. the West,231 the scope of knowledge on the do such surveys reveal forgotten artistic rely on the idea that the production of mon- post-war monuments in Yugoslavia. Instead specific niche of war memorial competi- and architectural projects, but they broad- uments in the period of Socialism in former of focusing on the formal aspects of par- tions is even more limited, or more tightly en our knowledge on the “history of ide- Yugoslavia was a dynamic process, defined ticular realized projects, the combination of embedded into grand-narrative schemes. as”, and open up new perspectives on the by different practices present in various lev- historiographical research and the results The history of the commissioning and pro- cultural and political circumstances that els of production, involving diverse social of quantitative and network analysis aims duction of post-WWII monuments and me- conditioned the acceptance or refusal agents with distinctive roles and dynamic to analyse what was happening ‘behind morials, especially those related to wartime of innovative concepts. Such research is, interrelations.234 These processes were di- the scenes’: What were the mechanisms events that are tasked with embodying and however, encumbered by various practical rected and managed by various federal, re- and who were the actors that enabled the transferring traumatic experience and so- obstacles. The models and drawings for public or local organizations, or individual production of the phenomenon referred cial memory, serve as imprints of cultural, competition entries have not always been stakeholders, whose actions and decisions to as ‘Yugoslav monuments’? Apart from political and social issues of the Cold War preserved, mainly because their authors on collective commemorative activities, in- their common historical and ideological era. In this regard, a comprehensive survey (especially visual artists), immersed in the cluding the construction of monuments, references, what else contributed to the of international competitions for monu- spirit of the forward-looking progress of were conditioned by available material re- notion of shared heritage associated with ments, and their role in cultural and po- modernism, were at the time often unaware sources and guided by legal regulations. these objects today?235 What were the main litical exchange and networking, could be of their importance, or simply uninterested Different models and levels of production features of awarded participants and jury especially useful. in the process of self-archiving. Another im- constantly coexisted and merged through- members in terms of their gender, profes- However, in South-Eastern Europe, the po- portant obstacle is the lack of institutional out the socialist period, resulting in various sion, place of origin, and what can this data tential for architectural competitions to be- upkeep of the documentation for compe- scales, types and degrees of formal and/ tell us about the function of federal com- come the subject of academic research titions. This issue is especially pertinent in or morphological innovation. In order to petitions for monuments in Socialist Yugo- has only recently been recognized. In for- the local context, which – largely due to understand the overall system of production slavia? One particularly important aspect mer Yugoslavia, competitions for monu- political reasons – has undergone drastic and its artistic and architectural achieve- of this analysis is the equal treatment of ments were mostly dealt with through in- infrastructural changes since the 1990s, ments, historians should – as fully and as jury members, that is, acknowledging their dividual case studies.232 More systematic being exposed to the negative social atti- comprehensively as possible – take into active role in the field of memorial produc- and problem-oriented approaches have tudes to the legacy of post-war modernism, account and understand the interactions tion, and their introduction to the (hi)story of been pioneered only recently.233 Not only especially its more ideologically overt seg- and relations between various and numer- monument-making. This very notion opens ments, such as monuments and memorials ous actors participating in these processes. up new perspectives on several important 231 See, for example, the index and from the socialist era. Due to the obvious limitations regarding re- issues regarding the physiognomy of the the timeline of the 202 cited competi- The present study, however, takes a different construction of an all-encompassing social whole field and the structural roles of cer- tions in the publication: Chupin, Jean- path in an effort to approach this complex, network of these processes, this analysis is tain central figures within the system: How Pierre, Carmela Cucuzzella and Bechara yet crucial, segment of the modernist pro- focused on examining a clearly detectable were the roles of the two different types of Helal (eds). Architecture Competitions duction of the second half of the 20th cen- and fixed segment of the said production, involved actors – those of the competitor and the Production of Culture, Quality tury. Instead of analysing individual com- defined by the same legal framework, and a and the evaluator – distributed, and what and Knowledge: An International Inquiry. petition proposals, the aim is to approach limited number of involved actors – namely, can we learn from their conflicting positions Potential Architecture Books Inc., 2015, 133–141. the phenomenon of federal public competi- the federal public competitions, and the within the system? What are the implications tions for monuments as platforms for social networks of its jury members and awarded of the fact that one of the most prominent 232 See the texts published in the networking and exchange, and as a source participants. and important authors of monuments in thematic volume Anali Galerije Antuna Augustinčića, no. 32–33; 34–35 (2015). of valuable statistical data that can outline The methodology applied in this case study Socialist Yugoslavia appears as the cen- the overall configuration of high-level me- challenges the predominant approach to tral figure in jury member networks? What 233 See: Grozdana Šišović: Architectural morial production in Yugoslavia. In other authorship in the field of production of Competition Practice and the Issue of 235 See the analysis on the notion of words, the aim of this paper is not to discuss Autonomy of Architecture, PhD Thesis shared heritage in contemporary heritage (Belgrade: University of Belgrade – the artistic and architectural achievements 234 See Chapter 2 of the doctoral disser- management practices in former Yugoslavia: Faculty of Architecture, 2016); Tamara of awarded competition entries, but to out- tation on memorial production in Croatia. Marija Jauković, “To Share or to Keep: Bjažić Klarin: Arhitektonski i urbanis- line and discuss the structural parameters Sanja Horvatinčić, “Spomenici iz razdo- The Afterlife of Yugoslavia’s Heritage tički natječaji između dva svjetska rata of the very system that conditioned the pro- blja socijalizma u Hrvatskoj – prijedlog and the Contemporary Heritage Management (1918.–1941.) – slučaj Zagreb (Zagreb: duction of memorials in the given context. tipologije” (Zadar: University of Zadar, Pra ctic es,” Politička misao: časopis za Institute of Art History, 2018). The basic tenets of the present approach 126 127 2017), 47–152. politologiju, Vol. 51 No. 5 (2014): 80–104. does the fact that the proportion of wom- Party. The temporal and thematic scope of Yugoslav cultural space, and as an impor- Typified production was not only based on en among the awarded projects’ teams is commemorated events often transcended tant platform for experiment and innova- ideological concerns. The social request for higher than the average seen in the field of the period of the Second World War, incor- tion. Already at that time, as Grozdana Šišk- memorials exponentially grew in the early memorial production mean? porating historical episodes that had previ- ović claims, competitions had the potential 1950s, putting pressure on sculptors and However, while trying to answer the above ously remained uncommemorated, such as to spread new ideas and concepts within architects to achieve a rapid and efficient questions, the primary aim of this case study workers’ struggles and peasant uprisings. the pubic cultural sphere. In this way, ar- production rhythm, which was manifested in is not to provide definitive conclusions, but The cult and memory of contemporary pol- chitectural projects not only influenced the standard typologies and repetitive motives, to test the possibilities, and indicate the iticians, intellectuals and political move- trends within a single architectural scene, at times even recycled from the interwar pros and cons of quantitative and network ments, such as the geo-political position of but their mediative role often proved to be period. With recognizable imprints of big analysis when it comes to relatively small Non-Alignment, was also mediated in public the central facet of architectural compe- architectural names, such as Jože Plečnik in datasets on temporally and spatially limited space through monuments and memorial titions.238 Ljubljana, distinctive architectural schools historical phenomena. parks. Artists and architects were heavily In the first post-war decade, federal Yu- were formed. However, due to the disci- involved in the task of monument building, goslav competitions for monuments rarely plinary division in workshops, architects’ Toward a qualitative analysis: while their personal poetics, expressed gave rise to satisfactory results. Conven- involvement in monument-making was A brief history of federal through contemporary artistic means, be- tional typologies and relatively conservative primarily manifested though collaborative competitions for monuments came more and more encouraged, result- formal solutions prevailed until the early-to- assistance. The focus upon the formal qual- in Socialist Yugoslavia ing in distinctive individual embodiments mid-1950s. But perhaps more importantly, ities of central sculptural elements meant of collective traumas based on innovative the engagement of a wider public in critical that projects would usually be credited to An anonymous public competition is a dem- and collaborative practices that aimed to discussions on this topic had not yet been sculptors alone. For a change to occur, it ocratic procedure through which communi- surpass traditional disciplinary boundaries. achieved or even welcomed. The aim seems was not only necessary to modernize the ties aim to secure the most aesthetically and These solutions were no longer simply ex- not to have been to foment experimenta- formal treatment of individual segments, functionally adequate solutions for objects pected to narrate the past events, but also tion and innovation, but to achieve the but to come up with new collaborative of common or public interest. Apart from the to emphasize their progressive character greatest possible efficiency and quality of methods that would enable a more com- rebuilding of the war-devastated country, through the use of contemporary artistic production. For that reason, projects were prehensive approach to the given task and one such interest in post-war Yugoslavia was and architectural means. often directly commissioned from highly the achievement of the so-much appraised the construction of memorials and monu- The organization of public competitions skilled and experienced authors who had modernist notion of the synthesis of all arts. ments that paid homage to the huge human for monuments began immediately after established themselves during in the in- In the wake of the political turmoil of 1948, a losses, honoured the heroes and hundreds of the war had ended, based in part on the terwar period. They were now promoted to more liberal understanding of cultural pro- thousands of antifascists that fought in the standards and practices inherited from the the position of masters who supervised and duction in Yugoslavia diversified the field, war, commonly referred to as the Yugoslav interwar period. Some fundamental com- controlled production through a system of encouraging a new generation of visual Peoples’ Liberation Struggle.236 The collec- petition regulations had been established State Masters’ Workshops (Državne majstor- artists and architects – well trained in the tive effort to commemorate the dead and as the result of professional architects’ as- ske radionice) for sculpture, painting and aforementioned workshops – to experiment celebrate the achieved freedom and pro- sociations’ continuous strive for more open architecture, established in the immediate with new formal solutions, looking for in- gress based on proclaimed social and eth- and democratic procedures.237 Despite the wake of the war in Belgrade, Zagreb and spiration during state-sponsored scholar- nic equality was aligned with the dominant different ideological framework, architec- Ljubljana. Even when federal competitions ships in the Western European centres and political interests of the ruling Communist tural competitions had already played an were organized, the ambitious proposals for in imported modern art and architecture important role in the cultural exchange of monuments were often rejected or the deci- exhibitions and magazines. Many sculptors 236 During the four years of war in the knowledge and ideas on national level dur- sions for casting or installing them would be and architects began to forge successful Balkans, some 800,000 Yugoslavs joined the ing the monarchic period. Although some postponed, as if juries were anticipating a Peoples’ Liberation Struggle; one of the early post-war period is rather scarce. projects were submitted by the architects different course of development of memo- highest proportions of participation in Early Yugoslav competitions for monuments 239 armed anti-fascist resistance in Europe. who had gained experience and knowledge rial production in the following decade. included: Monument to Marko Orešković in It ended with some of highest numbers of by living abroad, competitions primarily Korenica, Croatia (1946), Monument to the casualties, both military and civilian. functioned as the connecting tissue of the 238 Šišković, Architectural Competition Liberators of Skopje, Macedonia (1946). Tony Judt, Postwar: A History of Europe Practice, 184. Jajinci Memorial Park, near Belgrade Since 1945 (New York: The Penguin Press, 237 Bjažić Klarin, Arhitektonski i urban- 239 The competition documentation and in- (1947–1948), Memorial Ossuary of the Fallen 2005), 18. istički natječaji. 128 129 formation on federal competitions from the Partisans of Dalmatia (1948). solo careers, and new public tasks – in- anonymously present new ideas.242 Almost cluding competition calls for monuments as a rule, winning projects were extensively and memorial complexes – significantly discussed and often harshly criticized in influenced their studio practices, and en- the media, tensions and polemics became couraged them to undertake interdiscipli- more common, references to Western Eu- nary collaborative work. ropean practices entered the field of crit- Despite sporadic examples of new con- ical discourse, and competitions began to cepts for monuments that had already play the central role in generating a new been realized in the early 1950s – Edvard theoretical discourse on war memorials, as Ravnikar in Slovenia, Zdenko Kolacio in well as on public art and the production of Croatia, or Bogdan Bogdanović in Serbia space in general (Ill. 1). – the scope of new tendencies in memorial However, change did not only come about sculpture became fully visible at federal as a result of the generational shift among competitions for monuments organized the competitors; the investors and organ- from the mid-1950s. Encouraged by Yu- izing committees realized that no progress goslav participation at major internation- would be made unless competition propo- al events such as the competition for the sitions were adapted to the specificities of Monument to the Unknown Political Prisoner new tasks, and unless the field of memorial held in 1952–1953, 240 and by the critical re- production – as with other fields of artis- action to the jury’s rejection of Vojin Bakić’s tic and architectural production – were to proposal for the for the Monument to Marx become more open and inviting towards and Engels in Belgrade,241 the younger gen- contemporary art and ever more complex eration of artists and architects started to and innovative collaborative practices. Ac- perceive competitions as an opportunity to cordingly, competition juries grew in number and became more diversified in terms 240 In a 1980 interview, Dušan Džamonja of their members’ professional orientations. points to the importance of this inter- Due to its wide-reaching response from the national competition for his own work. younger generation, and the widespread Radmila Radojković, “Dušan Džamonja: critical echo it produced in the media, the Spomenik – izraz iskustva i povjerenja,” competition for the Monument to the Victims Četvrti Jul, 15 January 1980: 14. of Fascism in Jajinci near Belgrade is par- 241 The reaction came shortly after the ticularly worthy of mention. The propositions jury’s rejection was made public. See: for this open, anonymous Yugoslav compe- Milan Prelog, “Djelo Vojina Bakića,” tition seem to have established standards Pogledi, no. 11 (1953): 912–919., published and remained one of the key referential as an English translation in: Ljiljana points for decades to come. The Organizing Kolešnik, ed., Hrvatska likovna kritika Committee requested competitors to show 50-ih – izabrani tekstovi (Croatian Art the “full freedom (…) to think and develop Criticism of the 1950s – Selected Essays) the solution”, by combining artistic, archi- (Zagreb: Društvo povjesničara umjetnosti Hrvatske, 1999), 453–469. For an analysis of the consequences this event had for 242 During the 1950 and 1960s, many art production and art criticism, see: sculptors and architects participated in Ljiljana Kolešnik: Između istoka i zapa- major international competitions for mon- da. Hrvatska umjetnost i likovna kritika uments (Auschwitz, Dachau), with some of Ill. 1 50-ih godina (Zagreb: Institut za povijest them achieving outstanding results (Dušan “Anketa NIN-a – Jajinci (II)”, Nin, br. 379, April 6, 1958, 9. 130 131 umjetnosti, 2006), 312–316. Džamonja and Ninoslav Kučan, Nandor Glid). tectural and landscape/horticultural ele- body, namely, the special Committee for The final outcome was, however, the same: embodied. Symptomatically, the ‘memorial ments, while paying special attention to the the Marking and Arrangement of Historical the winning project was set aside, and the crisis’ that arose in the wake of growing eco- preservation of the authenticity of the for- Sites of the People’s Liberation Revolution. monument, designed as the result of a di- nomic and political problems in Yugoslavia, mer mass execution site.243 The competition It was in fact the first case of active op- rect commission from Serbian sculptor Vojin seems to have been compensated by pres- attracted a total number of 34 competition position from a professional organization Stojić, was finally unveiled in 1988. entation of those same monuments at major entries, submitted by individuals and teams – the Union of Architects of Serbia – which After three unsuccessful attempts, the 1980 global art exhibitions, such as the Venice from various fields of practice. The projects argued for the necessary cooperation competition for Jajinci Memorial Park was Biennale, where Yugoslavia was represented rewarded by the jury, which was composed between professionals and politicians on perceived as one of the symptoms of the by major memorial projects from the 1960s of 18 highly ranked politicians, intellectuals, such organizational tasks. Indeed, most of “crisis of memorial production”.247 This ‘cri- and 1970s. and cultural workers from different parts the plans that this specially formed, high- sis’ determined the fate of many ambitious of Yugoslavia, were innovative or even ex- ly-ranked political Committee had for Yu- memorial projects completed in the early Between democratic principles perimental solutions authored by domi- goslav monuments failed, mainly due to 1980s, such as the Monument to the Uprising and power positions nantly younger generation of architects, their political exclusivity and unwillingness of the People of Kordun and Banija at Pet- urban planners and sculptors. The success to keep up with expected democratic and rova Gora, or the nearby “Brotherhood and To an architect, a competition is not and importance of this competition, both open principles of public competitions.245 It Unity” memorial complex on Šamarica, both always about winning, but rather in terms of the quality of works submitted confirms the thesis that monument-making in Croatia. After being selected in a federal about the opportunity to engage in and in terms of the public and professional in Yugoslavia, even when it came to tasks competition and constructed in the early a high-profile discourse with other interest it provoked, becomes even more of utmost political importance, involved 1980s, the latter soon faced the economic members of the design community. evident if we place it in the context of other complex and dynamic processes based reality and the effects of the gradual col- The open public competition is also competitions held in those years. The feder- on negotiations and even open conflicts lapse of the self-managed socialist system. an opportunity for young architects al competition for the Monument to the Par- with the political establishment that, during This was manifested in the inability to main- to make a name for themselves, to tisan-Fighter, held in 1956, which was also the 1950s, still assumed it was able to fully tain such memorial complexes, composed gain the recognition that is so es- supposed to be built in Belgrade, did not control such practices. of monuments, hotels, museums, and other sential to building a practice. (…) A bring any awarded projects, and, as Heike However, many successful competitions programs that needed constant manage- competition can also be a vital step Karge concludes, its failure was the result of for monuments, such as the one for Jajinci ment and continuous financial support. After in garnering stakeholder and public several factors, including the pretentious- Memorial Park, did not result in the crea- the memorial house at Šamarica changed support for a project that may still ness of the “old masters” who refrained from tion of monuments. The decisions would between several patrons, continually pro- be in need of funding and approvals entering competitions.244 However, a more be postponed for different reasons, which duced debt, and was unsuccessfully offered in order to be realized. The compe- important reason was the newly established are often today incredibly difficult to deci- to all major hotel companies in Croatia, an tition, with its strong overtones of confidence of professionals who dared to pher. Another federal competition for the offer by a private investor was accepted in democratic process and meritocra- oppose the incoherent propositions and same memorial site was organized in 1980, 1988. 248 This investor decided to take a risk cy, carries widespread appeal from the non-transparency of the organizing with a record number of jury members (35), and embark on a family ‘memorial business’; a civic point of view, and also gives attracting yet another generation of com- an ambitious plan that was soon interrupted public officials many different crea- 243 Oto Bihalji-Merin, ed. Jajinci : pov- peting teams of artists and architects. Fer- by the war and the collapse of the whole tive solutions to the proposed design odom konkursa za idejni projekt spomenika vent discussions among some of the most system, including the degradation of the problem for very little upfront cost.249 žrtvama fašizma, Jajinci – Jugoslavija renowned art critics, artists and architects, symbolic references and ideological val- (Belgrade: Publicističko-izdavački zavod Jugoslavija, 1958.), 85–86. For more about again filled up newspaper pages, with com- ues these monuments and memorial sites Although all of the above could have ap- the competition and the history of the mentaries spanning from appraisal to harsh plied to the prevailing attitude in the period memorial site, see: Sanja Horvatinčić, criticism, including complaints coming from 247 Mirjana Živković, “Javna rasprava o and context investigated in this analysis, the 246 “Povijest nemogućeg spomenika: izgradnja the former camp inmates’ organization. konkursu za Jajince. Privid protivljenja”. views and attitudes on open competitions spomenika žrtvama fašizma u Jajincima,” Politika, 17 December 1980. were far from in unison. The pro and contra Anali Galerije Antuna Augustinčića, no. 245 Ibid: 117-118. 248 The owner was Milorad Popović, 32–33, 34–35 (2015): 261–282. 246 “Da mrtav junak živima kazuje”, Politika from the nearby town of Bosanski Novi 249 Catherine Malmberg, ed, The Politics 244 Heike Karge: Sećanje u kamenu – Ekspres, 1 February 1981, 6.; Bora Pavlović, in Bosnia & Herzegovina. Josip Frković, of Design: Competitions for Public okamenjeno sećanje (Belgrade: XX Vek, “Još jednom oko rešenja spomen-parka u “Memorijalac spašava privatnik,” Večernji Projects (Princeton, NJ: Policy Research 2014): 107–115. Jaji n ci m a”, Borba, 26 Febraury 1981. 132 133 list, September 30, 1989., n.n. Institute for the Region, 2006), 3–4. arguments also depended on the structural responsibility that must be justified”. Jour- positions from which those personally in- nalists’ questions regarding the rumours volved in the process spoke, as well as on about the author being “backed by some- their own material and professional inter- one” were based on a controversy provoked ests. What is more, they depended on the by the lack of a regular competition propositions of power within the field of artistic cedure for the monument in Jasenovac. An and architectural production. Some of the open competition for this monument was most renowned names of Yugoslav memo- never held, although several authors were rial production – each in their own gener- invited to submit their proposals.251 As Bog- ation – were keen to ignore or undermine danović himself claimed, only two projects the importance of democratic principles of entered the second round: his and the col- competition and selection. Such attitudes laborative project by Zdenko Kolacio and often came from those among them – as Kosta Angeli Radovani.252 Such an unreg- the quantitative analysis will clearly show ulated and obscured procedure provoked – whose structural position allowed them many negative reactions from individuals to skip tiresome and time-consuming com- and professional associations. After his first petition procedures, and enjoy the privilege project for Jasenovac Memorial Area was of direct commissions for monuments. This publicly presented in Zagreb in 1963 (Ill. 2), kind of structural imbalance produced un- the Croatian Architects’ Association sent a democratic tendencies, cultural elitism, and letter of protest to the headquarters of the the promotion of the idea of the “artistic Federal Union of Veterans of the Peoples’ genius”. Paradigmatic examples of such at- Liberation War of Yugoslavia in Belgrade.253 titudes were Antun Augustinčić and Bogdan By listing positive examples – public federal Bogdanović. Although they belonged to competitions for monuments in Jajinci near different generations and fields of practice, Belgrade and Kamenska in Croatia – they their structural positions were in many ways advocated for adherence to more demo- comparable, which seems to have been cratic procedures when it came to the se- reflected in their shared negative attitude lection of the best projects for such impor- towards open public competitions. tant memorial sites. It was yet again proven On several occasions, Bogdanović ex- that non-transparent commissioning pro- pressed his scepticism regarding the func- cedures could not pass by without public tionality of public competitions, claiming reaction and complaint. In this case, how- they were good only for beginners and new- ever, the quality of Bogdanović’s project and comers: “I think that competitions don’t al- his professional renomé – despite criticism ways give good results since usually, or even 250 regularly, the mediocre projects win.” He 251 See the chapter “Koncentracioni confirmed that most of his memorial pro- logor Jasenovac” [Jasenovac Concentration jects were commissioned directly, and ex- Camp] in: Heike Karge: Sećanje u kamenu pressed his belief that such tasks should be – okamenjeno sećanje (Belgrade: XX Vek, given to affirmed authors, because “when 2014): 193–244. someone is given the trust and the credit, 252 Vasa Kazimirović, “Bogdan Bogdanović…”. than it becomes not only an honour, but a 253 Archives of Yugoslavia, Belgrade. Ill. 2 Reg.: SUBNOR (297). File: 24 (Republički Bogdan Bogdanović’s project for Jasenovac memorial complex, presented on 19 March 1963 in Četvrti jul, the weekly 250 Vasa Kazimirović, “Bogdan Bogdanović: odbor SUBNOR Hrvatska 1949.–1971.): „Dopis magazine published by the Federal Union of Veterans of the Umijesto strave opredijelo sam se za živ- Saveza arhitekata Hrvatske SUBNOR-u Peoples’ Liberation War of Yugoslavia. ot,” Vjesnik, 3 July 1966. Jugoslavije“, March 19, 1964. 134 135 coming from some art historians and archi- gustinčić – 22 years Bogdanović’s senior cause it is well known what Krleža can no wonder the competitions often failed tects254 – seems to have established enough – had a response strikingly similar to his do, and how he writes, so if you com- or were perceived as corrupted. It was the authority for the realization of the project. when asked to comment on the affair sur- mission something from him, you are direct stakeholders – local and political It is possible, however, that this affair expe- rounding the irregularities in the compe- expecting to get something in his style. communities, veterans, former inmates, and dited the process of the passing of the spe- tition procedure for the Monument to the (…) Finally, I know very well what com- countless individuals who participated in cial legal regulation of monument building Peasant Uprising of 1573 in Slovenia and petitions are. At best, they are an op- the financing – who were mostly engaged in Croatia in 1968, a law by which compe- Croatia, in Donja Stubica, Croatia. In this portunity for the young and unknown and interested in the process of selection, titions for significant memorial events and case, the process was reversed: as soon as authors; first and foremost, even if I but were rarely given the chance to par- people became obligatory, and by which the results of this highly competitive federal did compete, everyone would recog- ticipate in the decision-making processes. juries were made to include professionals competition – in which authors of younger nize me. What’s the point of anonymity Some early examples – such as the Mon- from the fields of art and architecture.255 generation triumphed – were announced, then? All sculptors with a certain phys- ument to the Husino Miner in Tuzla – show The laws regulating this particular matter the recommendations of the jury were ig- iognomy can be recognized.257 how citizens and workers were organized differed from republic to republic, which nored, and Augustinčić’s work was directly to discuss and collectively decide on the produced different standards and practic- commissioned. The sculptor, who had long Both Augustinčić and Bogdanović criticized conceptual and formal aspects of monu- es across Yugoslavia’s various constituent enjoyed an almost mythical status (in both competitions from their respective, comfort- ments.258 Decades later, an article about republics. The same year, the Regulation pre- and post-war Yugoslavia) and who able positions in the system, secured by their the competition for the Monument to the on Competitions in the Field of Architec- was strongly backed by the highest political long-term involvement in the social network Liberators of Majdanpek in Serbia begins ture and Urban Planning was also adopt- circles, had never had any intention of run- of competition procedures, either as com- with the following statement: “Proof that a ed.256 Although it was widely applied and ning for the competition. Due to his previous petitors themselves – which for Augustinčić competition for a monument can be car- called upon in the event of irregularities, personal relationships with the commission- was already the case in the interwar period ried out on the most democratic basis was the breaching of those rules had no legal ers, he was unpleasantly surprised – and – or as prominent members of competition shown by the citizens of Majdanpek and consequences. This was likewise the case even personally offended – when the public juries – as was the case with Bogdanović. The Donji Milanovac, who themselves voted for with the legal instruments that were aimed competition had to be announced, due to following analysis will, however, reveal some the proposals for monuments to revolution at protecting authorship. Affairs regarding the aforementioned new law on building important differences in their structural po- in those two towns.”259 The idea was to give Dušan Džamonja’s winning project for the monuments. The fact that the monument sitions which indicate to various strategies everyone who donated money for the mon- Sremski Front monument and Igor Toš’s bat- was being built in his native region almost of attaining positions of power. ument’s construction the right to vote for a tle with the Committee for the construction certainly contributed to his personal mo- But after all, the regularity of a competition’s project based on their own preferences. A of the monument at Petrova Gora – that will tivation to undertake this project. On the procedure primarily depended on the com- competition was carried out in collabora- be discussed later in further detail – were other hand, he must have been aware that missioners and investors, whose decision it tion with the Applied Artists and Designers perhaps the most notorious among these. the status his monuments once had had be- was as to whether a federal or lower level of Association of Serbia (ULUPUDS). In late Interestingly, Croatian sculptor Antun Au- come seriously threatened by new trends in competition should be organized and car- 1979, an exhibition of project proposals was monumental sculpture which almost com- ried out according to the prescribed regu- organized, based on which the citizens of 254 See, for example: Matko Meštrović, pletely discarded figuration and narration, lations. Despite the assumption that on the Majdanpek could select their favourites. “Bogdanovićev projekt za spomenik u Jasenovcu (1963).” In Matko Meštrović. Od relying instead upon hybrid amalgamations local levels, where competitions were not The competition was not anonymous; all pojedinačnog općem (Zagreb: DAF, 2005), of architecture and sculpture. When asked obligatory, direct commissions were more authors were present at the exhibition, and 127–128. about the reasons for his failure to submit common, some examples show that it was available to elaborate their ideas to the 255 Zakon o podizanju spomenika historijskim a work to the open call, he replied: not exclusively the professional and political interested visitors. Slobodan Jovanović, a događajima i ličnostima [Law on the Building circles that guaranteed democratic pro- machine technician employed at the surface of Monuments to Historical Events and People] It is not true that one really needs cedures and highest aesthetic standards. Narodne novine. Službeni list Socijalističke to run for competitions. There are On the contrary: since the decision-mak- 258 Sanja Horvatinčić, “Monuments republike Hrvatske, no. 1 (1968). different kinds of competitions… ers themselves were not particularly eager Dedicated to Labor and the Labor Movement 256 Pravilnik o konkursima iz oblasti ar- C’mon, tell Krleža, for example, to to adhere to or support such procedures, in Socialist Yugoslavia”, Etnološka tri- hitekture i urbanizma [Regulations on the submit a novel for a competition. You bina : godišnjak Hrvatskog etnološkog Competitions in the Fields of Architecture wouldn’t ask that of him. Instead, if 257 Josip Škunca, “Antun Augustinčić: društva, vol. 44, no. 37 (2014), 176–177. and Urban Planning] (Belgrade: Savez ar- you’re interested, you’d commission Jedanput natječaj, drugi put ne”, Vjesnik, 259 S. Jelić, “Radnički dinar za spoeni- hitekata Jugosalvije, December 20, 1968). a novel directly from him. Why? Be- 136 137 31 December 1970. ke”, Borba, 4th January 1980, 8. mine at Majdanpek Minery stated that, “for As with every other competitive system, Another issue was that of the different I have always expressed my suspi- the first time, as a citizen directly interested Yugoslav federal competitions for monu- types of social relationships that existed cion and lack of confidence towards in a monument, I was put in the situation to ments were based on arbitrary decisions among and between actors participating the ‘specialists’. One does not make vote for it. Since I am giving my own mon- at the hands of jury members. Examples in the process, which necessarily function a monument as they would make a ey, I don’t feel indifferent as to what kind of of direct-democratic decision making, as as obstacles to what would ideally be con- shoe or a pot. Each time, sculptural monument is being built. I believe that every with the Majdanpek project, were but rare sidered an objective evaluation. This was work brings different solutions, ex- monument should be built in this way”.260 exceptions. Although a strong consensus even openly confirmed by some prominent pressing different ideas. But those The responsibility for the Yugoslav “memorial prevailed that aesthetic decisions should be members of juries, such as university pro- who work in ‘series’ never make mis- landscape” as we know it today, was, in fact, in the hands of professionals and experts, fessor and art critic Grgo Gamulin who, in takes nor do they encounter diffi- very much in hands of jury members and oth- one of the persistent problems regarding his polemic with Igor Toš over the compe- culties like other sculptors do. Their er decision-makers whose importance has the decision making was what Milorad Ma- tition for the monument at Petrova Gora in works are always fully completed as not been adequately addressed so far. This cura described as “evaluating new ideas by 1971, wrote: installed with the greatest pleasure. may not be accidental: regulations, proposi- old criteria. Then conventional work gains This is what enables the use of tem- tions, and political decisions are not exact- over the progressive. And this obstructs the The fact that all experts are ‘blocked plates for repeating the same tested ly compatible with the modernist notion of rhythm and degrades the level in the devel- by their positions and acquaintanc- solution, and, as the author moves autonomous, inspired artistic work, which is opment of architecture and urbanism.”262 es’ is a well-known and completely in the magic circle of the same idea nowadays still associated with the prevailing The decision-makers were not, however, only natural thing, and has as little as and expression, his collaborators notion of an “artistic genius”. Much the same professionals – juries were composed of di- possible to do with you, whose works become all those who want to get as the very notion of a monument – “bur- verse social actors, from highly ranked and have not been known. (…) Do you an instant monument based on the dened” with its necessary political function local politicians, through representatives really think I can’t recognize com- same, certified sculptural expres- – competitions were a kind of blind spot of of war veterans, to public intellectuals and petition entries by Bakić, Džamon- sion.265 the high-modernist ideology. ordinary, low-skilled workers. It was the inner ja, Luketić? However, it is the matter dynamics that decided on who would have of the highest possible objectivity, Anonymity was often difficult to achieve if Exceptions, irregularities, the most influence in the final decision, and of the wider pool of affinities and we take into account the growing number corruption the “establishing of value criteria according knowledge, and this is why the jury of specialized authors who regularly sub- to which juries selected and recommended membership is crucial, and it has mitted their proposals for monuments. Still, To encourage, to spark, to fire up architectural concepts was a complex field proven to be so in this case also.264 the system of coded entries encouraged the creative potential of an archi- of dialogue between suggested architectur- participants to experiment more freely, or tect, and to select the best among al ‘constructed realities’, and the represent- Although the full reconstruction of ‘behind even enabled newcomers or ‘underdogs’ the best, this is the point of an ar- ative professional judgments”.263 the scenes’ scenarios is a demanding and to overshadow the ‘masters of the mon- chitectural competition. The com- The power relationships were indeed of- largely unattainable task for historians, uments’. petition is the engine and the prior- ten beneficial for professionals, since the quantitative analyses can contribute at Competitions were usually organized itizing mechanism that progresses majority of jury members belonged to that least vague outlines of the general physi- through one stage. The second stage pro- the production of space. A tribune group, and cultural workers and intellec- ognomy of the field. Federal competitions cedure would be introduced ad hoc, in case from which new thoughts are heard, tuals in general enjoyed a relatively high largely contributed to the professionaliza- none of the awarded projects sufficed the a platform with a view into the future, level of authority and prestige within soci- tion of the field of memorial production, requirements, a practice that does not a courtroom in which decisions are ety. However, in contrast to certain other which led to its gradual saturation. Per- comply with the generally accepted and made according to, and despite, the forms of cultural production in socialism, haps most vivid critical view of the problem prescribed professional rules for archi- laws, judged at the same time both where decision-making processes were of specialization in the field of memorial tectural competitions.266 The practice of objectively and subjectively.261 more covert, it is almost impossible to claim production was given by Croatian sculptor that memorial production as such had any Kosta Angeli Radovani: 265 Radmila Radojmović, “Kosta Angeli kind of autonomy. Radovani: Izgubjeno poverenje u konkurse?” 260 Ibid. Četvrti Jul, 22 January 1980, 12. 261 Milorad Macura, “Zapisi na marginama 262 Ibid. 264 Gamulin, Grgo. “Nesporazum o spomeni- 266 In the regulated two-stage competition pravilnika o konkursima”, Arhitektura – 263 Šišković, Architectural Competition ku. U povodu odgovora arh. Igora Toša.” procedure, the first stage is meant for Urbanizam, no. 16 (1962): 51. Practice, 184. 138 139 Hrvatsko Sveučilište, 13 October 1971. soliciting the ideas and the competitors organizing limited competitions by invita- quirements of the investor. His solution had which the author protested once again.273 cision was made only in 1977 – this time not tion was practiced throughout the observed by then already been publicly announced; The controversy over this case has never by the expert jury, but directly by the Com- period. One notable example is the closed the project in the making was even sup- been fully resolved, and the role of Igor Toš mittee for the Building of the Monument.276 competition for the monument celebrat- plemented by a visual identity based on soon went into oblivion. The project itself, As Gamulin claimed, the “signature” of ing the Battle of Sutjeska: the project by Toš’s design, reproduced in the papers however, did not – Toš’s project seems to established authorities in the field of me- Miodrag Živković was selected by the jury and official communication channels of have served as an inspiration for Bakić’s morial production did not only became as the best among the four competitors: the committee board.268 The construction second proposal. The similarity is especial- easily recognizable, but their initial inspi- himself, Stanko Mandić, Jovan Kratohvil of the monument according to Igor Toš’s ly noticeable if Bakić’s second project is ration and their experimental approach in and Boris Kobe.267 Since different models project and the physical plan by Ante Ma- observed in opposition to his first idea for time often resulted with the same sort of of competitions were never coordinated rinović-Uzelac, was supposed to begin in the monument (Ill. 3). Besides the copyright repetitive solutions, so strongly criticized and regulated on the federal level, it gave 1975, and be finished by July 1976, on the issue, the second stage of this competition regarding Socialist Realist monuments in way to manipulation of the procedure. 35th anniversary of the uprising of the peo- seems to have been problematic in some the early 1950s by the very same authors. Perhaps the most controversial case was ple of Croatia.269 The decision to carry out other aspects as well. Stevan Luketić – who In some cases, the same project would be the competition for the aforementioned the second stage of the competition, which was invited to participate in the second successfully submitted to several compe- monument at Petrova Gora, Croatia. The came about after a new Committee for the stage of the competition – wrote a letter tition calls.277 competition was announced in 1970 as a Building of the Monument was constituted of protest in which he refused the decision The professionalization of the field and standard single-stage, open, anonymous, in 1973, 270 provoked an open letter from the of the jury because, among other things, “it the crisis of the institution of open anon- federal competition. The names of the author, who decided to speak out regarding did not evaluate all three projects equal- ymous competition became most evident awarded projects – including the winning irregularities in the procedure and copy- ly”, and allowed some participants to cor- in the 1980s, when the practice of limited project by a young architect, Igor Toš, and right infringement issues.271 This sparked an rect, change or supplement their projects competitions (or competitions by invita- collaborators – were publicly announced in official reply from the Committee,272 after according to jury members’ suggestions tion) became more common. It seems to press, and presented at an exhibition held and objection after the deadline.274 Fur- have better suited both the investor, who 268 A similar example of “branding” memo- in the Museum of the Revolution of the Peo- thermore, although it was an uncommon avoided complex procedures and put less rial projects before the construction even ple of Croatia in Zagreb in July 1971. (Ill. 3) practice, the jury decided to postpone of money at risk, and the invited authors, who started can be found for the monument at The jury gave their recommendation for the the deadline on the request of Vojin Bakić were financially compensated regardless the Syrmian Front near Šid. An icon of winning project to be realized. The idea of Džamonja’s winning project at the compe- due to the health problem of his son and of the competition outcome. After the re- 275 a second stage was introduced only a few tition was even drawn on a map of monu- collaborator at the project. The final de- public competition for Dotrščina, organized years later, after the author of the winning in 1977, 278 did not bring about a satisfy- ments published along with the a guide to “Tko gura privatni interes”, Vjesnik, 23 project had already further developed and Yugoslav monuments in Osijek in 1975. See: March 1975. 276 “Rad V. Bakića najprihvatljiviji”, adjusted the project according to the re- Milenko Patković, and Dušan Plećaš (eds.), 273 Igor Toš, “Pokušaj prebacivanja odgov- Vjesnik, 29 June 1977. Spomen-obilježja narodnooslobodilačkog ori n o sti”, Vjesnik, 3 April 1975. would remain anonymous, while the second rata Jugoslavije. Vodič uz kartu. Izbor 277 The winning project for the monu- would require more detailed plans for the spomen-obilježja narodnooslobodilačkog 274 The undated, hand-written draft of ment in Čačak was later rejected due to final selection. Compare, for example, the rata Jugoslavije (Osijek: Glas Slavonije, the letter is kept in Stevan Luketić’s the fact that the authors applied the regulation set by the International Union 1975). personal archives. It is not clear whether same proposal to several competitions: of Architects. Guidelines UIA. Competition the letter was ever sent and delivered Nikola J. Baković, “Konačan odabir idejnog 269 M.B., “Spomenik na Petrovoj gori Guide for Design Competitions in to the Committee for the Building of the rešenja za projekat Spomen-parka u Čačku,” 1976.”, Vjesnik, 23 November 1973. Architecture and Related Fields. Accessed Monument to which it was addressed. Izvornik. Građa međuopštinskog istorijskog 270 “Konstitutiran dbor za gradnju January 3rd 2019. https://www.uia-archi- 275 The document, dated 24 January 1975, arhiva Čačak, no. 33 (2017): 316. Some of spomenika na PEtrovoj gori”, Vjesnik, tectes.org/webApi/uploads/ressourcefile/32/ by the Committee for the Building of the Džamonja’s entries – for example, his his 18 March 1973. As the president of the uiacompetitionguide.pdf Memorial-Object at Petrova Gora, signed by winning project for the Syrmian front and Executive committee was appointed Rade 267 The jury consisted of the following Rade Bulat, the director of the Executive the project proposal for Donja Gradina – Bulat, and as the secretary Mile Dakić. members: Vlado Mađarić, Uroš Martinović, Board, and delivered to: Vojin Bakić, were only slightly adapted to new task. Bogdan Bogdanović, Branko Bon, Živa 271 Igor Toš, “Natječaj – samovolja ili Stevo Luketić, Ivo Vitić, 16 members of 278 After a group of authors (Vojin Bakić, Đorđević, Milorad Panić Surep and Dragi društveni dogovor?”, Vjesnik, 16 March 1975. the jury, and to the Headquarters of the Josip Seissel, Silvana Seissel, Angela Milenković. “Ocena konkursnih radova”, 272 Sekretarijat Izvršnog odbora – Odbora Memorial Park Petrova Gora in Vojnić. Rokvić) were given a direct commission in Miodrag Živković Archives, Belgrade, 1964. za izgradnju spomenika na Petrovoj gori, 140 141 Stevan Luketić Archives, Zagreb. the late 1950s for the first phase of the ing result, the jury suggested organizing leged field of propaganda art practice – another, limited, competition with invited was professionally discouraged, and even authors, “who have so far achieved most personally unmotivated to participate in significant results in the design of memo- such projects. This also came about as one rial parks/areas.”279 The authors selected of the symptoms of memory politics crisis for the next closed competition, a federal that resulted from the political crisis in the one for the Monument to Tito and Zadar’s country during the 1970s, and especially in Fight for Freedom in Zadar (1983), were al- the 1980s. The economic situation (inflation, most identical.280 The results were unsatis- economic ‘stabilization’ campaigns, cuts in fying as the authors’ ideas were, contrary public financing, etc.), meant less money to the intention of the invited competition, for costly and often unsuccessful competi- already exhausted.281 They offered predict- tion procedures, including awards and jury able, standard solutions, while the younger honorariums. All illusions and ideals seem to generation of artists – who were critical or have vanished, and pragmatism took over: cynical of what they perceived as a privi- the insistence on the principles of democ- racy of selection with open, anonymous, federal competitions again – as in the early 279 The following nine authors were invited: Kosta Angeli Radovani, Vojin Bakić, Zlatko post-war period – became secondary to Čular, Dušan Džamonja, Mladen Galić, Ljerka the preferred efficiency of the procedure Šibenik, Zdenko Kolacio, Stevan Luketić and and the quality of the results. The golden Branko Ružić. Each of them was required to age of experimentation was over. submit one design for the central monument, one by their choice, and one alter- Quantitative and network analysis native solution for another monument (the planned monuments had to cover nine thematic After defining the general framework, of- subjects). For the design of the entrance fering a glimpse into the practical aspects square and the memorial museum, the follow- and issues of competition procedures, with ing architects were invited: Mirko Bičanić, an emphasis on various issues associat- Nevenka Postružnik, Boris Krstulović, Neven ed with practical implementation of such Šegvić and Ante Vulin. Ibid. democratic selection procedures, the sec- 280 The following authors were invit- ond part of the text will focus on the figures ed: Kosta Angeli Radovani, Vojin Bakić, derived from a quantitate analysis of all case Dušan Džamonja, Zdenko Kolacio, Branko studies included in the study. Although still a Ružić and Šime Vulas from Croatia, and relatively new and epistemologically amor- Miodrag Živković and Bogdan Bogdanović phous filed, Digital Humanities provides re- from Serbia. Antonija Mlikota, “Natječaj searchers with new tools, and encourages za spomenik drugu Titu i vjekovnoj borbi Zadra za slobodu iz 1982. godine,” Anali the extension of analytical scope to the mac- Galerije Antuna Augustinčića, no. 32–33; ro-level, thus broadening our perspective 34–35, 2015., 302. beyond an isolated set of historical episodes. The advancement in digital technology make design of the memorial park, the themat- 281 I.O., “Pomanjkanje etičkog i profe- ic scope of the memorial area grew and sionalnog odnosa”, Vjesnik, 8 Janaury, such endeavours more realizable, offering required a new concept on which this com- 1983; Vjekoslav Pavlaković, “Slojevit a ever-more complex algorithms for describing petition was based. See: Spomen područ- nedefiniran proctor”, Vjesnik, 8 January and visualizing historical phenomena, and Ill.je 3D otrščina. Natječajni radovi (Zagreb: 1983; S. Ab., “Natječaj za spomenik Titu also facilitated the recreation of dynamic SThekupština report on grada the winning Zagreba; projects Komisija for the Monument za to the Uprising of the People i revoluciji. Sedam neuspjelih radova”, interrelations among people, objects and uređenjeof Kordun andspomen-područja Banija at Petrova DGora.otrščina, Čovjek i1980). prostor, no. 222 (1971). 142 143 Vjesnik, 12 December 1982. events.282 This does not imply confinement method that raises new questions with this ‘crisis’ reaching its peak in the sec- data visualizations were complemented or reduction to a positivist approach; on the about historical events and as a po- ond half of the last Yugoslav decade. As, with other open source programs (Tableau contrary, digital tools enable research in the tential mode of historiographic cri- under current circumstances, it would have and Gephi). After all available data was humanities to complement, supplement, tique. As the foundation for methods been highly demanding, if not impossible, collected from a combination of published amplify or correct the results of standard such as topic modelling and data to collect data for all federal competitions and archival sources, it was inserted in the historiographical methods. Although simple mining, the quantitative analysis held in the defined period, a representative predefined categories, quantified, and/ data analyses have always been employed of art historical data can be both sample consisting of 24 case studies has or visualized as networks though specially as technical tools for practically-oriented a challenge and a complement to been formed. Three of these competitions developed algorithms in which the posi- niches of art history, the recent development the case-study model of practice.284 lack full documentation regarding partic- tion, size and colour of nodes and edges of computational technology has enabled ipants.285 However, the decision to include reflect a particular relational, categorical the processing of bigger datasets, integrated Yugoslav federal competitions, functioning them in the representative sample is inten- or quantitative attribute. My initial hypothe- into complex relational information systems. as important intersections of various so- tional and methodologically motivated, as it sis was that the results could offer some new Network analysis has navigated the discipline cial actors and creative hubs from which demonstrates the extent to which a shortage insights into the phenomenon or that some toward social processes and their effects, new experimental approaches to the me- of information – as a common and unavoid- of its hidden aspects would be highlighted, thus imposing the necessity of inter- and morial genre emerged, do not only offer able issue for most social and humanist re- and that such results would open up new trans-disciplinarity. As most theoreticians an insightful methodological angle for searchers – can affect the overall datascape research questions. and practitioners argue, these new analyti- the critical historical analysis of memorial and visualization of networks. Although this cal techniques can affect the evolution and production, but can also critically inform dataset can be expanded through further Quantitative analysis #I: fundamental approaches of art history, or art-historical periodization. As such, com- research, our estimate is that the given sam- Competitions even radically transform its epistemological, petitions present a suitable case study for ple suffices for the outlining of some general theoretical, and interpretive scope.283 The de- the analysis of a specific, task-oriented, features, and indicates certain conclusions All competitions taken into consideration gree of ‘radicalism’, however, depends on the multi-professional social network, based about the social structure and networking in this analysis were open, anonymous and wider cultural and epistemological context in on the idea that the two main entities in the models generated by the federal Yugoslav conducted at the federal level, meaning which digital tools are to ‘meet’ traditional system – competitions as networking events competitions for monuments during the 25- that they were open to all citizens of Yu- approaches. The most important value of and people with different roles (participant year period studied. goslavia, while the entries were coded and quantitative analysis employed in the current or jury member) – can be (inter)connected In order to analyse this specific, task-ori- evaluated by specially appointed panels study is, as Benjamin Zweig claims, in various ways. ented, multi-professional social network, we of judges. The names of jury members had will look at quantitative data and interrela- to be made public, as well as the authors […] that they can problematize the Methodological parameters tions between two types of network entities: and team members of awarded and pur- weighty claims put forth by scholars and limitations events (competitions) and people (awarded chased works were in most cases publicly based upon very small data sets. By competitors and members of juries). The announced. For most competitions, it was displacing the centrality of excep- The timeframe of this case study (1955–1980) data processing and analysis was done with also possible to reconstruct the total num- tional works of art or individual bi- has been elaborated in the previous section: the use of the CAN_IS database developed ber of submitted proposals by using prima- ographies into larger networks, this In the mid-1950s, federal competitions for through the ARTNET project,286 while some ry sources in the archives, or newspaper approach can function as a research monuments began functioning as platforms reports and interviews with jury members. 285 There is no information on the for experimentation of a younger generation The diagram in Fig. 1 is organized as a time- jury members for the Memorial Park 282 Among the growing number of ti- of artists and architects, and competitions’ “Brotherhood and Unity” at Šamarica. The line featuring competitions organized in the tles on the topic, see, for example: outcomes started to induce fervent critical Memorial Park of the Women’s Movement in period between 1955 and 1980. The size of Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens, and John discussions in the media. The beginning of Skopje and Memorial at Korčanica in Bosnia squares translates as the number of sub- Unsworth, A New Companion to Digital the 1980s, on the other hand, marked the & Herzegovina, on the other hand, lack mitted entries. The highest density of com- Humanities (John Wiley & Sons, 2016). gradual decline of memorial production, information about awarded projects. petitions is evident in the period 1965–1971 283 Nuria Rodríguez Ortega, “Digital Art 286 The results of the project are pub- (marked with a yellow square), when a total History: An Examination of Conscience,” 284 See: Benjamin Zweig, “Forgotten lished in this volume, while the frame- number of ten competitions were launched Visual Resources: An International Journal Genealogies: Brief Reflections on the work, methodology, and some preliminary of Documentation, vol. 29, no. 1–2 (2013), History of Digital Art History,” Digital results have already been presented in: Art History, Ljiljana Kolešnik ed.), no. 96 131. Art History Journal, no. 1 (2015): 45–46. 144 145 Život umjetnosti (thematic issue: Digital (2016). in six years. In just two years (1969–1970), six cases, the awards did not guarantee the Competition Opening / Competition Closing 1955 1956 1960 1961 1962 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1973 1974 1975 1979 1980 Location of the Monument competitions were held, with a total number realization of winning projects. 1955 1957 1960 1962 1962 1966 1967 1967 1968 1970 1969 1971 1970 1972 1973 1974 1976 1980 1979 1981 1980 Beograd / Marx&Engels 42 Beograd / Moša Pijade 30 of 232 projects for monuments competing Although, due to the incomplete list of Beograd / Park 19 Čačak 20 (denoted by an orange square). It should be competitions included in the analysis, their Deliblatska peščara Donja Gradina noted that these figures are far from com- spatial distribution (Map 1) cannot bring Donja Stubica 86 Jajinci I 34 plete, which offers us a sense of proportion any definite conclusions in terms of the Jajinci II 42 Kamenska 25 Korčanica 16 in terms of numbers of actors engaged in geo-spatial policy of monument making Kosmaj 26 Kozara 40 the production of monuments and memo- in Yugoslavia, it is noticeable that a con- Kragujevac 20 Kraljevo 15 rial complexes in socialist Yugoslavia. They siderable number of competitions were or- Labin 50 Ljubljana / Kardelj 20 are equally telling regarding the effects ganized for monuments in urban centres, Ljubljana / Revolucija 39 Petrova gora 17 Number of Podhum 39 projects of the aforementioned process of profes- which were mostly dedicated to individuals Skoplje * 20 13 Srijemski front 20 40 sionalization and saturation of memorial or meant to represent abstract ideas (Ed- Šamarica * 18 60 27 Zagreb / Cesarec 86 production. In is interesting to note that vard Kardelj and Revolution in Ljubljana, some competitions were even held simul- Vladimir Nazor in Zagreb, Marx & Engels, taneously: those for the Monument to the Moša Pijade and the Park of Friendship Peasants’ Uprising in Donja Stubica and for in Belgrade, etc.). On the other hand, the the Monument to the Victims of Fascism in competitions for the most important war Podhum (both held in 1969–1970 in Croa- memorial sites – located in uninhabited tia), or the competitions for the Monument rural areas where historical events took at Mt Kozara, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and place – attracted more interest and crea- that in Kraljevo, Serbia (both held in 1970). tive energy from the artists and architects, Two side effects of such overlapping can be as is visible from the numbers of submitted detected: On the one hand, the lower num- proposals. ber and lesser quality of submitted works . produced dissatisfaction from organizers Quantitative analysis #II: and jury members, and competitions of- Awarded participants ten failed or were postponed. On the other, however, it dissolved the concentration The geo-spatial distribution of the cities of ‘big names’, giving more space to the and towns from which awarded competitors ‘outsiders’. In the previously discussed com- submitted their proposals, their number petition for the Monument to the Uprising indicated by the size of the circles, shows of the People of Kordun and Banija, both that the production was concentrated in of these side effects were manifested: due the three big cultural centres of Yugosla- to the high popularity and historical sig- via: Belgrade, Zagreb and Ljubljana (Map Number of submitted projects nificance of the events that took place at 2). The disproportion between the number 13 40 Petrova Gora, the total number of 17 entries of projects submitted from the capitals of 60 was considered to be relatively low, while Slovenia and Bosnia & Herzegovina, for ex- 86 the triumph of the 27-year old architect Igor ample, confirms the importance of strong Toš’s innovative solution definitely came as architectural and sculptural traditions as- a big surprise. The outcome of the competi- sociated with established art and archi- tion for the monument in Donja Stubica was tectural schools. This further indicates the Fig. 1 similar: a number of sculptors belonging difference in general artistic and architec- A timeline of all competitions organized in the period between 1955 and 1980 to the middle generation won high prizes, tural production standards, but it may also among them one female sculptor (Marija suggest the significance of the ability to es- Map 1 Ujević-Galetović). Due to the complex cir- tablish professional and personal connec- A map showing the distribution of planned or realized monuments for which competitions cumstances previously discussed, in both tions with decision makers which was more 146 147were organized. The size of the circle represents the total number of competition entries likely in bigger political and cultural centres. chitects were women.288 This brings us to the On the other hand, the number of authors conclusion that public competitions, which from other republics’ or provinces’ capitals usually required bigger teams and often in- (Skopje, Novi Sad, Priština), or towns such as volved collaborative practice, allowed more Maribor, Subotica, Čačak or Rovinj, proves women to enter the field. However, while that the efforts of cultural decentralization this reveals that female contribution was since the mid-1950 did have a certain de- greater than expected, their contribution gree of impact on the quality of production – i.e. female artistic/architectural labour in the peripheral contexts. Although it was – often remained invisible, as they would difficult to visualize the inter-republic flow mostly participate in bigger project teams, of works, the data presented confirms that with projects usually credited to men. Since federal competition continually played an most of the awarded competitors were ar- important role in bringing projects from dif- chitects by profession, the fact that wom- ferent parts of Yugoslavia to one table, thus en in Yugoslavia were often specialized in contributing to the trans-republic (today landscape architecture – a profession that international) exchange of ideas. It should itself was undervalued – also contributed be noted, however, that teams mainly con- to their higher percentage in this field of sisted of practitioners from the same city/ production. While this may lead us to the town, although there are several cases of conclusion that public anonymous compe- Number Of Awarded Teams networking among team members from titions were beneficial for female authors, in 1 20 different republics. reality their contribution usually remained 40 Another interesting result of the quanti- unrecorded or ignored. These figures do 60 tative analysis is related to the gender of not only confirm the general notion of the awarded participants. Since this study is gender bias in the fields of fine arts and primarily concerned with social networks of architecture, but help us to attribute their 400 all participants, and not with their individual causes to the structural limitations of the roles in project designs, calculations were whole system. 350 performed for all contributors in competing Besides offering a general view on the types teams.287 Out of a total of 397 names fea- of professionals engaged in high-level me- tured in the publicly announced awards and morial production in Yugoslavia, the quan- 300 purchases, 322 were male and 75 female. titative analysis of the professional orienta- architects / urban planners This means that about 19% of awarded tion of awarded participants gives rise to 250 contributors at federal competitions were several other important conclusions (Fig.

women, mostly architects. This is somewhat 2). Of the total number of 378 participants e r architects / urban planners b

surprising if we take into account the overall whose profession could be identified, 77% N u m 200 low percentage of women credited as au- were related to architecture, spatial plan-

politicians thors of this type of memorials. As the anal- ning and engineering (architects, urban Map 2 150 sculptors ysis for monuments in Croatia has shown, planners, landscape architects, engineers, A map showing the locations and state officials only about 3% of sculptors and 10% of ar- architectural technicians or students of ar- numbers of awarded participants architectural technicians at federal competitions for mon- visual artists chitecture). Surprisingly, only around 12% 100 uments in Yugoslavia. photographers were sculptors, or around 18% were from all art historians landscape architects fine art professions, including professions sculptors 287 The distinction between authors and construction engineers Fig. 2 50 collaborators on a particular project was such as painters and graphic designers. painters war veterans / military personnel students of architecture The total number and ratio of dif- writers designers not made for the purpose of this analysis, ferent professions of awarded par- journalists graphic desingers landscape architects historians although it is indicated in the database 288 Horvatinčić, “Spomenici iz razdoblja ticipants and jury members in fed- 0 theatre and film professionals its elf. socijalizma u Hrvatskoj,” 118–119. 148 149eral competitions for monuments. These figures would be somewhat different After discussing Branko Ružić’s and Vladimir controlled by cultural workers, predomi- Although Klaić’s complaint was not taken were we to look only at the signed authors Ivanović’s innovative project for a monu- nantly by professionals active in the spheres into account, the competition turned out of projects. Project documentation for more ment-school, he finished his inspired, op- of architecture, urban planning, fine arts, to be unsuccessful, as none of the projects complex competition tasks, i.e. those that timistic report with the hopeful projection: higher education and theory. The disparity were awarded the first prize.292 included urban planning, architectural “Indeed, soon we may be building schools between architects and artists is somewhat The overall predominance of the more drawings, and various presentational ma- at the place of future monuments.”290 While surprising, if not counter-intuitive: there are technical, pragmatic and problem-solv- terials (photographs, models), demanded Meštrović’s prophecy did indeed come true, about three times fewer sculptors in juries ing disciplines, such as those of architects bigger and more heterogeneous working and functional monuments became more than architects and urban planners. Land- and urban planners, is a logical yet rarely groups, often including architectural stu- frequent in the following decades – be it as scape architects were relatively well repre- affirmed and analysed notion in the exist- dio employees or trainees. This analysis educational centres or touristic facilities – sented, given their marginal role in the in- ing literature on monuments. This has, on shows that the highest level of memorial it was not merely because the architects terwar period. After the competition for the the one hand, produced interdisciplinary production in Yugoslavia was dominated answered the calls in greater numbers, but memorial park in Sarajevo was announced collaboration, but it also explains the ten- by architects, whose pronounced interest because the competition propositions re- in 1966, landscape architect Smiljan Klaić sions that were present between archi- in spatial relations and social functionality quired technical and urban planning skills. from Zagreb wrote a protest note in the tects and sculptors, who felt threatened contributed to the typological innovations. At the same time, they encouraged more prestigious Zagreb-based architectural by architecturally pragmatic approaches This was already observed by art historian integrative approaches that required ex- journal Čovjek i prostor, provoked by the and often more effective results. While Matko Meštrović who, in 1961, after seeing perimentation, cross-disciplinary collab- fact that none of the 13 members of the some sculptors continued the old model the exhibition of the winning projects for oration and innovation. jury were landscape architects or sculptors: of using architects as technical support, the Monument to the Victory of the Peoples’ keeping a clear distance between the re- Revolution in Kamenska, Croatia, wrote: Quantitative analysis #III: The results of the competitions have spective contributions of both authors, Jury membership so far shown that those solutions in others – usually the younger, post-war A very important positive fact is that which a harmonious composition of generation – successfully advanced their architects are more frequently an- Seen from this perspective, the statistical the park with buildings and sculp- own practice through fruitful collabora- swering to the task of designing and analysis of the jury members’ professional tures were the most successful. (…) tion with architects, urban planners and constructing monuments. This de- occupations appears even more impor- We are deeply surprised by the fact landscape architects, adopting the gained rives from a more open, far-sighted, tant (Fig. 2). About 60% of the total of 239 that the “city of parks” announces experience and knowledge, and using it to free and daring approach to monu- jury members were architecture (25%) or a competition for a memorial park their own advantage – opening the ways ments; from the will to widen its ra- fine arts (18%) professionals, art histori- that will not be evaluated by any of towards new concepts and typologies. A dius, and the inner dimension of its ans, theoreticians and conservators (8%), our landscape specialists because third group, however, developed an an- temporal-spatial existence, being or writers, journalists and other public in- none are sitting upon the jury. (…) We tagonism towards architects, claiming that and radiance; from the ever more tellectuals (8%). The politics-related jury think that the problem of sculpture realistic anticipation of its concrete members comprised approximately 37% in and its placement in the greenery is many such architects allow them- sense and lasting purpose. A monu- total: 17% were active political figures, while another specific issue, for the eval- selves to go on adventures more ment is no more a head, a gesture, a the remainder were war veterans and state uation of which the selection of a than to something we could call figure; more and more often, a mon- officials (ambassadors, military personnel, sculptor as one of the jury members successful explorations (…) trying ument becomes a designed space etc.). Some jury members had multiple pro- would be more appropriate than a to get beyond their bureaucratic, which penetrates life in a more re- fessional prerogatives, being – like Koča painter. To conclude, it would be in cliché manners, through which they alistic way. This last competition can Popović, who presided the jury for the first the best interest of the quality and paraphrase and repeat some solu- show us how far we have gone on competition for Jajinci – at the same time correct assessment of the competitions that had originated in other that path. If we are not satisfied with politicians, war veterans, poets, ambassa- tion entries, for which the city of Sa- its results, we can be satisfied with dors and public intellectuals. The statistics rajevo will give 5 million dinars, to sko-pjezažno-skulpturalno rješenje spomen- this. 289 show that the majority of decision making extend the existing jury to include the park u Sarajevu,” Čovjek i prostor, no. 148 in the field of memorial production was aforementioned specialist for land- (July 1958): 5. 289 Matko Meštrović, “Idejni projekti za scape architecture and sculpture.291 292 N.n., “Rezultati konkursa za spomen park spomenik u Kamenskom (1961)”. In Matko DAF, 2005), 124. na Vracima”, ARH: Časopis društva arhitekata Meštrović. Od pojedinačnog opće (Zagreb: 290 Ibid, 125. 150 151 291 Smiljan Klaić, “Natječaj za arhitekton- Sarajevo, no. 9, vol. 3 (1966): 5–32. social, ideological, and even finan- Drago Tršar and Vojin Bakić, all of whom number of awards / purchased works links with other awarded participats number of jury memberships number of links with other jury members

Name cial-economic possibilities and re- appear more frequently as jury members Name Name Name Dušan Džamonja 8 293 Aleksandar Krstić 20 Bogdan Bogdanović 7 Bogdan Bogdanović 111 lations. than as competitors. Some experienced Momčilo Krković 6 Ivan Kožarić 19 Miodrag B. Protić 5 Miodrag B. Protić 78 Miodrag Živković 5 architects and urban planners, for instance Ivan Rackov 19 Branko Petričić 4 Predrag-Peđa Milosavljević 74 Šime Vulas 5 Dušan Džamonja 17 Edvard Ravnikar 4 Husref Redžić 66 Aleksandar Đokić 4 Towards a network analysis Fedor Wenzler, successfully balanced the Brana Prošić 16 Husref Redžić 4 Živa Đorđević 61 Branko Ružić 4 Miodrag Radošević 16 Predrag-Peđa Milosavljević 4 Oto Bihalji-Merin 58 Dragutin Kiš 4 two roles and ‘sat on two chairs’. Miodrag Živković 16 Živa Đorđević 4 Ivan Sabolić 56 Duško Ante Rakić 4 Ajdin Puteš 15 Aleksa Čelebonović 3 Vladimir Braco Mušič 50 The lists of the twenty most awarded and Bogdanović’s presence in decision-making Marija Ujević Galetović 4 Nikola Vranić 14 Aleksandar Đorđević 3 Drago Mažar 47 Bogoljub Teofanović 3 most connected authors, and most fre- processes becomes even more apparent Aleksandar Đokić 13 Drago Mažar 3 Branko Petričić 46 Cveta Davičo 3 Cveta Davičo 13 Drago Tršar 3 Zoran Kržišnik 46 Drago Tršar 3 quent and most connected jury members if connectedness with other jury members Dragutin Kiš 13 Ivan Sabolić 3 Edvard Ravnikar 45 Fedor W enzler 3 Dušan J elić 13 J osip Seissel 3 J osip Seissel 45 (Fig. 3) gives an adequate transition to the is observed (Fig. 4), or when his connec- Ivan Kožarić 3 Hranislav Stojanović 13 Oto Bihalji-Merin 3 Pavao Ungar 45 Mira Halambek-W enzler 3 network analysis. Its main purpose is not tions are highlighted within the whole Aleksandar Dragomanović 12 Pavao Ungar 3 J ovan Sekulić 44 Mira J urišić-Krković 3 Angela Rotkvić 12 Stojan Ćelić 3 J ovan Kratohvil 43 Nebojša Delja 3 only to show the interconnections within network visualization (Fig. 5; coloured Ante Marinović 12 Zdenko Kolacio 3 Zdenko Kolacio 43 Svetislav Ličina 3 Branko Silađin 12 Zoran Kržišnik 3 Olga J evrić 42 Ajdin Puteš 2 the network, thus revealing the structural purple). When compared to the connec- Dimitrije Dragović 12 Fedor W enzler 2 Saša Sedlar 38 Aleksandar Dragomanović 2 positions of individual actors, but also to tions established by other actors with the Nebojša Delja 12 Vojin Bakić 2 Ismet Mujezinović 37 indicate their various and multiple roles highest number of awards or purchased in relation to competitions, enabling us works (Dušan Džamonja; coloured blue), Name to visualize the complexity of this type of and those of the person with the highest 5 task-oriented, multi-professional social number of connections with other awarded 4 3 network. participants (Aleksandar Krstić; coloured 2 From the gender perspective, it is inter- green), the extent to which Bogdanović was 1 Competition Awards / Purchased Works esting to notice that among twenty most structurally embedded within the network 0 8 awarded authors there were four women, is striking. 6 while no women were equally highly ranked Before the further discussion, which, based within juries. On the other hand, the struc- on these results, will focus on the analysis of 4 Jury Memberships Jury tural position of the Serbian female sculp- the structural positions of two statistically 2 tor Olga Jevrić is mainly determined by a dominant and (art) historically important 0 relatively high degree of centrality. Some figures – Dušan Džamonja and Bogdan 10 of the most famous authors of monuments Bogdanović – we shall give a brief synop-

were not eager to run for competitions, but sis of the general features of the network. 5 their degree of centrality is nevertheless OtherParticipants With Links high due to their common participation General features of federal 0

s 100 r e b in the decision-making processes, which competitions’ networks m e 80 M

y r u J

r 60 not only confirmed their high social sta- e h t O

h t i 40 W tus in Yugoslav society, but secured them In this analysis, we looked at two types s k n i constant and diverse contacts with various of actors: awarded participants and the L 20 0 social agents, from politicians to impor- members of the panel of judges. In both tant professionals attending jury meetings cases, we are dealing with a limited num- rago Tršar rago ragutin Kiš ragutin Vojin Bakić Vojin Olga Jevrić Branko Bon Branko osip Seissel osip D Zdenko Sila Zdenko D J Ivan Sabolić Ivan Drago Galić Drago Ante Gržetić Neven Šegvić Vladeta Petrić Vladeta Raoul Goldoni Raoul Fedor Wenzler Fedor Marjan Tepina Marjan Slavko Brezoski Slavko Svetislav Ličina Svetislav Jovan Kratohvil Jovan Zdenko Kolacio Zdenko Mihajlo Mitrović Vladimir Antolić Vladimir Borko NovakovićBorko Boško Karanović Miroslav Begović Miroslav from all over Yugoslavia. The most striking ber of people that form bipartite networks; Soldatović Jovan Petar Hadži-BoškovPetar Hranislav Stojanović Hranislav Bogdan Bogdanović Bogdan Vladimir Braco Mušič Braco Vladimir Kosta Angeli Radovani Angeli Kosta

example is Bogdan Bogdanović, whose fre- either through participation in the same Dragomanović Aleksandar quent role in juries secured him the highest group of architects/artists whose project degree of centrality in the jury network. was awarded at the competition, or through Similar can be said of Edvard Ravnikar, sharing membership of the same panel of Fig. 3 Ivan Sabolić, Josip Seissel, Zdenko Kolacio, judges. The visualizations were generated Ranking lists of the twenty most-awarded and most-connected competitors and jury members. from the predefined datasets inserted into 293 Stevan Stanić, “Posle konkursa: Bez priča the relational database. Depending on the Fig. 4 i potpričica,” Nin, January 25, 1981: 68. parameters used and algorithms employed, 152 153Diagram showing the numbers and ratios of the most-awarded and most-connected authors and jury members. Vojteh Ravnikar Aleš Vodopivec we are able to generate different visuali- Žarko Nikolić Bojana Klemenčić Josip Frankol Dženana Janković Vjekoslav Rukljač Mihajlo Terzić Dušan Đurić zations. Networks can significantly differ as Zoran Dimitrijević Milan Protić Goce Popovski Mirko Vranić

Vukosava Mijatović Igor Kindij Spomenka Petras Redžo Terzić Džemal Čelić a result of whether we decide to limit the Branko Vasiljević Korčanica Ljiljana Tanasijević Ninoslav Janković Vojislav Marković Lazar Janković Stipe Sikirica Milan Rakić Mirko Đuranović Grozdan Knežević data to awarded participants, their mutual Sima Mirković Nada Vasiljević Nikola Babić Spomenka Maretić Nada Jevrić Miho Kerina Milivoje Smiljanić Branko Pešić Branko Ćopić Mirko Maretić Dragomir Mileusnić relationships and their relationships with Sava Šljivovački Dragoljub Lazić Zdenka Popadić Janez Koželj Vitomir Sudarski Radovan Miščević Mihajlo Škondrić Olja Ivanjicki Leonid Šejka Bogdan Drenča Srećko Majić competitions (Fig. 6a), or if only jury mem- Petar Marković Ivan Rackov Boško Bajić Radmila Radević Zdenko Borbaš V. Čus Brane Kregar Nenad Ristić Slavko Pinter Petar Kubičela Cvetana Bajin-Bakal Slavko Matejić Vojislav Midić I. Štalcer bers, their mutual connections and their Predrag Ristić Zvonimir Barbarić Aleksandar Vasić Ivan Lay Angela Rotkvić Tito Kosty Z. Kovač Elizabeta Plovanić Dušan Kostić Miroslav Simenunović-Simeun Prvoslav Popović Roman Zaletel Hasan Zukanović B. Banić B. Tripalo connections with competitions are shown Ivica Rukavina Branislav Marinković Bogdan Bogdanović Zvonimir Nikuljski Dušica Pavlović

Miša David Milan Lukić Enes Midžić Marija Vovk Arfan Hozić D. Narančić (Fig. 6b). From these visualizations it is clear Mirko Radaković Stanko Jančić Dragoslav Nikolić Branko Petrović Đuro Vukadinović Danilo Udovički Kraljevo Ilija Rikanović Antun Marinović Pavle Gregorić Dragutin Kovačević Zlatko Šurjak Ivan Kožarić that in both scenarios all competitions are Zdravko Ileković Dinko Dušan Ogrin Ivan Taubman Vojislav Vasiljević Živojin Karapešić Andrija Spiridonović Zvonko Brkić Bogoljub Teofanović Slobodan Vukotić Spasoje Krunić Aleksandar Drnarski Stanko Kristl Rade Bašić Drago Ibler Nenad Korica Dušan Lukač Ivan Šibl Čedo Grbić Slobodan Vukelić Milan Stanisavljević Želimir Janeš well connected, most of them having mul-

Raoul Melinčević Zagreb - Cesarec Marko Dec Milenko Radovanović Drago Mažar Smail Tihić Marijana Vidmar Petar Dabac Gordana Anđelković Husref Redžić Vera Dajht-Kralj Sima Miljković Vinko Vinterhalter Ante Ledić tiple relations with other competitions, both Karlo Gašpar Mrazović Ljiljana Anđelković Ljuba Stamenković Ivan Antolčić Anton Lešnik Miomir Denić Božo Petrović Đura Šušnjar Ratko Poznatov Pero Car Ljube Pota Brana Mirković Milan Vrhovac Josip Vaništa through joint jury memberships and through Veljko Bulajić Boško Baškot Milena Stanković Ivan Krajačić Ivo Steiner Tomislav Kožarić Matija Salaj Boris Cikalovski Ljubomir Anđelković Deliblatska peščara Ivan Prokić Dušan Čalić Branko Silađin Vojislav Smole Boško Karanović Jelica Bosnić Skoplje - park Esad Kapetanović the fact that the same authors were award- Božidar Marković Branko Bon Sida Marjanović Cveta Davičo Andrija Mutnjaković Muhamed Karamehmedović B. Mrkvić Đuro Salaj Miroslav Begović Ante Orlić Milenko Mojsilović Veljko Vlahović Boško Šiljegović Anton Zagoda Gradimir Bosnić Skender Kulenović ed. The network of participants, shown in Ismet Mujezinović Ljiljana Smole Josip Jelić Gabriela Stipel Radivoj Jovetić Mladen Oljača Bogdan Škarić Zlatko Ugljen Miloš Savić Jozo Vranić Boris Ziherl Milan Bogdanović Ivan Sabolić Kamenska Momčilo Moma Marković Hasan Grapčanović Svetko Milin Gojko Nikoliš Vladimir Antolić Fig. 6a, has a wider diameter and is less Jovanka Jeftanović Emerik Blum Vasa Ružić Vladislav Ribnikar Kozara Zvonimir Kamenar Bratislav Stojanović Saša Sedlar Ljiljana Petrović Vladeta Petrić Miroslav Krleža Kemal Halilović Marija Ujević Galetović Vladimir Kulmaticki Miodrag Stanković Vukota Tupa Vukotić Bogdan Bogdanović Branko Bulić dense, which indicates less cohesiveness Slavko Tihec Ante Gržetić Moša Pijade Mersad Berber Radenko Mišević Fahrija Ajanović Miro Rodin Dobrica Ćosić Zoran Kržišnik Franc Popek Milan Vukos Milan Đoković Danilo Ivanović Veljko Petrović Smiljan Klaić Kosta Angeli Radovani Gradimir Medaković Marijana Hanžeković among network members. The participants’ Vojin Stojić Tahir Konjhodžić Boško Budisavljević Nandor Glid Jajinci I Miroljub Jevtović Pavle Blažić Nikola Dobrović Risto Stijović Amir Polić Koča Popović Janko Zadravec Obren Stojanović Pavao Ungar Mane Trbojević Marko Čelebonović network, due to the nurturing of collabo- Ljubomir Ivković-Šuca Aleksa Čelebonović Josip Kolar Bratislav Obrenović Jara Ribnikar Stevan Luketić Kosmaj Blagoje Kojadinović Vinko Uhlik Boran Hrelja Vera Kovačić Kragujevac Ratomir Bogojević Marija Braut Petar Pecelj Geza Sakač Branko Petričić Zaga Jovanović Donja Stubica Mitrovan Živković rative and team work, is at the same time Aleksandar Krstić Momčilo Petrović Marijan Matković Miodrag B. Protić Nikola Vranić Hrvoje Devidé Mihajlo Mitrović Đurica Jojkić Grgo Gamulin Josip Kokolić Stevan Bodnarov Zdenko Kolacio Vojin Mraković Dojčilo Mitrović Olga Jevrić Rista Stijović Silvana Seissel Mika Janković Marino Tartaglia characterized by a larger number of small- Predrag-Peđa Milosavljević Predrag Sušić Petar Tatić Milorad Nikšić Boris Bakrač Beograd - Marx & Engels Srba Andrejević Jure Kaštelan Dragutin Kiš Petar Klemenčić Svetomir Arsić-Basara Vladimir Ivanović Rudolf D. Lupo Dragić Jovanović Borko Novaković Josip Seissel Nikola Bežek Marko Kučinac er, isolated groups of project teams. On the Jovan Sekulić Anton Bitenc Vojin Bakić Snežana Milas Aleksandar Dragomanović Nebojša Delja Živorad Kovačević Zlatko Prica Zdenko Sila Vojislav Stanić Rodoljub Čolaković Miodrag Pecić Ante Marinović Oto Bihalji-Merin Mirko Jokanović Božidar Manić Aleksandar Đorđević other hand, the network of jury members is Neven Šegvić Zoran Šonc Edvard Ravnikar Vlado Mađarić Ivan Jakić Donja Gradina Gertruda Furač Berislav Radimir Borislav Doklestić Petar Vuković Vladimir Babašek-Orešković Slobodan Marinković Sonja Flego Vera Horvat-Pintarić Mirko Lovrić Živa Đorđević Dragoje Marić Jovan Kratohvil Šime Vulas Dimitrije Dragović Drago Tršar Fedor Wenzler Branko Knežević Josip Vidmar Pavle Vasić denser, yet it features two groups which are Oskar Berbelja Doroteja Ložnik Živorad Martinović Kolja Davičo Ana Bešlić Bogdan Ignjatović Petrova gora Mirjana Delja Pavle Savić Ivica Susović Tumur Cevegđav Uroš Bajić Ante Marinović-Uzelac Leon Kabiljo Boris Čipan Zlatko Movrin Giulio Rocco conspicuously isolated. Those groups of jury Valent Grobenski Mira Halambek-Wenzler Belizar Bahorić Petar Marš Oto Logo Serđo Baskijera Stojan Ćelić Zoran B. Petrović Čačak Vladimir Braco Mušič Vanja Radauš Ivan Antić Dragoljub Petrović Olga Vujović Ivan Štraus Beograd - Moša Pijade Maja Hribar-Ožegović Igor Toš members are linked to the competitions for Rade Maksimović Vučko Ivković Jevta Jevtović Petar Hadži-Boškov Savo Zlatić Suna Drašković Mladen Tudor Snežana Milenković Raoul Goldoni Milan Prelog Milovan Marković Ninoslav Kučan Duško Ante Rakić Dobrivoje Barlović Dragomir Nikolić Rade Bulat Nikola Nešić Dragomir Milojević Sakib Hadžihalilović monuments to Edvard Kardelj (Ljubljana, Ljubo Škrnjug Abdulah Sarajlić Čedomir Jeftić Stojan Svilarić Jovan Soldatović Damir Šalat Jasmina Dilevska Milojko Drulović Ema Derossi-Bjelajac Petar Korać Dušan Gligorijević Đino Hrvatin Željko Pintarić Drago Kapun Mateja Rodići Mile Dakić Ivo Wenzler Svetislav Ličina Bojan Bugarčić Branko Berc Slovenia), and to the Victims of Podhum Draga Simanović Dušan Džamonja Marko Nikezić Mirko Božić Stojan Zafauk Branislav Simonović Miljenko Stančić Branko Ružić Ivo Vitić Jasenka Piščetek Drago Đurović Voja Leković Bilandžić Tomislav Dragan Živković Danijel Načinović (Croatia). The reason for this may be that Marko Ušaj Momčilo Krković Ecio Zulijani Jajinci II Drago Galić Podhum Vladimir Dobrović Bernardo Bernardi Marko Mušič Božidar Šalamon Miro Rak Metka Kraigher-Hozo Dušan Jelić Hranislav Stojanović Radovan Nikšić Dragica Hobolić Lojze Dolinar Mladen Gvozden the organizers chose more local actors, Vanda Ekl Marjan Starić Andra Milanović Aleksandar Karolyi Mira Jurišić-Krković Ivica Komšić Srijemski front Boško Končar Irena Geril Toma Bunuševac Milenko Poznanović Tomaž Breskvar Boris Vižintin France Popit Labin possibly also with the intention of attracting Zoran Bakić Alojz Drašler Dževad Hozo Slavko Brezoski Branislav Karadžić Boris Kocijančič Vasilije Janković Jadranka Jugo Dragan Bijedić Rudolf Oven Milivoj Bukić Ljubljana - revolucija Antun Žunić Vojtjeh Delfin Andrej Sovre Romano Pelčić Jakov Jelčić Miodrag Živković Nace Šumi more local contributors. It is interesting that Zvonko Petrović Miodrag Radošević Željko Grbac Fadil Mušić Franc Leskošek Ivan Balaško Sonja Kolar Beograd - park prijateljstva Zoran Tasić Dušan Rakojević Marjan Čehovin Vojin Andrejević Joža Vilfan Igor Emili Darivoj Žilić the ‘gatekeeper’ for the Kardelj monument Ljubomir Denković Stanka Dragović Edo Turnher Marjan Tepina Brana Prošić Milan Matović Vojislav T. Dimitrijević Aleksandar Đokić Hildegard Auf-Franić Lazar Trifunović Spaso Bogdanović Dušan Milenković Gorana Rodić Borislav Dimitrijević Marica Rakojević was Slovenian architect Marjan Tepina, who Nada Bogunović Stojan Batič Ivica Karlavaris Sonja Popova Nikola Janković Mustafa Musić Bora Zdravković Dragomir Živković Krešimir Kasanić Božidar Petrović Ljubljana - Kardelj Ivan Mioč was also a jury member for the monument Ajdin Puteš Svetlana Filipović Ervin Prelog Stevan Žutić Ladislav Fekete Gorana Nikolić Lido Sošić Jernej Kraigher Dragan Slavković Branka Ivaniš Dragan Kiridžić Slobodan Dragović Vera Projeva Jovan Rosić Milan Dajić Virgilije Giuricin to the Revolution in Ljubljana, while the Perka Ivković Vlado Rot Dragan Pražić Miodrag Tamindžić Vesna Svoboda Milun Vidić Živorad Lisičić Slavoljub Stanković Milan Arnaut Berislav Iskra Rajko Nikolić Savo Subotin gatekeeper for the Podhum competition Jasminka Simović Marija Salaj Niko Lehrman Vlada Mitić Milo Đula Dragan Petrović Slavoljub Čurčić Dora Kovačević Franc Šetinc Mihajlo Šoltes Quintino Bassani Janez Vipotnik Nevena Bradić Boris Gaberščik was Grgo Gamulin, who, around the same Edo Štoker Živorad Radenković Slobodan Šaban Zorica Janković Dragan Ivković Šamarica Zdenko Kalin Stevan Bogdanović Ljiljana Pekić Jurij Jenštrle Antun Pandurić Borut Kardelj Janez Lenassi time, also evaluated the works in the com- Blagoje Reba Miralem Zupčević Tatjana Savić Andrej Jemec Mile Vučković Tibor Bence Vladimir Petričević Stane Mikuš Aleksandar Komarov Vida Tomšič petition for the Kozara monument, and who Vanja Pricker Ranko Radović Marjan Rožič Dragoljub Mutaović Andrej Šmit Petar Skalar Anton Vratuša Živa Vlahović Ljubomir Perčinlić Grujo Golijanin Mića Mićović Lazar Pribić wrote extensively and self-reflectively on Ratka Ranković Ferenc Kalmar Milan Pališaški Andrej Kering Milenija Marušić ex Jovanović Zoran Lazović Zoran Mutaović Miha Kering both of these decision-making experiences. Dragutin Zahariaš Aleksandar Ljahnicky Miroslav Pešić Jozef Čipa Leposava Milošević Matija Suhadolc Dejan Đurković Nevenka Postružnik Vladimir Kovačev However, for the purpose of generating Janez Suhadolc

Živorad Petrović Čedomir Ramljak Fig. 5 Slobodan Ćurčić Goran Martinović the whole complex network featuring both Mirko Bičanić Mladen Galić The complete network with highlighted connections of Bogdan Bogdanović (purple), datasets, a different software (Gephi) was Dušan Džamonja (blue) and Aleksandar Krstić (green).; Generated with Gephi 154 155 used, because it offers more sophisticated Grozdan Knežević Ratomir Bogojević

Nada Bogunović Stanka Dragović Ivo Vitić Gorana Nikolić Darivoj Žilić Mustafa Musić Lazar Trifunović Marjan Čehovin Nace Šumi Stevan Žutić Zvonko Petrović Gorana Rodić Željko Grbac Romano Pelčić Vanda Ekl Svetlana FilipovićVera Projeva Tomaž Breskvar Igor Emili Sonja Kolar

Jasminka Simović Antun Žunić Milo Đula Vesna Svoboda Andrej Sovre Boris Vižintin Rudolf Oven Marko Ušaj Boško Končar Slobodan Šaban Marko Mušič Irena Geril Spomenik žrtvama fašizma u Podhumu Marjan Starić

Jasmina Dilevska Saša Sedlar Dragan Živković Petar Korać Nevena Bradić Suna Drašković

Milun Vidić

Milan Arnaut

Grgo Gamulin

Spomen-park Jajinci Vojislav Midić

Dušan Đurić Sima Mirković Bogdan Drenča Olja Ivanjicki Mihajlo Terzić Dragutin Zahariaš Džemal Čelić Vitomir Sudarski Aleksandar Vasić Goran Martinović Nikola Babić Dragica Hobolić Petar Kubičela Ferenc Kalmar Branko Ćopić Sima Miljković Dušan Kostić Dragan Petrović Živorad Radenković Mirko Vranić Milan Vrhovac Jasenka Piščetek Ljubo Škrnjug Jozef Čipa Arfan Hozić Vinko Vinterhalter Skender Kulenović Sava Šljivovački Ivo Wenzler Redžo Terzić Grozdan Knežević Bogdan Bogdanović Zvonimir Nikuljski Rajko Nikolić Zorica Janković Nikola Dobrović Boško Baškot Mladen Galić Mihajlo Škondrić Dragoljub Lazić Mirko Bičanić Drago Mažar Sida Marjanović Rade Bašić Esad Kapetanović Nevenka Postružnik Spomenik na Korčanici Slobodan Dragović Dušan Lukač Petar Hadži-Boškov Mladen Oljača Boško Karanović

Mira Halambek-Wenzler Zoran Lazović Vladimir Kovačev Boško Šiljegović Veljko Bulajić Spomen obilježje "Borbi naroda južnog Banata u Deliblatskoj peščari" Slavko Brezoski Slavko Brezoski Bogdan Škarić Ajdin Puteš Smail Tihić Vladimir Dobrović Ivan Balaško Leposava Milošević Čedomir Ramljak Hasan Grapčanović Ivan Taubman Spomenik na Kozari

Miodrag Živković Vojtjeh Delﬁn Aleksandar Ljahnicky Mersad Berber Fedor Wenzler Grujo Golijanin Emerik Blum Vukota Tupa Vukotić Toma Bunuševac Andra Milanović Jakov Jelčić Tahir Konjhodžić Spomen-područje "Bratstvo i jedinstvo" na Šamarici Fahrija Ajanović Muhamed Karamehmedović Abdulah Sarajlić Drago Ibler Miloš Savić Kemal Halilović Borko Novaković Ladislav Fekete Amir Polić Dragomir Živković Gojko Nikoliš Fedor Wenzler Drago Đurović Draga Simanović Zoran Kržišnik Živorad Lisičić Jovan Rosić Zlatko Ugljen Svetislav Ličina Miodrag Radošević Milenko Mojsilović Danilo Ivanović Kosta Angeli Radovani Dobrivoje Barlović Milenko Poznanović Dragan Pražić Branko Bulić Radivoj Jovetić Dušan Jelić Vlada Mitić Husref Redžić Spomen područje Donja Gradina Brana Prošić Nikola Nešić Branislav Karadžić Dragan Slavković Spomen-park u Kraljevu Borko Novaković Olga Jevrić Vasilije Janković Branislav Simonović Hranislav Stojanović Jovan Soldatović Spomenik palim borcima Božidar Šalamon Milivoj Bukić Zoran Tasić Dragoje Marić NOVJ na Srijemskom frontu / Dušan Milenković Gabriela Stipel Uroš Bajić Dragomir Nikolić Predrag Ristić Leonid Šejka Spomenik pobjedi Ljube Pota Antun Pandurić Slobodan Ćurčić Bogdan Bogdanović Jevta Jevtović Dušica Pavlović Dragan Ivković Slavoljub Čurčić Dora Kovačević Tatjana Savić Andrija Spiridonović Spomenik Marxu i Engelsu Miroslav Pešić Živorad Kovačević Aleksandar Đokić Dušan Gligorijević Dragutin Kiš Zdenko Kolacio Miodrag B. Protić Pavle Savić Miomir Denić Prvoslav Popović Vladimir Petričević Dejan Đurković Petar Skalar Bogdan Ignjatović Milenko Radovanović Boško Bajić Miha Kering Bogdan Bogdanović Aleksandar Komarov Raoul Goldoni Radovan Miščević Milan Pališaški Milenija Marušić ex Jovanović Andrej Šmit Danijel Načinović Mateja Rodići Bojan Bugarčić Milan Stanisavljević Dragan Kiridžić Ivan Sabolić Čedomir Jeftić Mirko Maretić Matija Suhadolc Olga Jevrić Angela Rotkvić Jovan Soldatović Jovan Kratohvil Boris Čipan Marija Salaj Ranko Radović Serđo Baskijera Ismet Mujezinović Spomenka Maretić Janez Lenassi Živorad Petrović Živa Vlahović Milan Prelog Ivan Antić Zdenko Borbaš Spomenik labinskom rudaru Josip Frankol Spomen-park ženskog pokreta Stane Mikuš Janez Suhadolc Andrej Kering Branko Knežević Slobodan Marinković Hasan Zukanović Vera Dajht-Kralj Ema Derossi-Bjelajac Ljiljana Pekić Drago Tršar Leon Kabiljo Vjekoslav Rukljač Srećko Majić Quintino Bassani Niko Lehrman Spomen-park Jajinci Vučko Ivković Zvonimir Barbarić Berislav Iskra Mihajlo Šoltes Lazar Pribić Rodoljub Čolaković Petar Hadži-Boškov Milovan Marković Boris Gaberščik Ivan Lay Borut Kardelj Ecio Zulijani Vladimir Babašek-Orešković Lojze Dolinar Ivan Štraus Spomenik revoluciji u Ljubljani Đino Hrvatin Jure Kaštelan Marino Tartaglia Vladimir Braco Mušič Živa Đorđević Zdravko Ileković Spomenik labinskom rudaru Spomen-park prijateljstva Zdenko Sila Giulio Rocco Marijan Matković Spomenik Moši Pijade Vojislav Stanić Lido Sošić Pavle Vasić Dragomir Milojević Stojan Batič Spomenik seljačkoj buni 1573. godine u Hrvatskoj i Sloveniji Marjan Tepina Božidar Manić Dragoljub Petrović Mihajlo Mitrović Antun Marinović Boris Bakrač Josip Kokolić Vojin Bakić Virgilije Giuricin Sonja Popova Spomenik pobjedi revolucije naroda Slavonije u Kamenskoj Spomenik Edvardu Kardelju Borislav Dimitrijević Oto Bihalji-Merin Dušan Džamonja Vladimir Braco Mušič Jovanka Jeftanović Aleksandar Dragomanović Nikola Bežek Risto Stijović Bernardo Bernardi Vojin Andrejević Spomen-park u Kragujevcu Vlado Rot Vojislav T. Dimitrijević Obren Stojanović Dragutin Kiš Branko Ružić Josip Kolar Vinko Uhlik Zlatko Movrin Jernej Kraigher Miljenko Stančić Ana Bešlić Svetislav Ličina Silvana Seissel Vera Horvat-Pintarić Miroslav Begović Spomenik pobjedi revolucije naroda Slavonije u Kamenskoj Dušan Čalić Pero Car Ante Gržetić Olga Vujović Spomenik žrtvama fašizma u Jajincima I Ivan Krajačić Mihajlo Mitrović Jovan Sekulić Vladimir Antolić Doroteja Ložnik Ivan Kožarić Branko Berc Drago Tršar Momčilo Krković Božo Petrović Aleksandar Karolyi Ervin Prelog Vlado Mađarić Blagoje Kojadinović Hildegard Auf-Franić Vladimir Ivanović Milan Đoković Josip Seissel Pavle Gregorić Miroslav Begović Aleksandar Dragomanović Ninoslav Kučan Nenad Korica Đuro Vukadinović Damir Šalat Spomenik palim borcima u NOB-u u Čačku Alojz Drašler Momčilo Petrović Ivan Antolčić Oskar Berbelja Zlatko Prica Vojin Bakić Gertruda Furač Miroljub Jevtović Jadranka Jugo Cvetana Bajin-Bakal Josip Vaništa Spomenik na Petrovoj gori Radovan Nikšić Andrija Mutnjaković Božidar Petrović Karlo Gašpar Mrazović Maja Hribar-Ožegović Stevan Bodnarov Zlatko Šurjak Branka Ivaniš Berislav Radimir Mirko Božić Krešimir Kasanić Spomenik žrtvama fašizma u Podhumu Ilija Rikanović Predrag-Peđa Milosavljević Milorad Nikšić Zoran Bakić Spomenik palim borcima u NOB-u u Čačku Duško Ante Rakić Mile Dakić Mira Jurišić-Krković Raoul Melinčević Branko Petrović Zoran B. Petrović Bilandžić Tomislav Ivan Šibl Čedo Grbić Mane Trbojević Bratislav Obrenović Stevan Luketić Perka Ivković Šime Vulas Savo Zlatić Miro Rak Bora Zdravković Željko Pintarić Vanja Radauš Dojčilo Mitrović Branko Vasiljević Stojan Zafauk Drago Ibler Ivo Vitić Ivo Steiner Rade Bulat Anton Bitenc Nada Vasiljević Valent Grobenski Zvonko Brkić Mitrovan Živković Kosta Angeli Radovani Spomenik seljačkoj buni 1573. godine u Hrvatskoj i Sloveniji Mladen Tudor Ante Marinović-Uzelac Aleksandar Đorđević Pavao Ungar Dragić Jovanović Igor Kindij Rudolf D. Lupo Enes Midžić Nikola Vranić Zdenko Kolacio Jozo Vranić Spomenik žrtvama fašizma u Jajincima I Raoul Goldoni Franc Popek Sakib Hadžihalilović Marijana Hanžeković Miodrag Pecić B. Tripalo Belizar Bahorić Josip Seissel Tomislav Kožarić B. Mrkvić Aleksa Čelebonović Boris Cikalovski Spomenik na Petrovoj gori Petar Tatić Branko Bon Marko Čelebonović I. Štalcer Svetomir Arsić-Basara B. Banić D. Narančić Spomenik Marxu i Engelsu Petar Vuković Svetko MilinAnton Zagoda Saša Sedlar Neven Šegvić Srba Andrejević Z. Kovač Spomenik palim borcima NOVJ na Srijemskom frontu / Spomenik pobjedi Ratomir Bogojević Zdenko Sila Miralem Zupčević Nikola Dobrović Stevan Bogdanović Spomenik Kosmajskom partizanskom odredu V. Čus Koča Popović Dinko Tibor Bence Ratka Ranković Spomen-park prijateljstva Milan Bogdanović Spomenik Moši Pijade Neven Šegvić Borislav Doklestić Ivan Jakić Đurica Jojkić Jara Ribnikar Veljko Vlahović Zoran Šonc Drago Kapun Zoran Mutaović Mile Vučković Petar Klemenčić Branko Silađin Vladislav Ribnikar Milan Dajić Miodrag Tamindžić Rista Stijović Moša Pijade Spomenik na Kozari Edo Štoker Dragoljub Mutaović Smiljan Klaić Igor Toš Miro Rodin Mića Mićović Miroslav Krleža Slavoljub Stanković Spomenik Augustu Cesarcu Zaga Jovanović Tumur Cevegđav Vanja Pricker Dobrica Ćosić Branko Petričić Vladimir Antolić Marko Kučinac Nikola Janković Marija Braut Zvonimir Kamenar Đuro Salaj Pavle Blažić Brana Mirković Ivica Susović Petar Marković Boško Budisavljević Milojko Drulović Radenko Mišević Ljubomir Ivković-Šuca Ivan Prokić Drago Galić Dragomir Mileusnić Slobodan Vukotić Veljko Petrović Hrvoje Devidé Marko Nikezić Stojan Ćelić Branko Bon Ljuba Stamenković Bratislav Stojanović Vojislav Vasiljević Marija Ujević Galetović Milena Stanković Želimir Janeš Stojan Svilarić Boris Ziherl Ante Ledić Ivan Sabolić Voja Leković Mika Janković Milan Lukić Petar Dabac Boško Karanović Vladeta Petrić Marija Vovk Vladeta Petrić Spomenka Petras Ante Orlić Stanko Kristl Aleksandar Krstić Milan Vukos Marko Dec Momčilo Moma Marković Stanko Jančić Ante Gržetić Dimitrije Dragović Marijana Vidmar Stipe Sikirica Matija Salaj Edvard Ravnikar Tito Kosty Snežana Milenković Spomen-park u Kragujevcu Roman Zaletel Snežana Milas Ante Marinović Dušan Ogrin Rade Maksimović Petar Marš Anton Lešnik

Nebojša Delja Živorad Martinović Brane Kregar Mirko Jokanović Josip Vidmar Miho Kerina Miodrag Stanković Oto Logo Mirjana Delja Mirko Lovrić Savo Subotin Sonja Flego Janez Koželj Kolja Davičo

Slavko Tihec Gradimir Bosnić Bogoljub Teofanović Spomenik revoluciji u Ljubljani Spomen obilježje "Borbi naroda južnog Banata u Deliblatskoj peščari" Spomenik Kosmajskom partizanskom odredu

Gordana Anđelković Jelica Bosnić

Ljiljana Anđelković Drago Galić Jovan Kratohvil Ljubomir Denković Geza Sakač Franc Leskošek Ljubomir Anđelković Vukosava Mijatović Janko Zadravec Vojin Mraković France Popit Joža Vilfan

Vojin Stojić Mirko Đuranović Vojislav Smole Hranislav Stojanović Edo Turnher

Slobodan Vukelić Ljiljana Smole Boris Kocijančič Spasoje Krunić Gradimir Medaković Dragutin Kovačević Dragoslav Nikolić Spomen područje Donja Gradina Edvard Ravnikar Milan Matović Slavko Matejić Vojteh Ravnikar Ivica Karlavaris Vladimir Kulmaticki Branislav Marinković Bojana Klemenčić Spomen-park u Kraljevu Spaso Bogdanović Fadil Mušić Aleš Vodopivec Ivan Mioč Ljiljana Petrović Vera Kovačić Nandor Glid Petar Pecelj Dušan Rakojević Marica Rakojević Boran Hrelja Cveta Davičo Božidar Marković Vasa Ružić Predrag Sušić Marjan Tepina Ratko Poznatov Josip Jelić Đura Šušnjar Dževad Hozo Ivica Komšić Miša David Danilo Udovički Mirko Radaković Nenad Ristić Živojin Karapešić Dragan Bijedić Mladen Gvozden Miroslav Simenunović-Simeun Aleksandar Drnarski Slavko Pinter Ivica Rukavina Branko Pešić Metka Kraigher-Hozo Elizabeta Plovanić Radmila Radević Spomenik Edvardu Kardelju Ljiljana TanasijevićMilivoje Smiljanić

Milan Rakić Ivan Rackov Marjan Rožič Franc Šetinc Zdenka Popadić Nada Jevrić Jurij Jenštrle Andrej Jemec Zoran Dimitrijević Vojislav Marković

Dženana Janković Ljubomir Perčinlić Goce Popovski Anton Vratuša Ninoslav Janković Zdenko Kalin Lazar Janković

Žarko Nikolić Blagoje Reba Milan Protić Janez Vipotnik Vida Tomšič

Ivan Štraus

Fig. 6a Fig. 6b The network of all awarded participants, mutually linked based on artistic The network of all jury members, mutually linked based on common or technical collaboration on project proposals, and individually linked jury membership, and individually linked with the competitions in with the competitions at which they participated/ Generated with CAN_IS which they participated as jury members.Generated with CAN_IS 156 157 visualization tools that makes the general reading of the network easier, while certain Vojteh Ravnikar Aleš Vodopivec Žarko Nikolić (set of) elements can be visually empathized Bojana Klemenčić Josip Frankol Dženana Janković Vjekoslav Rukljač Mihajlo Terzić Dušan Đurić Zoran Dimitrijević and thus become more easily detectable Milan Protić Goce Popovski Mirko Vranić Vukosava Mijatović Igor Kindij Spomenka Petras Branko Vasiljević Redžo Terzić Džemal Čelić Korčanica (Fig. 7). In this network, both groups of en- Ljiljana Tanasijević Ninoslav Janković Vojislav Marković Lazar Janković Stipe Sikirica Milan Rakić Mirko Đuranović Grozdan Knežević Nada Vasiljević Sima Mirković Nikola Babić tities (competitors and jury members) are Spomenka Maretić Milivoje Smiljanić Branko Pešić Nada Jevrić Branko Ćopić Miho Kerina Mirko Maretić Dragomir Mileusnić Dragoljub Lazić Zdenka Popadić Sava Šljivovački Janez Koželj Vitomir Sudarski Radovan Miščević brought together. Different types of edges Mihajlo Škondrić Olja Ivanjicki Leonid Šejka Ivan Rackov Bogdan Drenča Srećko Majić Boško Bajić Petar Marković Radmila Radević Zdenko Borbaš V. Čus Brane Kregar are distinguished by different coloured lines Nenad Ristić Slavko Pinter Petar Kubičela Slavko Matejić Vojislav Midić Cvetana Bajin-Bakal I. Štalcer Predrag Ristić Zvonimir Barbarić Aleksandar Vasić Ivan Lay Angela Rotkvić Tito Kosty Elizabeta Plovanić Dušan Kostić Z. Kovač (pink – joint work on a competition entry; Prvoslav Popović Miroslav Simenunović-Simeun Roman Zaletel Hasan Zukanović B. Banić B. Tripalo Branislav Marinković Ivica Rukavina Bogdan Bogdanović Zvonimir Nikuljski Dušica Pavlović Miša David Milan Lukić Enes Midžić green – joint jury membership; light blue Marija Vovk Arfan Hozić Mirko Radaković D. Narančić Stanko Jančić Dragoslav Nikolić Branko Petrović Đuro Vukadinović Danilo Udovički Kraljevo Ilija Rikanović Antun Marinović Pavle Gregorić – participation in a competition as a jury Zlatko Šurjak Ivan Kožarić Dragutin Kovačević Zdravko Ileković Dinko Dušan Ogrin Ivan Taubman Vojislav Vasiljević Živojin Karapešić Andrija Spiridonović Zvonko Brkić Slobodan Vukotić Spasoje Krunić Aleksandar Drnarski Stanko Kristl Bogoljub Teofanović Rade Bašić Drago Ibler Nenad Korica Ivan Šibl member; yellow – participation in a compe- Slobodan Vukelić Milan Stanisavljević Dušan Lukač Čedo Grbić Želimir Janeš Raoul Melinčević Zagreb - Cesarec Marko Dec Milenko Radovanović Drago Mažar Marijana Vidmar Smail Tihić Husref Redžić Petar Dabac Gordana Anđelković Vera Dajht-Kralj Sima Miljković Vinko Vinterhalter Ante Ledić tition as a participant), while the size of the Ljiljana Anđelković Ljuba Stamenković Karlo Gašpar Mrazović Ivan Antolčić Božo Petrović Anton Lešnik Đura Šušnjar Ratko Poznatov Miomir Denić Pero Car Ljube Pota Brana Mirković Milan Vrhovac Josip Vaništa two types of nodes (architectural competi- Milena Stanković Veljko Bulajić Boško Baškot Ivan Krajačić Ivo Steiner Boris Cikalovski Tomislav Kožarić Matija Salaj Ljubomir Anđelković Deliblatska peščara Branko Silađin Vojislav Smole Ivan Prokić Boško Karanović Dušan Čalić Jelica Bosnić Skolje - park Esad Kapetanović tions and people) are ranked in size based Božidar Marković Branko Bon Sida Marjanović Cveta Davičo Muhamed Karamehmedović Andrija Mutnjaković Miroslav Begović B. Mrkvić Đuro Salaj Ante Orlić Gradimir Bosnić Milenko Mojsilović Veljko Vlahović Skender Kulenović Boško Šiljegović Anton Zagoda on the degree of centrality. The nodes could Ljiljana Smole Josip Jelić Gabriela Stipel Radivoj Jovetić Ismet Mujezinović Mladen Oljača Bogdan Škarić Zlatko Ugljen Jozo Vranić Miloš Savić Boris Ziherl Milan Bogdanović Ivan Sabolić Momčilo Moma Marković Kamenska Svetko Milin Gojko Nikoliš Vladimir Antolić Hasan Grapčanović Jovanka Jeftanović Emerik Blum not be differentiated by colour because Vasa Ružić Vladislav Ribnikar Kozara Zvonimir Kamenar Bratislav Stojanović Saša Sedlar Kemal Halilović Ljiljana Petrović Vladeta Petrić Miroslav Krleža Marija Ujević Galetović Vladimir Kulmaticki Miodrag Stanković Vukota Tupa Vukotić Bogdan Bogdanović Branko Bulić Ante Gržetić Mersad Berber Slavko Tihec many actors, as we have already shown, Radenko Mišević Moša Pijade Fahrija Ajanović Miro Rodin Dobrica Ćosić Zoran Kržišnik Franc Popek Milan Vukos Milan Đoković Danilo Ivanović Veljko Petrović Smiljan Klaić Kosta Angeli Radovani Marijana Hanžeković Vojin Stojić Gradimir Medaković Boško Budisavljević Nandor Glid Jajinci I Tahir Konjhodžić played dual roles throughout the period. A Miroljub Jevtović Risto Stijović Amir Polić Pavle Blažić Nikola Dobrović Koča Popović Janko Zadravec Obren Stojanović Pavao Ungar Mane Trbojević Ljubomir Ivković-Šuca Marko Čelebonović Josip Kolar Bratislav Obrenović Aleksa Čelebonović comprehensive reading of this visualization Kosmaj Blagoje Kojadinović Jara Ribnikar Vinko Uhlik Stevan Luketić Boran Hrelja Vera Kovačić Kragujevac Ratomir Bogojević Marija Braut Petar Pecelj Geza Sakač Branko Petričić Zaga Jovanović Donja Stubica Mitrovan Živković Aleksandar Krstić Momčilo Petrović Marijan Matković Miodrag B. Protić Nikola Vranić Hrvoje Devidé therefore requires decent knowledge of the Mihajlo Mitrović Đurica Jojkić Grgo Gamulin Stevan Bodnarov Zdenko Kolacio Josip Kokolić Vojin Mraković Dojčilo Mitrović Olga Jevrić Rista Stijović Silvana Seissel Mika Janković Marino Tartaglia Milorad Nikšić Predrag-Peđa Milosavljević Boris Bakrač Predrag Sušić Petar Tatić Beograd - Marx & Engels Srba Andrejević profiles of the most prominent actors. Dragutin Kiš Jure Kaštelan Petar Klemenčić Svetomir Arsić-Basara Vladimir Ivanović Rudolf D. Lupo Dragić Jovanović Borko Novaković Josip Seissel Nikola Bežek Marko Kučinac Vojin Bakić Snežana Milas Jovan Sekulić Anton Bitenc Aleksandar Dragomanović The network itself is characterized by a high Nebojša Delja Živorad Kovačević Zlatko Prica Zdenko Sila Miodrag Pecić Vojislav Stanić Rodoljub Čolaković Ante Marinović Mirko Jokanović Božidar Manić Oto Bihalji-Merin Aleksandar Đorđević Edvard Ravnikar Neven Šegvić Vlado Mađarić Zoran Šonc Ivan Jakić Gertruda Furač Berislav Radimir Donja Gradina Borislav Doklestić Petar Vuković Vladimir Babašek-Orešković Slobodan Marinković Vera Horvat-Pintarić density in the central part, where the green Sonja Flego Dragoje Marić Šime Vulas Mirko Lovrić Dimitrije Dragović Živa Đorđević Jovan Kratohvil Drago Tršar Oskar Berbelja Fedor Wenzler Branko Knežević Josip Vidmar Pavle Vasić Doroteja Ložnik Živorad Martinović Kolja Davičo Ana Bešlić Petrova gora Mirjana Delja Pavle Savić Bogdan Ignjatović Ivica Susović type of edges – joint jury membership – is Uroš Bajić Ante Marinović-Uzelac Tumur Cevegđav Leon Kabiljo Boris Čipan Zlatko Movrin Giulio Rocco Valent Grobenski Petar Marš Oto Logo Mira Halambek-Wenzler Belizar Bahorić Serđo Baskijera Zoran B. Petrović Stojan Ćelić Čačak Vladimir Braco Mušič Vanja Radauš Ivan Antić dominant. A series of smaller groups of teams Ivan Štraus Dragoljub Petrović Beograd - Moša Pijade Olga Vujović Maja Hribar-Ožegović Rade Maksimović Vučko Ivković Jevta Jevtović Petar Hadži-Boškov Igor Toš Suna Drašković Savo Zlatić Snežana Milenković Raoul Goldoni Milan Prelog Mladen Tudor Milovan Marković Ninoslav Kučan Duško Ante Rakić Dobrivoje Barlović Dragomir Nikolić Rade Bulat working on joint competition entries are lo- Nikola Nešić Dragomir Milojević Sakib Hadžihalilović Ljubo Škrnjug Abdulah Sarajlić Čedomir Jeftić Stojan Svilarić Jasmina Dilevska Jovan Soldatović Milojko Drulović Damir Šalat Ema Derossi-Bjelajac Željko Pintarić Drago Kapun Petar Korać Dušan Gligorijević Mateja Rodići Mile Dakić Đino Hrvatin cated along the network periphery, indicating Ivo Wenzler Svetislav Ličina Bojan Bugarčić Draga Simanović Dušan Džamonja Branko Berc Marko Nikezić Mirko Božić Stojan Zafauk Branislav Simonović Miljenko Stančić Branko Ružić Ivo Vitić Jasenka Piščetek Drago Đurović Voja Leković Bilandžić Tomislav Dragan Živković Danijel Načinović a low degree of centrality of those actors. Marko Ušaj Momčilo Krković Ecio Zulijani Jajinci II Vladimir Dobrović Drago Galić Podhum Marko Mušič Bernardo Bernardi Božidar Šalamon Miro Rak Metka Kraigher-Hozo Dušan Jelić Radovan Nikšić Dragica Hobolić Hranislav Stojanović Lojze Dolinar Mladen Gvozden The degree of centrality of blue nodes sig- Andra Milanović Vanda Ekl Marjan Starić Mira Jurišić-Krković Aleksandar Karolyi Ivica Komšić Srijemski front Boško Končar Irena Geril Toma Bunuševac Milenko Poznanović Boris Vižintin Tomaž Breskvar France Popit Labin nifying competitions is especially interest- Zoran Bakić Alojz Drašler Slavko Brezoski Branislav Karadžić Boris Kocijančič Vasilije Janković Jadranka Jugo Dževad Hozo Rudolf Oven Ljubljana - revolucija Dragan Bijedić Vojtjeh Delfin Milivoj Bukić Antun Žunić Andrej Sovre Jakov Jelčić Miodrag Živković Romano Pelčić Nace Šumi ing. As expected, the first competition for Zvonko Petrović Miodrag Radošević Željko Grbac Franc Leskošek Fadil Mušić Ivan Balaško Sonja Kolar Beograd - park prijateljstva Zoran Tasić Marjan Čehovin Vojin Andrejević Joža Vilfan Igor Emili Darivoj Žilić Dušan Rakojević Stanka Dragović Edo Turnher Marjan Tepina Ljubomir Denković the Jajinci memorial is located at the very Aleksandar Đokić Brana Prošić Milan Matović Vojislav T. Dimitrijević Hildegard Auf-Franić Spaso Bogdanović Dušan Milenković Lazar Trifunović Gorana Rodić Borislav Dimitrijević Marica Rakojević centre of the visualization, thus statistically Nada Bogunović Sonja Popova Stojan Batič Ivica Karlavaris Mustafa Musić Bora Zdravković Nikola Janković Dragomir Živković Krešimir Kasanić Božidar Petrović Ljubljana - Kardelj Ajdin Puteš Ivan Mioč Stevan Žutić Svetlana Filipović Ladislav Fekete Ervin Prelog confirming the emphasized importance of Gorana Nikolić Lido Sošić Jernej Kraigher Dragan Slavković Branka Ivaniš Dragan Kiridžić Slobodan Dragović Milan Dajić Virgilije Giuricin Vera Projeva Jovan Rosić Perka Ivković Dragan Pražić Miodrag Tamindžić Vlado Rot this event in terms of establishing stand- Vesna Svoboda Milun Vidić Živorad Lisičić Slavoljub Stanković Milan Arnaut Berislav Iskra Jasminka Simović Rajko Nikolić Savo Subotin Marija Salaj Niko Lehrman Milo Đula Vlada Mitić Dragan Petrović Slavoljub Čurčić Dora Kovačević ards and anticipating the future trends in Franc Šetinc Mihajlo Šoltes Quintino Bassani Nevena Bradić Boris Gaberščik Janez Vipotnik Edo Štoker Živorad Radenković Slobodan Šaban Zorica Janković Dragan Ivković federal competitions. The centrality of the Stevan Bogdanović Šamarica Zdenko Kalin Ljiljana Pekić Jurij Jenštrle Antun Pandurić Borut Kardelj Blagoje Reba Janez Lenassi Miralem Zupčević Tatjana Savić Andrej Jemec Mile Vučković Vladimir Petričević node indicates that the very same authors Tibor Bence Stane Mikuš Aleksandar Komarov Vida Tomšič Dragoljub Mutaović Vanja Pricker Andrej Šmit Ranko Radović Marjan Rožič Petar Skalar Anton Vratuša – for many of whom this competition was Živa Vlahović Ljubomir Perčinlić Grujo Golijanin Mića Mićović Lazar Pribić Ratka Ranković Ferenc Kalmar Milan Pališaški Andrej Kering Milenija Marušić ex Jovanović Zoran Lazović the first chance to become noticed and be Zoran Mutaović Miha Kering Dragutin Zahariaš Aleksandar Ljahnicky Miroslav Pešić Jozef Čipa Leposava Milošević Matija Suhadolc rewarded for their innovative approaches Dejan Đurković Nevenka Postružnik Vladimir Kovačev Janez Suhadolc Živorad Petrović Čedomir Ramljak – continued to be active within the field of Slobodan Ćurčić Goran Martinović Mirko Bičanić Mladen Galić memorial production in the following dec- Fig. 7 ades, either as competitors or jury mem- The network showing all entities included in the relational database of 24 bers. Similar can be said of other larger 158 159 federal competitions for monuments (1955–1980). Generated with Gephi. blue nodes in the network, signifying the second competition for Jajinci, competi- Vojteh Ravnikar Aleš Vodopivec Žarko Nikolić tions for monuments in Kamenska, Sremski Bojana Klemenčić Josip Frankol Dženana Janković Vjekoslav Rukljač Mihajlo Terzić Dušan Đurić Zoran Dimitrijević Front, Petrova Gora and Kozara. Milan Protić Goce Popovski Mirko Vranić Igor Kindij Vukosava Mijatović Džemal Čelić Spomenka Petras Branko Vasiljević Redžo Terzić Korčanica Ljiljana Tanasijević Ninoslav Janković Vojislav Marković Lazar Janković Stipe Sikirica Milan Rakić Mirko Đuranović Grozdan Knežević Sima Mirković Nada Vasiljević Nikola Babić Spomenka Maretić Central figures in the Branko Pešić Nada Jevrić Branko Ćopić Miho Kerina Milivoje Smiljanić Mirko Maretić Dragomir Mileusnić Sava Šljivovački Dragoljub Lazić Zdenka Popadić Janez Koželj Vitomir Sudarski Radovan Miščević network – the case of Mihajlo Škondrić Olja Ivanjicki Leonid Šejka Bogdan Drenča Srećko Majić Petar Marković Ivan Rackov Boško Bajić Radmila Radević Zdenko Borbaš V. Čus Brane Kregar Bogdanović and Džamonja Nenad Ristić Slavko Pinter Petar Kubičela Cvetana Bajin-Bakal Slavko Matejić Vojislav Midić I. Štalcer Predrag Ristić Zvonimir Barbarić Aleksandar Vasić Ivan Lay Angela Rotkvić Tito Kosty Z. Kovač Elizabeta Plovanić Dušan Kostić Miroslav Simenunović-Simeun Prvoslav Popović Roman Zaletel Hasan Zukanović B. Banić B. Tripalo Ivica Rukavina Branislav Marinković Bogdan Bogdanović Zvonimir Nikuljski Dušica Pavlović

Miša David Milan Lukić Enes Midžić The second most central or dominant node Arfan Hozić Marija Vovk D. Narančić Mirko Radaković Stanko Jančić Dragoslav Nikolić Branko Petrović Đuro Vukadinović Danilo Udovički Kraljevo Ilija Rikanović Antun Marinović Pavle Gregorić in the visualization shown in Fig. 7 is Bogdan Dragutin Kovačević Zlatko Šurjak Ivan Kožarić Zdravko Ileković Dinko Dušan Ogrin Ivan Taubman Vojislav Vasiljević Živojin Karapešić Andrija Spiridonović Zvonko Brkić Bogoljub Teofanović Slobodan Vukotić Spasoje Krunić Aleksandar Drnarski Stanko Kristl Rade Bašić Drago Ibler Nenad Korica Dušan Lukač Ivan Šibl Čedo Grbić Bogdanović. Although Dušan Džamonja, due Slobodan Vukelić Milan Stanisavljević Želimir Janeš Raoul Melinčević Zagreb - Cesarec Marko Dec Milenko Radovanović Drago Mažar Smail Tihić Marijana Vidmar Petar Dabac Gordana Anđelković Husref Redžić Vera Dajht-Kralj Sima Miljković Vinko Vinterhalter Ante Ledić to the small number of collaborations and Ljiljana Anđelković Karlo Gašpar Mrazović Ljuba Stamenković Ivan Antolčić Anton Lešnik Miomir Denić Božo Petrović Đura Šušnjar Ratko Poznatov Pero Car Ljube Pota Brana Mirković Milan Vrhovac Josip Vaništa lack of jury participations, is characterized Veljko Bulajić Boško Baškot Milena Stanković Ivan Krajačić Ivo Steiner Tomislav Kožarić Matija Salaj Boris Cikalovski Ljubomir Anđelković Deliblatska peščara Ivan Prokić Dušan Čalić Branko Silađin Vojislav Smole Boško Karanović Jelica Bosnić Skoplje - park Esad Kapetanović by a relatively low degree of betweenness Božidar Marković Branko Bon Sida Marjanović Cveta Davičo Andrija Mutnjaković Muhamed Karamehmedović B. Mrkvić Đuro Salaj Miroslav Begović Ante Orlić Milenko Mojsilović Veljko Vlahović Boško Šiljegović Anton Zagoda Gradimir Bosnić Skender Kulenović Ismet Mujezinović Ljiljana Smole Josip Jelić Gabriela Stipel Radivoj Jovetić Mladen Oljača Bogdan Škarić centrality, he was the most prominent par- Zlatko Ugljen Miloš Savić Jozo Vranić Boris Ziherl Milan Bogdanović Ivan Sabolić Kamenska Momčilo Moma Marković Hasan Grapčanović Svetko Milin Gojko Nikoliš Vladimir Antolić Jovanka Jeftanović Emerik Blum ticipant, taking part in the largest number Vasa Ružić Vladislav Ribnikar Kozara Zvonimir Kamenar Bratislav Stojanović Saša Sedlar Ljiljana Petrović Vladeta Petrić Miroslav Krleža Kemal Halilović Marija Ujević Galetović Vladimir Kulmaticki Miodrag Stanković Vukota Tupa Vukotić Bogdan Bogdanović Branko Bulić Slavko Tihec Ante Gržetić Moša Pijade Mersad Berber of competitions. We compared the back- Radenko Mišević Fahrija Ajanović Miro Rodin Dobrica Ćosić Zoran Kržišnik Franc Popek Milan Vukos Milan Đoković Danilo Ivanović Veljko Petrović Smiljan Klaić Kosta Angeli Radovani Gradimir Medaković Marijana Hanžeković Vojin Stojić Tahir Konjhodžić Boško Budisavljević Nandor Glid Jajinci I grounds and structural power positions of Miroljub Jevtović Pavle Blažić Nikola Dobrović Risto Stijović Amir Polić Koča Popović Janko Zadravec Obren Stojanović Pavao Ungar Mane Trbojević Marko Čelebonović Ljubomir Ivković-Šuca Aleksa Čelebonović Josip Kolar Bratislav Obrenović Jara Ribnikar Stevan Luketić these two statistically prominent actors. It Kosmaj Blagoje Kojadinović Vinko Uhlik Boran Hrelja Vera Kovačić Kragujevac Ratomir Bogojević Marija Braut Petar Pecelj Geza Sakač Branko Petričić Zaga Jovanović Donja Stubica Mitrovan Živković Aleksandar Krstić Momčilo Petrović Marijan Matković Miodrag B. Protić Nikola Vranić Hrvoje Devidé is, however, well known that both were high- Mihajlo Mitrović Đurica Jojkić Grgo Gamulin Josip Kokolić Stevan Bodnarov Zdenko Kolacio Vojin Mraković Dojčilo Mitrović Olga Jevrić Rista Stijović Silvana Seissel Mika Janković Marino Tartaglia Predrag-Peđa Milosavljević Predrag Sušić Petar Tatić Milorad Nikšić Boris Bakrač Beograd - Marx & Engels Srba Andrejević ly prolific authors in the field of memorial Jure Kaštelan Petar Klemenčić Dragutin Kiš Svetomir Arsić-Basara Vladimir Ivanović Rudolf D. Lupo Dragić Jovanović Borko Novaković Josip Seissel Nikola Bežek Marko Kučinac Jovan Sekulić Anton Bitenc Vojin Bakić Snežana Milas Aleksandar Dragomanović Nebojša Delja Živorad Kovačević Zlatko Prica sculpture and architecture, retaining lead- Zdenko Sila Vojislav Stanić Rodoljub Čolaković Miodrag Pecić Ante Marinović Oto Bihalji-Merin Mirko Jokanović Božidar Manić Aleksandar Đorđević Neven Šegvić Zoran Šonc Edvard Ravnikar Vlado Mađarić Ivan Jakić Donja Gradina Gertruda Furač Berislav Radimir Borislav Doklestić ing positions within the system throughout Petar Vuković Vladimir Babašek-Orešković Slobodan Marinković Vera Horvat-Pintarić Sonja Flego Mirko Lovrić Živa Đorđević Dragoje Marić Jovan Kratohvil Šime Vulas Dimitrije Dragović Drago Tršar Oskar Berbelja Fedor Wenzler Branko Knežević Josip Vidmar Pavle Vasić Doroteja Ložnik Živorad Martinović Kolja Davičo Ana Bešlić Petrova gora the period studied. How was it then possible Bogdan Ignjatović Ivica Susović Mirjana Delja Pavle Savić Tumur Cevegđav Uroš Bajić Ante Marinović-Uzelac Leon Kabiljo Boris Čipan Zlatko Movrin Giulio Rocco Valent Grobenski Mira Halambek-Wenzler Belizar Bahorić Petar Marš Oto Logo Serđo Baskijera Stojan Ćelić Zoran B. Petrović Čačak Vladimir Braco Mušič Vanja Radauš that their structural positions in the network Ivan Antić Dragoljub Petrović Olga Vujović Ivan Štraus Beograd - Moša Pijade Maja Hribar-Ožegović Igor Toš Rade Maksimović Vučko Ivković Jevta Jevtović Petar Hadži-Boškov Savo Zlatić Suna Drašković Mladen Tudor Snežana Milenković Raoul Goldoni Milan Prelog Milovan Marković Ninoslav Kučan Duško Ante Rakić visualization were not more balanced? The Dobrivoje Barlović Dragomir Nikolić Rade Bulat Dragomir Milojević Ljubo Škrnjug Nikola Nešić Sakib Hadžihalilović Abdulah Sarajlić Čedomir Jeftić Stojan Svilarić Jovan Soldatović Damir Šalat Jasmina Dilevska Milojko Drulović Ema Derossi-Bjelajac Petar Korać Dušan Gligorijević Đino Hrvatin Željko Pintarić Drago Kapun Mateja Rodići Mile Dakić answer lies in the fact that they employed Ivo Wenzler Svetislav Ličina Bojan Bugarčić Branko Berc Draga Simanović Dušan Džamonja Marko Nikezić Mirko Božić Stojan Zafauk Branislav Simonović Miljenko Stančić Branko Ružić Ivo Vitić Jasenka Piščetek Drago Đurović Voja Leković Bilandžić Tomislav different strategies for establishing and Dragan Živković Danijel Načinović Marko Ušaj Momčilo Krković Ecio Zulijani Jajinci II Drago Galić Podhum Vladimir Dobrović Bernardo Bernardi Marko Mušič Božidar Šalamon Miro Rak Metka Kraigher-Hozo Dušan Jelić Hranislav Stojanović Radovan Nikšić maintaining their power positions. Dragica Hobolić Lojze Dolinar Mladen Gvozden Vanda Ekl Marjan Starić Andra Milanović Aleksandar Karolyi Mira Jurišić-Krković Ivica Komšić Srijemski front Boško Končar Irena Geril Toma Bunuševac Milenko Poznanović Tomaž Breskvar Boris Vižintin Dušan Džamonja (1928–2009) and Bogdan France Popit Labin Zoran Bakić Alojz Drašler Dževad Hozo Slavko Brezoski Branislav Karadžić Boris Kocijančič Vasilije Janković Jadranka Jugo Dragan Bijedić Rudolf Oven Milivoj Bukić Ljubljana - revolucija Antun Žunić Vojtjeh Delfin Andrej Sovre Romano Pelčić Bogdanović (1922–2010) belonged to the Jakov Jelčić Miodrag Živković Nace Šumi Zvonko Petrović Miodrag Radošević Željko Grbac Fadil Mušić Franc Leskošek Ivan Balaško Sonja Kolar Beograd - park prijateljstva Zoran Tasić Dušan Rakojević Marjan Čehovin Vojin Andrejević Joža Vilfan Igor Emili Darivoj Žilić same generation. They both experienced Ljubomir Denković Stanka Dragović Edo Turnher Marjan Tepina Brana Prošić Milan Matović Vojislav T. Dimitrijević Aleksandar Đokić Hildegard Auf-Franić Lazar Trifunović Spaso Bogdanović Dušan Milenković the Second World War: the young Bogdano- Gorana Rodić Borislav Dimitrijević Marica Rakojević Nada Bogunović Stojan Batič Ivica Karlavaris Sonja Popova Nikola Janković Mustafa Musić Bora Zdravković Dragomir Živković Krešimir Kasanić Božidar Petrović Ljubljana - Kardelj Ajdin Puteš Ivan Mioč vić participated in it actively on the Partisan Stevan Žutić Svetlana Filipović Ervin Prelog Ladislav Fekete Gorana Nikolić Lido Sošić Jernej Kraigher Dragan Slavković Branka Ivaniš Dragan Kiridžić Slobodan Dragović Vera Projeva Jovan Rosić Milan Dajić Virgilije Giuricin Perka Ivković Vlado Rot side, while Džamonja was a highly receptive Dragan Pražić Miodrag Tamindžić Vesna Svoboda Milun Vidić Živorad Lisičić Slavoljub Stanković Milan Arnaut Berislav Iskra Rajko Nikolić Savo Subotin Jasminka Simović Marija Salaj Niko Lehrman witness to the horrors that surrounded him Vlada Mitić Dora Kovačević Milo Đula Dragan Petrović Slavoljub Čurčić Franc Šetinc Mihajlo Šoltes Quintino Bassani Janez Vipotnik Nevena Bradić Boris Gaberščik as a child. The creative work of both artists Edo Štoker Živorad Radenković Slobodan Šaban Zorica Janković Dragan Ivković Šamarica Zdenko Kalin Stevan Bogdanović Ljiljana Pekić Jurij Jenštrle Antun Pandurić Borut Kardelj Blagoje Reba Janez Lenassi Miralem Zupčević Tatjana Savić Andrej Jemec was deeply affected – or even determined Mile Vučković Tibor Bence Vladimir Petričević Stane Mikuš Aleksandar Komarov Vida Tomšič Vanja Pricker Ranko Radović Marjan Rožič Dragoljub Mutaović Andrej Šmit – by their wartime experiences. Despite the Petar Skalar Anton Vratuša Živa Vlahović Ljubomir Perčinlić Grujo Golijanin Mića Mićović Lazar Pribić Ratka Ranković Ferenc Kalmar fact they had different backgrounds – one Milan Pališaški Andrej Kering Milenija Marušić ex Jovanović Zoran Lazović Zoran Mutaović Miha Kering Dragutin Zahariaš Aleksandar Ljahnicky Miroslav Pešić Jozef Čipa Leposava Milošević trained as an architect and the other as a Matija Suhadolc Dejan Đurković Nevenka Postružnik Vladimir Kovačev Janez Suhadolc sculptor – both manifested a strong desire Živorad Petrović Čedomir Ramljak Slobodan Ćurčić Goran Martinović to cross the boundaries of their medium. Mirko Bičanić Mladen Galić This not only resulted in major differences in Fig. 8 their poetic language, but early on brought 160 161The complete network with nodes and edges of female entities highlighted. Generated with Gephi. them both to the field of memorial sculpture among the most dominant, prolific and well society and were permanently employed at other professional limitations derived from that allowed for such kinds of experimenta- established names in the field of memorial universities or urban planning offices, were such artistic partnerships should be further tion. Although they had already been recog- production in former Yugoslavia. The ge- invited directly. Their position was therefore investigated, but they certainly contributed nized among most talented authors in the ographic reach of their monuments was privileged compared to those authors – to the structural obstacles women had to first half of the 1950s, the competition for Ja- among the widest, but the commissions were usually emancipated freelance sculptors endure in their professional careers. On the jinci memorial (1957) was a landmark event obtained in different ways. While Džamon- – who were highly dependent on the system other hand, the high degree of centrality for both of them, and the only occasion in ja continued to enter public competitions of competitions. This also explains the ways of the sculptor Olga Jančić and Vera Hor- which they both participated as competitors. throughout his career, Bogdanović aban- in which Bogdanović’s structural position vat Pintarić, prove that it was not impossi- They established themselves professionally doned this practice very early on, instead con- conditioned him to speak against public ble for women to become part of the de- in early 1950s, both as outstanding, leading tinuing to work through direct commissions. competitions. We must keep in mind that cision-making cliques. Despite the better artists and architects of their generation. At This is also clearly visible from their posi- his deep involvement in the decision-mak- social position of women in socialism, it was, this point, however, their careers took differ- tions within two respective networks: that ing processes made him highly aware of all however, much more difficult for women to ent paths: Bogdanović became a member of the participants of the winning projects corruptive, unregulated and problematic meet the criteria and come to such positions: of the Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade in – where Bogdanović takes the central posi- segments of that system. both Jančić and Horvat Pintarić, each in her 1953, thus beginning his life-long academ- tion – and the network of the jury members, own field of work, were completely devoted ic career that was crowned by the title of in which – surrounded by politicians, war Structural position oF to their careers, achieved the highest pro- Professor Emeritus in 1987. His institutional veterans, public intellectuals and several women in the network fessional standards, and were internationally power grew even stronger when he took on other prominent architects and sculptors renowned and connected. leading roles in professional organizations, – Bogdanović looms as the central figure. In addition to conclusions drawn on the basis such as the Yugoslav Union of Architects His connectedness to the jury members at of gender-related statistics, the visualization Conclusions (1964), and when he became a member different competitions, and his continuous presented in Fig. 8 is even more telling in of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and presence in decision-making processes, his term of female positioning within the whole Digital Art History allows researchers to use Arts (1970, resigning in 1981). Džamonja, on social esteem as a public intellectual, critic system of federal public competitions for new digital tools in order to include more the other hand, took the path of what today and theoretician – all of these were crucial monuments in Yugoslavia. The red nodes actors, voices and (hi)stories in an analysis would be classified as a freelance artist. for obtaining direct access to commissions, and edges represent the positions and con- that has so far been constrained and lim- Interestingly, he managed to do so in a so- thus bypassing the tiresome and often risky nections of all female actors within the net- ited by selective approaches and biased cialist system in which there was no real art process of running for competitions. Zden- work. It is clearly evident that the majority perspectives, dictated by the grand narra- market. In part, presumably, this may have ko Kolacio’s structural position and strategy are located along the peripheral edges of tive schemes of the Western world. Although been possible precisely due to the system was rather similar – although being one of the visualization, where women often com- the main objectives of digital art history are of public competitions in which he would the most prolific architects in this field of posed the majority of project teams. As the usually described in terms of quantitative, regularly participate. After gaining enough practice in Croatia, he also soon gave up statistics have shown, women were pres- socio-cultural, spatial analysis, with a ten- experience, skills and confidence at the on submitting project entries, and became ent in the field of memorial production to a dency toward transnational and transdis- Academy of Fine Arts in Zagreb and at Fra- a highly prominent figure within juries. greater extent than would be expected, but ciplinary inclusion of all actors included in no Kršinić’s Master Workshop (1951–1953), The main difference between these two since they usually worked as collaborators the creative process,294 this study has shown he almost completely broke away from the strategies of securing position within the upon projects that rarely won first prizes, they that the same methods can be equally ben- existing hierarchical structures and prac- system of memorial production depended were neither professionally nor financially eficial to the analysis of smaller-scale and tices of the art academy, and embarked on on the material conditions. Džamonja as a motivated to stay in the field of memorial localized phenomena. What is more, it has an independent career. Besides developing freelance sculptor chose to earn his living production or encouraged to compete with shown that, for phenomena such as public a successful international career, applying by making art, and was thus forced to use their own proposals. Women with a higher competitions, it is necessary to take into for numerous public competitions was his every opportunity to acquire funding and degree centrality were often spouses of more account not only those actors who crea- main strategy for developing experimental honoraria. The dynamics of such working successful and famous architects and sculp- practice in open-space large formats, and conditions allowed him to spend more time tors, with whom they worked in teams, like 294 Béatrice Joyeux-Prunel, “ARTL@S: A maintaining an independent position within in his atelier, preparing the extensive and Mira Wenzler-Halambek, wife of Fedor Wen- Spatial and Trans-national Art History the Yugoslav art system. detailed project documentation. On the zler, and Mira Jurišić Krković, wife of highly Origins and Positions of a Research Despite different structural positions and other hand, figures such as Bogdanović prolific Serbian sculptor Momčilo Krković. Program,” Artl@s Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 1 strategies, Bogdanović and Džamonja were and Kolacio, who enjoyed great renown in 162 163 The working conditions, unpaid labour, and (2012): Article 1. tively participated in the process, but to shown that pubic competitions are apt for analyses is the relatively high percentage of juxtapose and overlap their collaborative quantitative and network analysis. The exist- women among the awarded participants. networks with those networks generated ing network could be expanded both in terms However, coupled with their peripheral po- in the decision-making sphere. As the first of its quantitative scope – which would require sition within the network structure, these fig- part of the analysis – based on qualitative further archival research – and in analysing ures contribute to our understanding of the approach or standard historiographical and quantifying the nature and complexity of structural invisibility of female contributions methods – has shown, jury members were entities’ interrelations. In more general terms, to memorial projects. On the other hand, the not only crucial for making decisions; their this study has indicated the analytic potential centrality of some of female entities in the structural position in the system of high-lev- for using competitions as suitable angles for networks opens up further questions regard- el memorial production significantly influ- examining the intersections and overlapping ing their role as gatekeepers in the social enced the dynamics and division of power of the fields of art/architecture and politics network. Such assumptions could, however, positions, constantly challenging – or even in the post-war period. only be investigated through a more in-depth threatening – the democratic principles of Several clear advantages can be outlined in analysis and adequate qualification of the public competitions. Without paying at- the results of such an approach to the phe- nature and quality of the interrelations be- tention to jury membership, it would not nomenon of public competitions for mon- tween various entities. have been possible to detect the division uments. With substantial knowledge on the Finally, as the very structure of this paper of power positions among certain promi- historical background of the phenomenon, manifests, quantitative methods in human- nent authors, as we have shown in the ex- it enables a rapid shift between micro- and ities – regardless of advances in the digital amples of Bogdan Bogdanović and Dušan macro-story perspectives. The automatic technologies that support them – should be Džamonja. Competitions for monuments data calculation and visualization makes preceded by or built upon a substantial body nevertheless managed to maintain a rela- all actors, regardless of their symbolic sta- of knowledge on regarding a certain histori- tively high degree of interest and compet- tus, equally visible within the network, thus cal phenomenon, not only so that researchers itiveness throughout the observed period. reducing the possibility of biased historio- and readers are able to comprehend the level Although participation at federal com- graphical approaches. The visualizations can of its social, political and cultural complexity, petitions was limited exclusively to Yugo- outline collaborative models that lie behind but to improve awareness of the multiple nar- slav citizens, from today’s point of view the production of a monuments or memori- ratives and the existence of personal voices these competitions can be considered as al complex, making visible the multitude of hiding behind differently sized and coloured transnational networking vehicles. It is also actors and professions included in this field nodes and edges, located in abstract dia- important to emphasize the importance of of production, as well as creative collabo- grams and maps. * quantitative logic in social network analysis to rations that have, for various reasons, been opposing the methodological nationalism295 forgotten or overlooked. Such an unbiased still present in most local art historical studies. perspective on the position of individuals Federal competitions were indeed the gen- within larger social networks contributes to a erators of the innovative and experimental fuller understanding of the phenomenon, and development within the field of memorial to the demystification of the role of “artistic * I wish to kindly thank my dear col- sculpture and architecture in Yugoslavia, genius” in the process of monument making, leagues and friends who helped or as- functioning as key organizational platforms without undermining the creative potentials sisted me in the process of gathering that had contributed to the formation of the of individual artists and architects. Not only information on federal competitions for Yugoslav memorial landscape. does team work become more evident in such Yugoslav monuments: Jelica Jovanović, The social network generated and analysed representation, but so does the structural po- Mejrema Zatrić, Tamara Bjažić Klarin, for the purposes of this study is but an initial sition of the “big names” within the network. Marija Đorđević, Katarina Mitrović, Oleg survey of potential further exploration of the Their roles in decision-making processes Romanov, Eleonora Luketić and Ana Kršinić possibilities offered by digital tools. It has open up yet another critical perspective on Lozica. I would also like to thank to the the preferred and/or self-declared artistic reviewers for their valuable comments and 295 For the genesis of the term, see: autonomy of the modernist artist. Among suggestions. Ibid, 11. the most rewarding findings of the statistical 164 165 GRAV, Nouvelle Tendance, 1961; http://www.julioleparc. “Alexander Wollner”, Itaú Cultural, a digital encyclopae- Art and Ideology: The Nineteen-Fifties in a Divided Jelić, S. “Radnički dinar za spomenike”. Borba January org/grav10.html Accessed 12 March 2017. dia of Brazilian culture. Accessed 26 April, 2018. https:// Europe, edited by Ljiljana Kolešnik, 37–56. Zagreb: 4, 1980. www.escritoriodearte.com/artista/alexander-wollner/ Croatian Society of Art Historians, 2004. “Interview with Emmett Williams: Fluxus Artist Extraordi- Joyeux-Prunel, Béatrice. “ARTL@S: A Spatial and naire.” UMBRELLA, March 1998; Accessed 11 July, 2018. Zero Foundation. Accessed 26 August, 2018. http:// Čepić, Mirko. “Spomenik NOBe u Mariboru.” Čovjek i Trans-national Art History Origins and Positions of a http://colophon.com/umbrella/emmet.html www.zero.com prostor: arhitektura, kiparstvo, slikarstvo i primijenjena Research Program,” Artl@s Bulletin, Vol. 1, Iss. 1 (2012): umjetnost, no. 53 (September 1956). Article 1. Itaú Cultural, a digital encyclopaedia of Brazilian cul- Chupin, Jean-Pierre, Carmela Cucuzzella and Bechara ture. Accessed 11 July, 2018. https://www.escritorio- Sanja Horvatinčić Helal (eds). Architecture Competitions and the Produc- Judt, Tony. Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. New dearte.com Between Creativity and Pragmatism: A Structural tion of Culture, Quality and Knowledge: An International York: The Penguin Press, 2005. Piero Manzoni Foundation. Accessed 26 August, 2018. Analysis and Quantitative Survey of Federal Inquiry. Potential Architecture Books Inc., 2015. http://www.pieromanzoni.org Competitions for Yugoslav Monuments and Karge, Heike. Sećanje u kamenu – okamenjeno sećanje. Memorial Complexes (1955–1980) Davidović, Jelena. “Tri spomenika u spomen-parku Belgrade: XX Vek, 2014. Almir Mavignier personal website. Accessed 17 July, pp. 124-165. ‘Kragujevački oktobar’.” Šumadijski anali: časopis za 2018. http://www.mavignier.com/aus_ein.htm istorijografiju, arhivistiku i humanističke nauke, vol. 2, Kazimirović, Vasa. “Bogdan Bogdanović: Umijesto no. 2 (2006): 236–255. strave opredijelo sam se za život”. Vjesnik July 3, 1966. Lidija Merenik, “Before the Art of New Media.” Mute, [Sekretarijat Izvršnog odbora Odbora za izgradnju 3 October (2007). Accessed 23 October, 2018. http:// spomenika na Petrovoj gori]. “Tko gura privatni interes”. Dragičević, Zana. “Spomenik na Petrovoj gori – prilog Klaić, Smiljan. “Natječaj za arhitektonsko-pjezaž- www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/art-new-media Vjesnik March 23, 1975. istraživanju i revalorizaciji.” Anali Galerije Antuna no-skulpturalno rješenje spomenpark u Sarajevu.” Augustinčića, no. 32–33; 34–35 (2015): 385–404. Čovjek i prostor: arhitektura, kiparstvo, slikarstvo i Medosch, Armin. “The Ultimate Avant-garde: New Ten- Andersson, Jonas E., Gerd Bloxham Zettersten, and primijenjena umjetnost, no. 148 (July 1958): 5. dencies and Bit International.” The Next Layer (2008). Magnus Rönn. “Editors’ Comments.” In Architectural Franković, Eugen. ”Spomenik Titu u Zagrebu – kakav i Accessed 26 August, 2018. https://web.archive.org/ Competitions – Histories and Practice, edited by Jonas gdje? Izraz epohe”. Vjesnik March 8, 1985. Kolacio, Zdenko. “’Kova je naša.’ Opći jugoslavenski web/20121218030835/http://www.thenextlayer.org/ E. Andersson, Gerd Bloxham Zettersten, and Magnus natječaj za uređenje spomen-prostora rudaru, Labin, node/731 Rönn, 7–11. The Royal Institute of Technology and Rio Frković, Josip. “Memorijalac spašava privatnik”. Večernji 1980.” Čovjek i postor: mjesečnik Saveza arhitekata Kulturkooperativ, 2013. list September 30, 1989. Hrvatske, no. 340–341(1981): 10–11. Meštrović, Matko. “Art and Technology - Yesterday and today.” Talk delivered at the XXXII AICA Congress, Baković, J. Nikola. “Konkurs za izgradnju Spomen-parka Gamulin, Grgo. “Nesporazum o spomeniku. U povodu Kolacio, Zdenko. “Rudaru i borcu”. Vjesnik June 23, Japan. 1998. Accessed 8 July, 2018. https://monoskop. u Čačku iz 1962. godine.“ Izvornik. Građa međuopš- odgovora arh. Igora Toša”. Hrvatsko Sveučilište Octo- 1981: 6. org/Matko_Meštrović#Essays tinskog istorijskog arhiva Čačak, 32 (2016): 301–334. ber 13, 1971. Kolacio, Zdenko. “Spomenik na Makljenu. Osvrt na Frieder Nake, Susi Grabowski. Computers in fine art, Baković, J. Nikola. “Konačan odabir idejnog rešenja Gamulin, Grgo. “Spomenik na Kozari.” Život umjetnosti, natječaj.” Čovjek i prostor: monthly for architecture, aspects of history and aesthetics. Accessed 21 July, za projekat Spomen-parka u Čačku.” Izvornik. Građa no. 15/16 (1971): 129–142. painting, sculpture, design and applied arts, no. 297 2018. http://www.agis.informatik.uni-bremen.de/LER- međuopštinskog istorijskog arhiva Čačak 33 (2017): (1977): 12–13. NEN/Aktuell/webArt/01.pdf 315–342. Gamulin, Grgo. “Znak u vremenu.” Dometi : književnost, kultura, društvena pitanja, no. 3–4 (1970). Lipstadt, Helene. The Experimental Tradition: Essays on Hans-Ulrich Obrist. “Systematic Thinking by the Late Barjaktarević, Bogoljub. “Podići ili ne podići. O sudbini Competitions in Architecture. Princeton Architectural François Morellet”. Art (July 2016). Accessed 17 July, spomen-obilježja rudarima u Labinu”. Danas October Horvatinčić, Sanja. “Monuments Dedicated to Labor Pr, 1989. 2018. http://www.culturedmag.com/francois-morellet/ 12, 1982. and the Labor Movement in Socialist Yugoslavia.” Et- Ljubičić, Marina. Kozara, spomenik slobode : nološka tribina : godišnjak Hrvatskog etnološkog društ- Memorijalni muzej na Mrakovici. Exhibition catalogue. Poinsot, Jean-Marc. “Pierre Restany: The Letter to Leo Baylon, Mate. “Javni arhitektonski natječaji u Beogra- va, vol. 44, no. 37 (2014), 153–168. Prijedor: Nacionalni park “Kozara”, 2016. Castelli.” Critique d’art [En ligne], 22 | Automne 2003, du između dva rata.” Čovjek i prostor: arhitektura, mis en ligne le 27 février 2012, consulté le 30 juillet 2016. kiparstvo, slikarstvo i primijenjena umjetnost, vol. 226, Horvatinčić, Sanja. “Povijest nemogućeg spomenika: M.B. “Spomenik na Petrovoj gori 1976”. Vjesnik URL: http://critiquedart.revues.org/1878 ; DOI: 10.4000/ no. 26 (1975): 10–13. izgradnja spomenika žrtvama fašizma u Jajincima.” November 23, 1973. critiquedart.1878 Anali Galerije Antuna Augustinčića, no. 32–33; 34–35 Bernik, Stane. “Trije natečaji.” Sinteza. Revija za likovno (2015): 261–282. Macura, Milorad. “Zapisi na marginama pravilnika Round table discussion “New Tendencies and Architec- kulturo, vol. 2, no. 7 (October 1967): 38–43. o konkursima.” Arhitektura – Urbanizam: časopis ture: Abstraction, Ambience, Algorithm”, International Horvatinčić, Sanja. Spomenici iz razdoblja socijalizma za arhitekuru, urbanizam, primenjenu umetnost i Architecture Exhibition, Venice, 8 August, 2014. Accessed Bihalji-Merin, Oto, ed. Jajinci: povodom konkursa za u Hrvatskoj – prijedlog tipologije. PhD Thesis. Zadar: industrijsko oblikovanje, no. 16 (1962): 51. 18 May, 2016. http://www.mavignier.com idejni projekt spomenika žrtvama fašizma, Jajinci – University of Zadar, 2017. Jugoslavija. Belgrade: Publicističko-izdavački zavod Malmberg, Catherine, ed. The Politics of Design: Jugoslavija, 1958. I.O. “Pomanjkanje etičkog i profesionalnog odnosa”. Competitions for Public Projects. Princeton, NJ: Policy Smithsonian American Art Museum. Nam Jun Paik Col- Vjesnik January 8, 1983. Research Institute for the Region, 2006. lection. Interview of Artist Otto Piene. Accessed 21 July, Bjažić Klarin, Tamara. Arhitektonski i urbanistički nat- 2018. https://americanart.si.edu/research/paik/re- ječaji između dva svjetska rata (1918.–1941.) – slučaj Janković, Nataša. “Architectural Terri(s)tories: Jajinci Marter, Joan. “The Ascendancy of Abstraction for Public sources/piene Zagreb. Zagreb: Institute of Art History, 2018. Memorial Park in Belgrade.” AM Journal, no. 12 (2017): Art: The Monument to the Unknown Political Prisoner 81–98. Competition.” Art Journal. Sculpture in Postwar Europe Jesus Rafael Soto personal website. Accessed 5 De- Burstow, Robert. “Western European Modernism in the and America 1945–1959, vol. 53, no. 4 (1994): 28–36. cember 2017 http://www.jr-soto.com/fset_savie_uk.html Service of American Cold-War Liberalism.“ In 208 209 Meštrović, Matko. “Bogdanovićev projekt za spomenik u n.n. “Konkurs za spomenik u Skoplju.” Naprijed, no. n.n. “Žrtvama Jasenovačkog logora podići će se Šišović, Grozdana. Architectural Competition Practice Jasenovcu (1963).” In Matko Meštrović. Od pojedinačnog 14 (1946). veličanstven spomenik”. Četvrti jul March 19, 1963. and the Issue of Autonomy of Architecture. PhD općem, 127–128. Zagreb: DAF, 2005. Thesis. Belgrade: University of Belgrade – Faculty of n.n. “Konkurs” (Opštejugoslavenski anonimni konkurs za Odbor za dovršenje spomen-parka Jajinci u Beogradu. Architecture, 2016. Meštrović, Matko. “Idejni projekti za spomenik u izradu idejnog rešenja grobnice i prostora u spomen-parku “Konkurs za idejno rešenje Spomen-parka Jajinci u Kamenskom (1961)”. In Matko Meštrović. Od pojedi- u Kragujevcu). Arhitektura – Urbanizam. No. 40 (1966): 56. Beogradu.” Arhitektura – Urbanizam: časopis za Škunca, Josip. “Antun Augustinčić: Jedanput natječaj, načnog općem, 123–125. Zagreb: DAF, 2005. arhitekuru, urbanizam, primenjenu umetnost i industri- drugi put ne”. Vjesnik December 31, 1970. n.n. “Konkurst za izrdu idejnog projekta spomenika jsko oblikovanje, no. 83-84 (1980): 91. Minić, Oliver. “Konkurs za spomenik palim borcima u palim borcima NOVJ na Sremskom frontu 1944.- Spomen područje Dotrščina. Natječajni radovi. Zagreb: Čačku.” Arhitektura – Urbanizam: časopis za arhitekuru, 1945. Godine.” Arhitektura – Urbanizam: časopis OMN. “Idejno rješenje za izgradnju I uređenje ‘Par- Skupština grada Zagreba; Komisija za uređenje urbanizam, primenjenu umetnost i industrijsko obliko- za arhitekuru, urbanizam, primenjenu umetnost i ka prijateljstva’ u Beogradu.” Arhitektura – Urbani- spomen-područja Dotrščina, 1980. vanje, no. 17 (1962): 46, 47; 52. industrijsko oblikovanje, no. 74-77 (1975): 148–150. zam: časopis za arhitekuru, urbanizam, primenjenu umetnost i industrijsko oblikovanje, no. 33–36 (1965): Stanić, Stevan. “Bez marame na licu”. Nin Febrary 8, Mitrović, Katarina. “Intelektualac u socijalističkoj um- n.n. “Konstitutiran dbor za gradnju spomenika na 87–88. 1981: 28–29. jetnosti: spomenik Moši Pijadi u Beogradu—djelo Bran- Petrovoj gori”. Vjesnik March 18, 1973. ka Ružića (Intellectual in Socialist Art: Branko Ružić’s Ortega, Nuria Rodríguez. “Digital Art History: An Ex- Stanić, Stevan. “Posle konkursa: Bez priča i potpričica”. Monument to Moša Pijade in Belgrade).” Peristil, no. n.n. “Natječaj za izradu idejnog rješenja spomenika na amination of Conscience.” Visual Resources: An In- Nin January 25, 1981: 36–68. 60 (2017): 129–146. Petrovcu u Petrovoj gori.” Čovjek i prostor: arhitektura, ternational Journal of Documentation, vol. 29, no. 1–2 kiparstvo, slikarstvo i primijenjena umjetnost, no. 222 (2013): 129–133. Stojanović, Branislav. “Konkurs za spomenik Kosma- Mlikota, Antonija. “Natječaj za spomenik drugu Titu (1971): 16–20. jskom partizanskom odredu.” Arhitektura – Urbanizam. i vjekovnoj borbi Zadra za slobodu iz 1982. godine.” Pasinović, Antoaneta. “Možda opet na treći način”. No. 56-57 (1969): 33. Anali Galerije Antuna Augustinčića, no. 32–33; 34–35 n.n. “Natječaj za izradu idejnog rješenja spomenika Vjesnik July 20, 1978. (2015): 299–321. seljakčkoj buni 1573. godine u Hrvatskoj i Sloveni- Stojanović, Bratislav. “Spomenik Marksu i Engelsu u ji u Gornjoj Stubici.” Čovjek i proctor: arhitektura, Pavlaković, Vjekoslav. “Slojevit a nedefiniran prostor”. Beogradu.” Godišnjak Muzeja grada Beograda, vol. III Murwaska-Muthesisus, Katarzyna. “Oskar Hansen kiparstvo, slikarstvo i primijenjena umjetnost, no. Vjesnik January 8, 1983. (1956): 553–588. and the Auschwitz Countermemorial, 1958–1959.” In 211(1970):14–16. Figuration/Abstraction: Strategies for Public Sculpture Pavlović, Bora. “Još jednom oko rešenja spomen-parka Surla, Zoran, ed. Sremski front od bitke do spomenika. in Europe, 1945–1968, edited by Charlotte Benton, n.n. “Rad V. Bakića najprihvatljiviji”. Vjesnik June 29, u Jajincima”. Borba Febraury 26, 1981. Po kazivanju arhitekte Miroslava Krstonošića i Bogda- 193–211. London: Ashgate Publishing Limited; Henry 1977. na Tankosića zabeležio Zoran Surla. Novi Sad: Atelje Moore Institute, 2004. Pravilnik o konkursima iz oblasti arhitekture i urbanizma. Krstonošić, 2017. n.n. “Rezultati konkursa za spomen park na Vracima.” Belgrade: Savez arhitekata Jugosalvije, 1968. n.n . “Da mrtav junak živima kazuje”. Politika Ekspres ARH: Časopis društva arhitekata Sarajevo, no. 9, vol. February 1, 1981. 3 (1966): 5–32. Toš, Igor. “Natječaj – samovolja ili društveni dogovor?”. Radojković, Radmila. “Dušan Džamonja: Spomenik – iz- Vjesnik March 16, 1975. n.n “Konkurs” (Odbor za podizanje spomenika Moši n.n. “Rezultati natječaja za idejno prostorno-arhitek- raz iskustva i povjerenja”. Četvrti jul 15 January 1980, 14. Pijade). Arhitektura – Urbanizam: časopis za arhitekuru, tonsko, skulpturalno i hortikulturno rješenje dela uže Toš, Igor. “Pokušaj prebacivanja odgovorinosti”. Vjesnik urbanizam, primenjenu umetnost i industrijsko obliko- memroialne zone Spomen-područja Donja Gradina”. Radojmović, Radmila. “Kosta Angeli Radovani: Izgu- April 3, 1975. vanje, no. 43 (1967): 61. Borba January 2, 1980. bljeno poverenje u konkurse?”. Četvrti jul 22 January 1980, 12. Tušek , Darovan. Arhitektonski natječaji u Splitu 1945.– n.n “Spomen-park u Kragujevcu.” Arhitektura – Urban- n.n. “Rezultati općejugoslavenskog anonimnog 1995. Split: Društvo arhitekata Splita; Građevinski izam: časopis za arhitekuru, urbanizam, primenjenu natječaja za izradu spomen obilježa ‘Borbi naro- Rajčević, Uglješa. Zatirano i zatrto. O uništenim srpskim fakultet Sveučilišta u Splitu, 1996. umetnost i industrijsko oblikovanje, no. 44 (1967): 50. da južnog Banata u Deliblatkoj peščari”. Čovjek i spomenicima (Vol. I and Vol. II). Novi Sad: Prometej, prostor: arhitektura, kiparstvo, slikarstvo i primijenjena 2001. Vasiljković, Kosta. “Sublimirajući pijetet protiv ridajućeg n.n. “Idejno rješenje ‘Parka prijateljstva’ u Beogradu.” umjetnost, no. 234 (September 1972). ‘valjanja u suzama’”. Oko January 22, 1981: 20. Čovjek i prostor: arhitektura, kiparstvo, slikarstvo i Ravnikar, Edvard. “Konkurs za spomenik revolucije u Lju- primijenjena umjetnost, no. 157 (April 1966): 6, 9. n.n. “Rezultati opštejugoslavenskog anonimnog bljani.” Arhitektura – Urbanizam: časopis za arhitekuru, Wenzler, Fedor. “Natječaj za spomenik pobjede na konkursa za idejno urbanistički i arhitektonsko rešenje urbanizam, primenjenu umetnost i industrijsko obliko- Srijemskom frontu.” Čovjek i prostor: arhitektura, ki- n.n. “Iz programa za idejno rešenje spomen.parka Spomen parka sa spomen grobljem i spomenikom vanje, no. 17 (1962): 48, 49; 57. parstvo, slikarstvo i primijenjena umjetnost, no. 268 Jajinci.” Arhitektura – Urbanizam: časopis za arhitekuru, žrtvama palim oktobara 1941. Godine u Kraljevu.” (July 1975): 8–11. urbanizam, primenjenu umetnost i industrijsko Arhitektura – Urbanizam: časopis za arhitekuru, Ridle, Andrea, and Lukas Schretter, eds. Das interna- oblikovanje, no. 86–87 (1982): 78–81. urbanizam, primenjenu umetnost i industrijsko cionale Mahnmal von Nandor Glid. Idee, Wettbewerbe, Wenzler-Halambek, Mira. “Centralni park novog Sko- oblikovanje, no. 61–62 (1970): 134. Realisirung. Berlin: Metropol-Verlag, 2015. plja.” Hortikultura: Jugoslavenski časopis za privredna, n.n. “Izvještaj Komisije o izboru natječajnih radova za praktična I teoretska pitanja iz kortikulture, vol. XXXV, Spomenik podbjede narodne revolucije u Kamenskom n.n. “U Zagrebu otvorena izložba ‘Predlog spomenika S. Ab. “Natječaj za spomenik Titu i revoluciji. Sedam no. 3 (September 1968): 1–3. o nagrađenim radovima”. Vjesnik January 15, 1961. Jasenovac’”. Četvrti jul March 19, 1963. neuspjelih radova”. Vjesnik December 12, 1982. Živković, Mirjana. “Javna rasprava o konkursu za Ja- n.n. “Javni natječaj za idejno rješenje spomenika n.n. “Žiri doneo odluku za idejno rešenje spomen-par- Schreibman, Susan, Ray Siemens, and John Unsworth. jince. Privid protivljenja”. Politika December 17, 1980. Edvardu Kardelju”. Borba June 21, 1979: 8. ka”. Ibarske novosti December 11, 1970. A New Companion to Digital Humanities. John Wiley & 210 211 Sons, 2016. Archival Sources Željka Tonković, Sanja Sekelj Pejović, Katarina. “Bakal, Boris: navigator izmještanja WHW, “Što, kako i za koga, povodom 152. godišnjice Duality of Structure and Culture: A Network i diskontinuiteta – portret multimedijalnog umjetnika.” Komunističkog manifesta.” Accessed July 25, 2018. Institute of Art History Documentation, Grgo Gamulin Perspective on the Independent Cultural Up & Underground 7/8 (2004): 18–33. http://www.whw.hr/novosti/index.html Archives. Institute of Art History, Zagreb. Scene in Zagreb and the Formation of the WHW Curatorial Collective Stubbs, Paul. “Networks, Organisations, Movements: Unpublished sources Institute of Art History Documentation, Newpaper Clip pp. 166-192 Narratives and Shapes of Three Waves of Activism in Library. Files: Personal files of artists, Monuments NOB. Croatia.” Polemos 15 (2012): 11–32. Interview 1, interview by Ivana Meštrov and Željka Ton- Institute of Art History, Zagreb. ković, November 3, 2015. Charmaz, Kathy. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Vidović, Dea. “Nezavisna kultura u Hrvatskoj (1990. – Stevan Luketić Personal Archives, Zagreb. Files: Donja Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London– 2010.).” In Dizajn i nezavisna kultura, edited by Maroje Interview 2, interview by Ivana Meštrov and Željka Ton- Gradina & Petrova Gora. Thousand Oaks–New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2006. Mrduljaš and Dea Vidović, 9–39. Zagreb: Savez udruga ković, November 24, 2015. Klubtura – UPI 2M PLUS d.o.o. – KURZIV, 2010. Miodrag Živković Personal Archives, Belgrade. File: Cvjetičanin, Biserka, and Vjeran Katunarić, eds. Kulturna Interview 4, interview by Ivana Meštrov and Željka Ton- Tjentište. politika Republike Hrvatske: nacionalni izvještaj. Zagreb: Vidović, Dea. “Taktičke prakse u pristupima lokalnim ković, November 25, 2015. Ministarstvo kulture Republike Hrvatske – Institut za kulturnim politikama u Zagrebu.” Život umjetnosti 86 Vera Dajht Kralj Personal Archives, Zagreb. File: Skoplje. međunarodne odnose, 1998. (2010): 22–35. Interview 11, interview by Ivana Meštrov, December 22, 2015. Interview with Miodrag Živković in his atelier. Belgrade, Herz, Andreas, Peters, Luisa, and Inga Truschkat. “How Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. Social June 2017. to do qualitative structural analysis: the qualitative Network Analysis. Methods and Applications. New York: Interview 12, interview by Ivana Meštrov, January 13, interpretation of network maps and narrative Cambridge University Press, 2009. 2016. Croatian State Archives, Zagreb. Vjesnik Press Docu- interviews.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 16/1 mentation, 1964–2006 (HR HDA 2031-2-1), box: KUL- (2015). White, Harrison C. Identity and Control: How Social Interview 15, interview by Željka Tonković, March 17, 401, MO-838, MO-839. Formations Emerge. Princeton: Princeton University 2016. Janković, Vesna, and Nikola Mokrović, eds. Antiratna Press, 2008. Archives of Yugoslavia, Belgrade. Reg.: SUBNOR (297). kampanja 1991. – 2011. Neispričana povijest. Zagreb: Interview 16, interview by Sanja Horvatinčić and Željka File: 24 (Republički odbor SUBNOR Hrvatska 1949.– Documenta – Centar za suočavanje s prošlošću – Online sources Tonković, March 29, 2016. 1971.): „Dopis Saveza arhitekata Hrvatske SUBNOR-u Antiratna kampanja, 2011. Jugoslavije“, March 19, 1964. Bauer, Una. “Crvene niti kontinuiteta i kolaboracije Interview 17, interview by Ivana Meštrov and Željka Ton- Kadushin, Charles. Understanding Social Networks. – intervju s kustoskim kolektivom WHW.” Kulturpunkt, ković, March 29, 2016 Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Ljubljana. Theories, Concepts and Findings. New York: Oxford March 9, 2010. Accessed July 25, 2018. https://www. . Documentation. Files: Slavko Tihec, Spomenici NOB. University Press, 2012. kulturpunkt.hr/content/crvene-niti-kontinuiteta-i-ko- Interview 18, interview by Sanja Sekelj and Željka Ton- laboracije-0 ković, December 6, 2016. Knoke, David, and Song Yang. Social Network Analysis. “Izvještaj Komsije o izboru natječajnih radova za Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2008 [1982]. Clubture. Accessed August 14, 2018. http://www.club- Interview 20, interview by Sanja Sekelj, December 8, Spomenik pobjede narodne revolucije u Kamenskom ture.org/ 2016. – Nagrađeni radovi”. Croatian State Archives, Osijek. Medak, Tomislav, and Petar Milat, eds. Prospects of [1585] KOORDINACIONI ODBOR SUBNOR-a ZA PO- Arkzin / Izgledi Arkzina. Zagreb: Arkzin – Multimedijalni Galerija ŠKUC, “Why MSE-projects?.” Accessed Octo- Interview 21, interview by Sanja Sekelj and Željka Ton- DIGNUĆE I ZAŠTITU SPOMENIKA NOB-e U SLAVONIJI institut, 2013. ber 4, 2018. http://www.galerijaskuc.si/v2/why-mse- ković, March 6, 2017. – Našice; 1957/1970: knj. 4, kut. 5; 0,50. PrP. projects/ Mische, Ann. “Cross-talk in movements: rethinking Interview 25, interview by Sanja Sekelj and Željka Ton- Online Sources the culture-network link.” In Social Movements and Multimedijalni institut, “Zagreb – kulturni kapital Evrope ković, April 7, 2017. Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action, 3000.” Accessed August 14, 2018. www.mi2.hr/hr/surad- Život umjetnosti (thematic issue “Digital Art History”, edited by Mario Diani and Doug McAdam, 258–280. nje/zagreb-kulturni-kapital-evrope-3000/ Ljiljana Kolešnik ed.), no. 96 (2016). Accessed December New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 4, 2018, https://zivotumjetnosti.ipu.hr/99-2016-digi- Sandić, Srđan. ”Kritičar kao dionik, zagovarač i medi- talna-povijest-umjetnosti-digital-art-history/ Mische, Ann. “Relational sociology, culture, and agen- jator – intervju s Markom Golubom.” Vizkultura, March cy.” In The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis, 9, 2016. Accessed July 25, 2018. https://vizkultura.hr/ Guidelines UIA. Competition Guide for Design Com- edited by John Scott and Peter J. Carrington, 80–97. kriticar-kao-dionik-zagovarac-i-medijator/ petitions in Architecture and Related Fields. Accessed Los Angeles–London: Sage, 2011. January 3, 2019. https://www.uia-architectes.org/webA- Spieker, Sven. “Interview with WHW Collective.” ART- pi/uploads/ressourcefile/32/uiacompetitionguide.pdf Naša priča: 15 godina ATTACK!-a. Zagreb: Autonomni Margins, July 5, 2011. Accessed July 25, 2018. http:// kulturni centar, 2013. www.artmargins.com/index.php/5-interviews/635-in- Johanna Drucker, Anne Helmreich, Matthew Lincoln terview-with-whw-collective-zagreb and Francesca Rose, “Digital art history: the American Pachucki, Mark A., and Ronald L. Breiger. “Cultural scene,” Perspective: actualité en histoire de l’art, no. 2 holes: Beyond relationality in social networks and cul- Vidović, Dea. “Život s WHW-om – intervju s Dejanom (2015). Accessed December 17, 2018. https://journals. ture.” Annual Review of Sociology 36 (2010): 205–224. Kršićem.” Kulturpunkt, August 16, 2010. Accessed July openedition.org/perspective/6021?lang=en 25, 2018. https://www.kulturpunkt.hr/content/%C5%BEi- vot-s-whw-om 212 213