Dragan Calovic - Serbian Cultural Heritage and Socialist Realism

8/17/2019 Dragan Calovic - Serbian Cultural Heritage and Socialist Realism

1/14


2/14

Dragan Ćalović

Megatrend Review

316

social themes and left-oriented theoretical-artistic strivings became includedin a broader process of social transformation and attained an official charac-ter. By institutionalizing party influence in the implementation and planningof cultural policy, as well as through party-directed artistic criticism, a strong

mechanism of state influence on artistic life was constructed, securing the sub-ordination of artistic theory and practice to prescribed political, i.e., party goals.The new art was supposed to express “the people’s thoughts and desires” andportray the efforts expended in the building of a new, socialist society, as well asfurnish a new iconography for the coming era. Such an engaged art was partlya continuation of the leftist tendencies of the engaged art of the pre-war period,but much more a consequence of specific cultural frameworks that resulted fromthe establishment of political ties with the Soviet Union.

The influence of the Soviet Union and calls to accept socialist realism in

art were noticeable in Yugoslavia even in the pre-war period, before all throughthe work of the Communist Party and the artists that were in some way linkedto it. Still, until the establishment of the new state, following the defeat of theAxis Powers, as the official art of the international workers’ movement and theUSSSR, socialist realism caused polemical reactions in Yugoslavia. Some whollyaccepted its ideas, while others rejected it, considering it to be unsustainable.However, this power balance changed already in the first post-war years. Thenewly established authorities demanded a redifinition of relations in all spheresof social life. The role of art was seen in the glorification of the revolution and

socialist construction. The demands placed upon it were that it be thematicallyclear and ideologically pure in order to achieve the greatest possible effects.

2. Art in the function of Party ideology

Seen as a powerful means of shaping citizens’ conciousness, art was chargedwith the task of supporting the newly established ideology, being viewed as areflection, explanation and document of contemporary reality.1 Art was suppo-

sed to be “accessible and easily understood,” while artists were expected to actpedagogically, raising the socio-political consciousness of all citizens. Still, this“documentation of reality” rejected all possibility of naked naturalistic depic-tion or a free interpretation of social changes. There were established norms andconventions through which reality was to be shown. The artist was expected toexpress a clearly affirmative stance toward the process of socialist constructionand show faith in the progressivity of the Party ideology.

Party-directed criticism demanded that artists go out into the field, con-nect their work with the reality that was taking place outside atteliers and libra-

1 Proglas Saveza likovnih umetnika Jugoslavije (Declaration of the Association of Artists ofYugoslavia), Beograd, 1949


3/14

Vol. 8 (2) 2011: pp. 315-328

Serbian cultural heritage and socialist realism 317

ries, become chroniclers of a time that was promising great changes. They wereexpected process actual reality, communicate contemporary historical events,the country’s renewal and industrialization, scenes from public works actions,political manifestations, to depict the image of the new man, scenes from the

liberation struggle, the horrors of the concentration camps and other relatedthings. Works that expressed such contents and communicated them throughan easily readable form were considered to be “high-minded.” In that way, in theminds of Party ideologues, art was gaining a pedagogical character. Not onlythat – it was being included in the ideological struggle for the achievement of thegoals set down by the Party.

In post-war Yugoslavia art criticism was often seen as a tool of politicalguidance of artistic activity and, thus, placed in the function of achieving poli-tical, rather than artistic demands. Criticism was the domain of authors loyal to

the Party. Among these, especially active in the early post-war period in Serbiawere Radovan Zogović, Čedomir Minderović, Jovan Popović, Branko Šotra and,more rarely, Milovan Đilas. Art criticism was to be a vehicle of “Party ideas” andto direct artists’ work. Everything that ventured outside the framework impo-sed by the Party was evaluated as “formalism,” “decadence,” “art for art’s sake,”“bourgeois tradition,” etc.

The influence of directed art criticism was supported by a planned culturalpolicy and state control of cultural institutions. In addition to the work of pro-fessional artists’ associations, which was guided by the Party, the work of publis-

hing houses, galleries, theaters and other cultural institutions was also harmoni-zed with the official party line. Control of cultural-artistic work was, in the firstplace, achieved through legal regulations, then through a hierarchically arran-ged relationship of institutions through which cultural policy was being carriedout and, finally, by placing “people loyal to the Party” in responsible functionswithin the established institutional system.2

Cultural policy among workers was carried out through the United LaborUnions organization.3 An apparatus consisting of educational sections was builtwithin the labor union organizations, from where publishing, mass-cultural

work, theoretical-pedagogic work, etc. were run, while all work within the laborunion was directly subordinated to the Party Agitprop apparatus. According tothe First Five-Year Plan, the cultural policy towards the working class had the taskof explaining to the workers the significance of their participation in the overallprocess of economic and state renewal. In that context, artists were to includethemes from workers’ lives in their work. According to Ljubordag Dimić, theseworks were primarily intended for the working class, their task being to mobilizethe laboring masses and provide them with an example that the working class

2

Lj. Dimić, Agitprop kultura. Agitpropovska faza kulturne politike u Srbiji 1945–1952, Rad,Beograd, 1988, p. 493 Ibid, p. 77


4/14

Dragan Ćalović

Megatrend Review

318

could accept as its ideal.4 In addition, a cultural policy carried out in a plannedway was supposed to develop the workers’ ideological consciousness, as well asincrease the working class’ general cultural level. This was to a great extent car-ried out through the inclusion of workers in amateur cultural-artistic societies,

as well as the organization of numerous “appropriate” cultural manifestationsthat were supposed to stimulate working élan, enthusiasm and satisfaction withthe initiated state reforms.

The development of post-war art in Yugoslavia was to proceed in step withthe initiated political changes. In a time of great social shifts, art was seen asan inseparable part of the general course of events. On the symbolic plane, itwas supposed to wage the same battle as the official ideology in changing exis-ting social relations. Directed by the official art theory and art criticism, art wasbecoming a battle formation of Party policy in the cultural sphere.

Already at the beginning of December 1947 in Zagreb, the First Congressof Visual Artists of FPR Yugoslavia reflected the changed position of artists andart as a whole. Đorđe Andrejević Kun‘s headline presentation, “On the Possi-bilities, Tasks and Prospects of Our Art,” emphasized that the Five Year Planprovided Yugoslavian artists with new themes and inspirations: “They have thehonorable role of expressing and immortalizing this historic movement.”5 Thiskind of standpoint was best manifested in works such as: Exploring the Terrainin New Belgrade (1948) by Boža Ilić; Construction (1951) by Đorđe AndrejevićKun; Construction of the Bridge in Bogojevo (1947) by Milan Konjović; View of

New Belgrade Under Construction (1948) by Predrag Milosavljević; Maiden withSickle (1949) by Milivoje Nikolajević; The Worker Heroes of the Aleksinac Mines(1950) by Mihailo Petrov; Rade Stanković‘s sculptures Electrical Workers (1948)and Longshoreman (1952); Boško Karanović’s lithographs from the Youth Railway;the painting Youth Constructing Railway (Us Constructing Railway – c. 1949) byBoža Ilić; etc.

To a lesser extent, the construction theme was also expressed in literature,before all in the works of younger authors. An example of poetic glorification ofwork and the construction of the country is found in the verses of the Song of the

Vranduk Miner, by Miroslav Mitrović, published in “Mladost” magazine no. 6 in1947, as well as in the poem The Danube-Tisa-Danube Canal , by Bogdan Čiplić(1949), where the building of the Canal is connected with the transformation ofVojvodina’s landscape from a swamp to an idyllic region, covered by fields ofgrain and new settlements.

The publication of works on the construction of the country were suppor-ted through visual and literary media, as well as through intensive photograp-

4

Ibid, p. 855 Đ. Andrejević Kun, “O mogućnostima, zadacima i perspektivi naše likovne umetnosti,”paper presented at the First Congress of Visual Artists of FPRY, 1947


5/14

Vol. 8 (2) 2011: pp. 315-328


hic reports on the initiated mass process.6 This created a specific atmosphere ofoptimism around the new socialist society, with the authors themselves beingincluded in the work on glorifying the “enthusiasm and the achieved results” inthe renewal of the war-torn country.

Demands for artists’ more intense engagement in post-war Yugoslavia weremixed with evocations of the wartime horrors and casualties suffered by theYugoslavian peoples, as well as emphasis of the role of the Communist Partyand the Partisan movement in the liberation of the country. Among the moststriking examples of the use of wartime themes in art were the paintings Witnes-ses to Horrors (1948) and The Column (1946) by Đorđe Andrejević Kun, and thegraphics Old Herzegovina, The Column and Battle Station by Branko Šotra, Sut- jeska by Đorđe Teodorović, and From the Fifth Offensive by Voja Dimitrijević.

Monumental sculpture played a special role in glorifying the liberation

struggle in Yugoslavian post-war art. On the occasion of the announcement of acontest organized by the People’s Republic of Serbia for draft sketches and projectdesigns for monuments in Jajnici, Kragujevac, Titovo Užice, Bela Crkva, Kral- jevo, Priština and on Mt. Fruška Gora, Oto Bihalji Merin wrote in his text “OnMonuments Worthy of Immortal Deeds” (1948) that these monuments were toachieve, in stone and bronze, an artistic materialization of examples of “... hero-ism, human greatness and courage in the struggle for national liberation and theachievement of socialism. ”7

Thanks to numerous state-financed projects, post-war Yugoslavia was tur-

ned into a huge construction ground. Monuments glorifying the Partisans’ libe-ration struggle and ossuaries devoted to the war’s victims were sprouting in allparts of the country. They were meant to preserve the memory of the “heroichistory” of the Yugoslavian peoples, but also to instruct newer generations in thespirit of “Yugoslavian patriotism”. One of the first monuments devoted to thenational liberation struggle was made by Antun Augustinčić in Batina Skela onthe Danube. Work on it began at the beginning of 1945, and lasted a little morethan two years. Raised in remembrance of the meeting of Yugoslavian Partisanforces and the Red Army forces, it was a monumental depiction of the “unbre-

akable friendship” between the Yugoslavian and the Soviet peoples, as well as asymbol of the establishment of the new ideology on Yugoslavia’s territory.

Wartime themes were equally present in literary works, of which the follo-wing were undoubtedly among the most prominent literary depictions of theliberation struggle: Daleko je sunce (Distant Is the Sun, 1951) by Dobrica Ćosić;Zapisi iz oslobodilačkog rata (Notes from the War of Liberation, 1946) by Rodol- jub Čolaković, written as a form of chronicle of events in Partisan units during

6 On more details regarding the use of photography as propaganda, see: M. Todić, Fotografija

i propaganda: 1945–1958, JU Književna zadruga, Banja Luka, Helicon, Pančevo, 20057 O. Bihalji Merin, “O spomenicima dostojnim besmrtnih dela,” in: Književne novine, No.21, yr. I, July 6, 1948, p. 2.


6/14

Dragan Ćalović

Megatrend Review

320

the initial war years; the diary Za Titom (After Tito, 1945) and the story Oblacinad Tarom (Clouds Above the Tara, 1947) by Čedomir Minderović; and Istinitelegende (True Legends, 1944; second supplemented edition 1948) by Jovan Popo- vić, a literary treatment of certain episodes from the liberation war.

A result of the Party’s powerful influence in all spheres of social life, theideologically interpreted perspective of social development directed the develop-ment of the domestic art of the observed period, making it a vehicle for the achievement of Party goals, as well as for the glorification of the anti-fascist struggleof the Yugoslavian peoples, while providing support for the ideals put forward bythe new society. A special role in setting the new course of Yugoslavian art in theearly post-war period of all-encompassing struggle to implement social transfor-mation was played by the First Congress of Writers of Yugoslavia, held in 1946,8which established the Association of Writers of Yugoslavia as the “supreme

forum and regulator of literary and book life.” In his speech, Ivo Andrić saw thefounding of the Association of Writers of Yugoslavia as active participation onthe part of writers in the process of general state renewal, and their contributionto the construction of a “people’s state.”9 Of special significance in that sense wasRadovan Zogović’s paper “A Look at Our Literary Situation and Tasks” (1946),which in a certain sense defined the framework of literary activity in liberatedYugoslavia. In his paper, Zogović expressed the view that “progressive” writers’are interested in depicting testimonies from the Partisan struggle and from occupied territories and portraying work and creative enthusiasm and testimonies of

Slavic peoples’ brotherhood and unity, along with producing so-called manifestson the struggle for the liberation of all Yugoslavian provinces. In recognizing suchinterests as progressive strivings, Zogović called upon Yugoslavian writers to beeven more productive in portraying the characters of fighters, workers, enemies,and women and child-participants of the liberation struggle, in offering an artis-tic portrait of the agrarian reform and the spread of culture, to write about theRed Army (referred to as the “liberatrix”) and, ultimately, to portray the charac-ter of the new Yugoslavian man.10

Zoran Mišić also demanded a certain dose of documentarity, achieved by

experiential proximity to the treated events. In his text “A Few Remarks onBeginners’ Works” (1947), he mentioned essential separation from depictedevents as a frequent mistake made by young writers. This primarily referred toauthors who sought to portray the construction of the country and youth publicworks actions. He demanded that the authors themselves also take part in the

8 The congress was held on November 17 and 18, 1946, in the big hall of Kolarac Universityin Belgrade.

9 I. Andrić, “O statutu Saveza književnika,” in: Naša književnost, no. 12, yr. I, December

1946, p. 50610 R. Zogović, “Osvrt na naše književne prilike i zadatke,” Paper at the First Congress of Writersof Yugoslavia in Belgrade, in: Republika, No. 11–12, yr. II, Nov.-Dec. 1946, pp. 868-869


7/14

Vol. 8 (2) 2011: pp. 315-328


construction process, in order to be able to portray those events in their worksin the most successful way. That would allow young writers to offer a “... livingand inspired portrait of the new youth” and, through genuine experience ratherthan acceptance of “hollow phrases,” take in the “greatness and the beauty” of

the new age.11The general tendency to have the Yugoslavian literatures develop in the “tigh-

test connection” with the socialist construction and the country’s overall econo-mic, political and cultural development was also expressed at the plenum of theboard of the Association of Writers of Yugoslavia, held on November 23-24, 1947in Belgrade. The basic tasks placed before Yugoslavian writers in the presentedpapers included work on advancing the unity of the Yugoslavian peoples, as wellas on intensifying the development of creative literary-artistic and social activi-ties of all Yugoslavian writers.

Jovan Popović was another one to demand that the new reality be portrayed,asking writers to note all the “important moments of reality” and incorporatethem in their creative work. “Great victories seek their literary witnesses, the cha-racters of heroes and workers, characters made for songs, seek their bards,” wrotePopović.12 Contemporary Yugoslavian writers were asked to express the “entiredynamic” of current events, the “huge accomplishments” and changes that werehappening in society, to express workers’ feelings, thoughts, hardships, problems,passions and convictions. In his text “For a Theoretical Uplifting of CulturalCadres and Increasing the Quality of Literary-Artistic Works,” published in the

“Literary Newspaper” in 1949, Popović called upon writers to even more stronglyexpress “... élan in the construction of socialism, the growth of our industry, inwhich our workers and experts are waging battle for the plan, the process of thetransformation of villages.”13 In fact, these were precisely the tasks – which, by hisown admission, were not at all easy – that Popović identified as the main tasksthat were placed before contemporary Yugoslavian writers and artists.

In the text “The Party and Literature” (1948), Popović recognized party-min-dedness as the basic characteristic of so-called progressive literature, i.e., as thecategory that makes writers into people’s writers.14 In his opinion, the Party is

the one that inspires writers in the new Yugoslavian society, the one that extends“help” in the ideological guidance of literary life and the “proper acceptance”of the cultural heritage. Relying on Lenin, Jovan Popović defined party-min-dedness as the “... enrichment and strengthening of literary creation; it enableswriters to interpret reality in a true and prescient way, to, inspired by progressive

11 Z. Mišić, “Nekoliko napomena o početničkim radovima,” in: Mladost, no. 7 - 8, yr. III,July–August 1947, pp. 100-101

12 J. Popović, “Reč književnika,” in: Književne novine, No. 1, yr. I, February 17, 1948, p. 113

J. Popović, “Za teorijsko uzdizanje kulturnih kadrova i povećanje kvaliteta književno-umetničkih dela,” in: Književne novine, No. 1, yr. II, January 4, 1949, p. 114 J. Popović, “Partija i književnost,” in: Književne novine, No. 20, yr. I, June 29, 1948, p. 1


8/14

Dragan Ćalović

Megatrend Review

322

science, deeply fathom and artistically perfectly express reality, to draw strength from the people and instruct the people for socialism, to construct genuine heroes from life and create heroes in life – to belong to the people and to humanity as awhole precisely because they are party-minded .”15 Party-mindedness was seen

as an important attribute of literature and art in socialist society because, as hewent on, only socialist party-minded literature “... expresses the historical pathof the working class at the head of the working people and genuinely points tothe future.”16

Basing his standpoint on Lenin’s text “Party Organization and Party Lite-rature,” Popović accepted the view that literature must not be an “individualthing.”17 In addition, Popović did not see Lenin’s view of literature as a “cog and ascrew” in the social-democratic mechanism as a whole as a degradation of litera-ture but as its orientation toward a new perspective of development, within which

party-mindedness is placed as the basic direction marker of literary creation.Popović interpreted Lenin’s definition of party-mindedness as an enrichment anda strengthening of literary creation, linking the principle of party-mindedness with the basic principles of socialist realism. To Popović, this principle becamea unifying principle, which encompassed not only the demand that art shouldharmonize itself with the Party’s goals and program, but also the demand that artbe a reflection of reality, as well as its interpretation, that it play a pedagogic role,that it offer the image of the new man – the hero of socialist society.

In presenting a review of the development of Croatian literature in his text

“Literature Faced with New Tasks” (1945), Marin Franičević highlighted thetasks that stood before domestic writers under the new circumstances, but alsoon the basis of established tradition.18 The basic task being imposed upon con-temporary literature was to, while relying on the realist tradition (of Croatianliterature, as well as that of other “brotherly peoples”) and “properly evaluating”current reality and the “magnitude of the events in our homeland,” treat currentreality and serve as a document for future generations. It was expected to “...shape and artistically vivify the gigantic struggle and the heroic image of ourman....”19 Before all, that meant that literature should offer a portrayal of the “...

image of our hero-leader at the front and behind the lines, to paint the image ofthe hero-worker, the enthusiasm of our youth, the sacrifice of our mothers, topaint the image of the people’s strength in its creative ascent, to besing and paint

15 Ibid, p. 116 Ibid, p. 117 Ibid, p. 118 In his text Franičević was primarily concered with analyzing the development of post-war

Croatian literature, but his views are indicative of the accepted guideline for development,

which other Yugoslavian literatures were expected to follow as well.19 M. Franičević, “Književnost pred novim zadacima,” in: Pisci i problemi, Kultura, Beograd,1948, p. 216


9/14

Vol. 8 (2) 2011: pp. 315-328


the creation of our peoples’ brotherhood and unity, the love for the homelandliberated with the blood of its best sons, to nurture it and elevate it to the highestpedestal.”20 Writers were expected to take an active part in contemporary events,to be “participants, not observers” in the great social changes, to confidently and

decisively take up their new position and participate in the development of thetaste of the “broad masses.”21

The development of theoretical understandings was moving in the samedirection in the visual arts as well. In his text “The Question of Art among Us”(1946), written for the First Congress of Visual Artists, Sreten Stojanović expres-sed the view that their lack of political consciousness had separated artists fromthe people and subordinated them to the will of the bourgeoisie.22 According toStojanović, such a relationship lay at the root of the lack of ideas, helplessness andaimlessness that characterized the great majority of artists.23 He emphasized that

the significance of the contemporary age lay precisely in the “... people’s politicalstruggle for power and its taking of economic goods into its own hands. Everyartist has to know this. He has to participate in this struggle, because he is alsoa part of the people, and has to contribute to this struggle with his works.”24 Sto- janović went so far as to make the artist’s participation in the “people’s struggle”an important criterion in the evaluation of a work of art.

Stojanović thought that it was necessary to view current social occurren-ces in a general context, as a mass movement of struggle for freedom and jus-tice. And, according to Stojanović, precisely this struggle contained a “huge and

inexhaustible source of beauty and strength,” which should serve to stimulateartists and writers. And artists had to possess a certain political grounding inorder to be able to draw closer to the significance of the entire process. Only inthat way, he went on, would the artist be able to absorb himself in the people’sstrivings, to become one with the people and its paths and, ultimately, to identifyhimself with it.25 Stojanović concluded his text by emphasizing the importanceof understanding the spirit of the times and of “political unification” with thepeople. This ideal was to be achieved through artists’ constant political educa-tion, in their acceptance of the themes of the Yugoslavian peoples’ liberation

struggle, as well as themes connected with current Yugoslavian reality, its cha-racter and the character of the soldier-worker.26

20 Ibid, p. 21621 Ibid, pp. 216 - 21722 The text was not made public due to the objections that came, of which the most energetic

were those coming from the Association of Visual Artists of B-H.23 S. Stojanović, “Pitanje umetnosti kod nas,” in: O umetnosti i umetnicima, Prosveta,

Beograd, 1952, p. 9524

Ibid, p. 9625 Ibid, p. 9626 Ibid, p. 101


10/14

Dragan Ćalović

Megatrend Review

324

Grga Gamulin was another one who demanded that the new art be built onthe foundations of the initiated social changes. In his text “Art at a Turn” (1947),Gamulin contrasted bourgeois art, which he tied to the conditions of bourgeoissociety, with the new, socialist art, which was being produced in a society “...

which has an open perspective toward the future, in a people that approacheswork and life with passion.”27 Thus, when speaking of socialist realism, he wasreferring before all to the “passionate reality of creative work,” which should notonly be realistically depicted in painting and sculpture but also molded “... inits passion, vivacity and fighting optimism.”28 In Gamulin’s view, in order totruly attain socialist art and restore “true human meaning” to their work, artistsshould find a way to realize the romantic side of reality. He believed that thiswas the only way that contemporary Yugoslavian art would be able to turn itselftoward the future.29 Such interpretations of socialist realism brought Gamulin

closer to its Stalinist-Zhdanovian interpretation as revolutionary romanticism,founded in support of the ideals of the new society set down by the Party.

The change in the country’s political direction, brought by the conflict withthe Cominform, also brought changes in cultural policy. Rejection of foreignorganizational models and models and a return to domestic experience, butwithout a deeper analysis of work in the cultural and scientific fields, was alre-ady demanded at the Second Plenum of the Central Committee of the Commu-nist Party of Yugoslavia in January 1949, and subsequently affirmed in EdvardKardelj’s speech before the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in mid

December of that year.30 One of the key events for the spread of the new ideas andfor liberation from the exclusive cultural influence of the Soviet Union was theThird Congress of Writers of Yugoslavia. The congress condemned the dogma-tic character of previous creative work and the influence of Stalinism on Yugo-slavian cultural life. In his presentation, Miroslav Krleža sharply condemnedthe limitations of creative freedom in artistic, cultural and public life, emphasi-zing that, by taking an independent road to socialism, Yugoslavian reality wasacquiring specific characteristics and contents, which would inevitably reflecton artistic creation as well. In addition, Krleža appealed for a revision of all the

previous judgments regarding art and a redefinition of relations, both regardingworks from the past and contemporary artistic accomplishments.

At the beginning of the 1950s, art criticism began to more and more openlyfree itself from Soviet inf luence and the principles of socialist realism. In writing

27 G. Gamulin, “Umjetnost na zaokretu,” in: Republika, No. 4, yr. III, April 1947, p. 25128 Ibid, p. 25129 Ibid, p. 25.30 At the Second Plenum of the CPY CC, of special significance were the speeches of

Aleksandar Ranković and Milovan Đilas, along with the “Resolution of the II Plenum ofthe CPY CC on the Current Organizational and Agitation-Propaganda Tasks of the Party”(Texts published in: Partijska izgradnja, No. 1, yr. I, March 1949, pp. 3-46).


11/14

Vol. 8 (2) 2011: pp. 315-328


about the VIIth Exposition of Bosnian-Herzegovinian Artists, Branko Šotra lau-ded the fact that the presented works contained “no trace” of the vulgar, natu-ralistic understanding of socialist realism that characterized Soviet art.31 Theofficial rejection of soc-realist experience was also expressed in the Resolution

of the Second Congress of the Association of Visual Artists of Yugoslavia, whichpointed to the need to resist the uncreative naturalism of Soviet art. This turningto new paths was subsequently manifested in Yugoslavia’s participation at theXXVth Venetian Biennial, its first after liberation.32

The literature of this period produced works that represented an attemptto synthesize revolutionary topics and freer expression. A division was formedamong writers, between the realists gathered around the Literary Newspaper(Knjževne novine) and the modernists gathered around Youth (Mladost) maga-zine. Book publishing saw an increased turning toward domestic and Western

authors and the loss of primacy of Soviet literature. The thematic plans of theliterary publishing houses became much more varied, and the number of publis-hed titles increased at the expense of circulation.33

However, the loosening of reigns in artistic production and book publishingdid not mean that the reigns were removed. The Party continued its sharp oppo-sition to everything that departed from the official view of cultural policy, andall works that overstepped the set boundaries of “creative freedom” were rejectedas reactionary and opposed to the “revolutionary” development of the country.The rejection of the Soviet cultural model was being carried out through the

negation of Soviet artistic theory, but not through an abandonment of Party-controlled cultural policy. Under the changed social circumstances, portrayalsof reality were to serve as the most obvious denial of the accusations that werearriving from the Eastern bloc. Art retained its “fighting,” propaganda charac-ter, with only the aims of its struggle being changed.

3. Turn on the plane of artistic theory and practice

Initiated by the change in the CPY’s political course, the turn on the plane ofartistic theory and practice in Yugoslavia was indicative of a change in the approachto the subordination of art to political goals. The rebellion against the dogmatiza-tion of art and Party control over artistic creation that intensified at the beginningof the 1950s, having been initiated and controlled by the Party itself, did not heraldan end of the process of politicization of the aesthetic in post-war Yugoslavia, but

31 B. Šotra, “Sedma izložba Udruženja likovnih umjetnika Bosne i Hercegovine,” in:Književne novine, No. 52, yr. II, December 27, 1949, p. 3

32

At the Venice Biennial, Yugoslavia was represented by: Kos, Lubarda, B. Ilić, Mujezinović,Augustinčić, Kršinić, Radauš, Bakić, K. A. Radovani.33 Lj. Dimić,ibid., p. 260


12/14

Dragan Ćalović

Megatrend Review

326

rather a redefinition of the political tasks placed before artistic theory and practicein changed socio-historical circumstances. Thus, the departure from Zhdanovismand Stalinist culture did not yet mean a total liberation of artistic thought. Still,the turn on the political plane directed to a great extent subsequent readings of

early post-war Yugoslavian art. Seen primarily as an expression of political dic-tate and rejected ideological views, the art of this period was seen as a testimonyof wrong political decisions, which should be discarded. The change in political

views of the late 1940s and early 1950s sparked a change in the way in which thecultural heritage of the early socialist period in Yugoslavia was treated. The margi-nalization of artistic works and the cultural heritage of this period would continuein the years that followed, as a part of the process of the affirmation of the newpolitical standpoints. The destruction of socialist ideals that occurred during the1990s has opened up new perspectives for cultural policy, defining the authorities’

relationship toward the cultural heritage from recent history. Art that celebratedthe revolution and the building of a new society was interpreted as an expressionof an ideological consciousness that would not hinder future social developmentonly if it was to be relegated to oblivion. Thus, the acceptance of new values wasaccompanied by a conception of cultural policies that did not see an interest inprotecting the national cultural heritage from more recent history.

The marginalization of the cultural heritage from the early post-war periodwas carried out not just in the field of cultural policy but in the theoretical fieldas well. The art and art theory developed in the early post-war period in Yugo-

slavia was viewed exclusively as an expression of political-ideological dictate,which meant that the need for its deeper examination was rejected. However,in recent years, thanks to research done in the domain of art theory, there hasbeen a change in the view by which Yugoslavian art of the early post-war perioddoes not deserve the closer attention of researchers. In that direction, especiallyimportant has been the contribution of the historical-theoretical research doneby Milanka Todić, Aleksandar Kadijević, Lidija Merenik and others.

And, thus, more than half a century after the beginning of the project oftransforming domestic art in the spirit of planned socialist development, the

question of the perception of the found cultural heritage has been opened. Yugo-slavian art of the early post-war period, to a great extent politically directed,represents an important segment of the domestic historical heritage, testifyingnot only to past political world views but also to the ideals of a specific age andits accepted values, as well as to the artistic strivings that marked the period.Hence, a definition of the relationship toward the art theory and practice of thisperiod would have to be founded on a critical analysis of the preserved materialsand their comprehensive evaluation.

It is possible to recognize the justification for this demand just on the basis

of an analysis of the basic guidelines by which the development of the artistic-theoretical understandings of the early post-war period was defined. Understood


13/14

Vol. 8 (2) 2011: pp. 315-328


as an activity that influences overall social progress, art in post-war Yugoslaviawas supposed to be included in the initiated process of social reform and socia-list construction. This meant the imposition of a Party-determined developmentperspective upon Yugoslavian art theory and practice. Art was supposed to sup-

port the official ideology and, with its tendencies, actively participate in contem-porary events; to achieve the Party-imposed vision of Yugoslavian reality; to,following the principle of optimism and expressing a clear (socialist) world view,influence the country’s “revolutionary” development; to express the “greatnessand beauty” of the new age and emphasize the importance of the initiated socialreforms. The acceptance of such views determined to a great extent the perspec-tive of artistic development in the country. However, as art has never in historybeen free of ideological influence, an achieved politicization of the aesthetic can-not stand as sufficient reason for marginalizing the artistic practice of the early

post-war period, much less for neglecting its research.On the other hand, the inclusion of artists in the process of changing social

relations also assumed the imposition of demands to portray, by way of art, the cre-ation of the brotherhood and unity of the Yugoslavian peoples, thus contributing tothe establishment of stable interethnic relations in the country. Art was also suppo-sed to be a vehicle for supporting the initiated process of construction and indus-trialization of the country on new foundations. Art was to present testimonies fromthe Partisan struggle and from the occupied territories, to show the heroism of the

fighters and glorify the liberation struggle of the Yugoslavian peoples during World

War II. Although the treatment of wartime themes emphasized the role of JosipBroz Tito and the Communist Party in the country’s liberation, the portrayal of thewar with all its sufferings and horrors also served as a tribute to the heroic efforts ofthe Yugoslavian peoples in the struggle for the liberation of the land.

4. Conclusion

Subordinated to the demand of supporting broader social reforms, Yugosla-

vian art of the early post-war period was supposed to contribute to the victoryof socialist construction. Art was supposed to transmit the posited ideals of theera in which it was produced. It was supposed to support hope for a better world,express the humane strivings fortified in belief in a possible future society, builton the foundations of the anti-fascist struggle. Although it came about under thecover of a strong political dictate, early post-war Yugoslavian art was supportedby a faith in the possibility of building a new, more humane society. It is preci-sely these humane strivings, although ideologically supported, that are openingup the space for a rereading of early post-war Yugoslavian art. Born out of the

revolutionary struggle, the art of socialist realism represents a testimony of greatideals and the ruling zeitgeist of mid 20th century Yugoslavia. Regardless of the


14/14

Dragan Ćalović

Megatrend Review

328

question of the justification of the ideological views that supported its develop-ment, the art of this period represents a part of the cultural heritage that bearstestimony of the beliefs that determined the course of events in the more recentpast of these parts. Thus, its critical understanding can be seen as a key to a bet-

ter understanding of the national cultural identity.

References

Andrejević Kun, Đ.: “O mogućnostima, zadacima i perspektivi naše liko-• vne umetnosti,” paper presented at the First Congress of Visual Artists ofFPRY, 1947Andrić, I.: “O statutu Saveza književnika,” in:• Naša književnost , No. 12, vol. I, December 1946

Bihalji, Merin, O.: “O spomenicima dostojnim besmrtnih dela,” in:•Književne novine, No. 21, vol. I, July 6th 1948Dimić, Lj.:• Agitprop kultura. Agitpropovska faza kulturne politike u Srbiji1945–1952, Rad, Beograd, 1988Franičević, M.:• Pisci i problemi, Kultura, Beograd, 1948Gamulin, G.: “Umjetnost na zaokretu,” in:• Republika, No. 4, vol. III, April1947Mišić, Z.: “Nekoliko napomena o početničkim radovima”, in:• Mladost ,No. 7–8, vol. III, July–August 1947

Popović, J.: “Partija i književnost,” in:• Književne novine, No. 20, vol. I,June 29th 1948Popović, J.: “Reč književnika,” in:• Književne novine, No. 1, vol. I, Febru-ary 17th 1948Popović, J.: “Za teorijsko uzdizanje kulturnih kadrova i povećanje kval-•iteta književno-umetničkih dela,” in: Književne novine, No. 1, vol. II, Jan-uary 4th 1949Proglas Saveza likovnih umetnika Jugoslavije• , Beograd, 1949Stojanović, S.: “Pitanje umetnosti kod nas,” in:• O umetnosti i umetnicima,

Prosveta, Beograd, 1952Šotra, B.: “Sedma izložba Udruženja likovnih umjetnika Bosne i Herce-•govine,” in: Književne novine, No. 52, vol. II, December 27th 1949Todić, M.:• Fotografija i propaganda: 1945–1958, JU Književna zadruga,Banja Luka, Helicon, Pančevo, 2005Zogović, R.: “Osvrt na naše književne prilike i zadatke”, Paper at the First•Congress of Writers of Yugoslavia in Belgrade, in: Republika, No. 11–12,yr. II, Nov.-Dec. 1946, pp. 868-869

Paper received: August 29th, 2011Approved for publication: September 5th, 2011

Dragan Calovic - Serbian Cultural Heritage and Socialist Realism

Documents

Transcript of Dragan Calovic - Serbian Cultural Heritage and Socialist Realism