Search Results

Past Programs 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2018 Program Archive WCSCD 2018 Call for Applications March 26, 2018

Events Lecture Series Participant Activities Program Participant Activities 2024 Glossary l(a)unch: gender issues On WCSCD educational programme | Collective reflections Walking as a Way of Knowing – Belgrade Regenerative living-creating spaces for the multi species co-existence Celebrating Resilience and Solidarity Glossary l(a)unch: a passage between collecting and transforming 2022 Program Participant Activities 2020/21 Series of texts developed by participants of WCSCD 2020/2021 program as a response to Bruno Latour text What protective measures can you think of so we don’t go back to the pre-crisis production model? 2019 To be enjoyed endlessly – a zine final project by WCSCD2019 curators Seda Yıldız and Ewa Borysiewicz Reading of the biggest image in Belgrade The WCSCD 2019 Salary Spreadsheet: Expanding the Conversation Around Salaries in the Arts < Mentors Educational Program How to Apply >

Open call: WCSCD Educational program 2025/2026 Jan, 2025 On WCSCD educational programme | Collective reflections On WCSCD educational programme | Collective reflections June 2024 Walking as a Way of Knowing – Belgrade Button September 2024 Regenerative living-creating spaces for the multi species co-existence September to October 2024 Borderlines July 2024 – ongoing Celebrating Resilience and Solidarity June 2024

Current Program Open call: What Could Should Curating Do Educational Program 2025/2026 Open call: What Could Should Curating Do Educational Program 2023/2024 Past Programs 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018

Events Lecture Series Participant Activities Glossary l(a)unch: a passage between collecting and transforming Workshops dates: June 14th 1pm Goethe Institute Belgrade June 15th 12 noon Skup Udruzenje, Novi Sad Workshops conceived and led by Asida Butba, Anna Ilchenko, Andrey Parshikov, Laura Rositani and Mirjana Savic Participants of WCSCD educational program, led by international curator Biljana Ciric, invite you to a workshop aimed at starting a conversation around rural cultural practices in the region. The group of curators, composed of Asida Butba, Anna Ilchenko, Andrey Parshikov, Laura Rositani and Mirjana Savic, were involved in a year-long project in which they investigated examples of rural communities linked to artistic processes in the Western Balkans. The curatorial approach of the group aims to subvert the idea of the archive as a simple collection of information, thus making this research always alive and in progress. The research fields include: economics, politics, art, spirituality and gender issues , collected through a glossary idea. The glossary is intended to serve not only as an archive but also as an attempt to find new meanings for the words. This workshop aims to expand research on the topic and make it public and collective. Through the sharing of ideas and experiences and collective writing, the proposal is to create a new knowledge archive that is accessible to everyone. Some of the questions we would like to continue unpacking through workshops and collective wisdom of participants are: Communal art making- the concept that goes beyond human collaboration, and involves interactions with both human and non-human entities, including the land itself; Way of adopting and fusing multiple economic and lifestyle strategies of practices in rural and whether and how they can become useful reference to think post pandemic crises we are in; Gender complexities in rural through prism of family projects and invisible labor of woman; Presence of spirituality as a collective principles and communal ethos. Program: Introduction (15 minutes): Presentation of the research process and glossary Sharing of ideas and experiences (60 minutes): Participants are invited to sit around a table where a paper tablecloth will serve as the space for leaving traces in the process of collective response which can be anything - an association, a memory, a visual or another term. People can write directly on the shared tablecloth in order to have shared thoughts on a big unique piece of paper. The process will be accompanied by a shared meal to create a moment of further conversation and sharing. Collective reading (30 minutes): Collective reading of the mind mapping and group discussion. Creation of a collective manifesto. Conclusion (15 minutes): Reflections on the workshop activity and on the outcome The workshop is free and open to everyone . No prior knowledge, special skills or requirements needed. Participants are encouraged to share their unique perspectives within a safe and supportive environment where everyone feels comfortable sharing their ideas. Everyone is invited to bring some food and drinks to share with the group at the picnic after workshops. Registration is required: for workshop in Belgrade pls send an e-mail to what.could.curating.do@gmail.com to confirm your participation. For workshop in Novi Sad pls register via Skup Udruzenje https://www.instagram.com/skup.udruzenje/?hl=en For further information, feel free to contact us. < Mentors Educational Program How to Apply >

Open call: WCSCD Educational program 2025/2026 Drawing by Stefan Ilic Start of Open call: January 7th 2025 Deadline for submission: February 28th 2025 We will reach shortlisted candidates for interview by March 10th 2025 Final program participants list to be announced: March 20th 2025 Program starts: end of August 2025 (final date to be confirmed after participant selection). Duration of program: eight months on site: three months total (end of august to end of October 2025 + April 2026). In between onsite sessions there will be online workshops and gatherings twice a month from November 2025 until March 2026. The WCSCD educational program is open to artists, curators, and cultural workers seeking to develop different working methodologies that respond to urgent challenges facing cultural work today. Through collective learning and rooted in our shared realities we will explore and practice different methodologies, embracing failure as an essential part of the learning process. Our learning gestures are aimed towards deconstructing how, where and with whom knowledge is produced and made public, and who we cite in the process. The 2025/2026 educational project continues WCSCD’s self-reflective development of instituting through collective thinking and practicing. Together, we explore possible institutional models that transcend traditional binaries: rural/urban, culture/nature, and woman/man. This work builds on the foundations laid by previous program participants, creating bridges between different generations' methodologies and knowledge. While previous program participants looked at historical examples of artistic practices in rural areas of the Balkans, the focus of the upcoming program will be researching situated practices of instituting in the region that are still active and that offer different propositions on relationality and ways of instituting. Special emphasis throughout the program will be given to exploring ways of practicing in times of scarcity and ways to continue situated work in a meaningful way. We will question and practice responses to questions such as: What kind of exhibitions do we really need? Can we re-define the purpose of the exhibition? Can we practice the exhibition as a learning opportunity? How can we reinstall learning in exhibition making as Chus Martinez asks? The program is conceived by Biljana Ciric, founder of WCSCD, in collaboration with curator Laura Rositani, who participated in a previous WCSCD program. It is locally coordinated and situated in collaboration with The Shock Cooperative and S.K.U.P. The program mentors are: Chus Martinez (director of the Art Institute at the FHNW Academy of Art and Design, Basel, where she also runs the Institute’s exhibition space Der Tank), Nina Montmann (Professor of Art Theory at the University of Cologne, curator, writer, and PI at the Global South Study Center (GSSC) at the University of Cologne), Sergio Montero Bravo (architect, designer, researcher, and member of Inland), Lara Khaldi (director of de Appel), Toby Upson (writer), Robida (collective that works at the intersection of written and spoken words – with Robida Magazine and Radio Robida – and spatial practices developed in relation to the village of Topolò/Topolove , where the collective is based). This edition of the program will be situated in Novi Sad city, 30min by train from Belgrade. WCSCD’s educational program was established in 2018 and is mostly situated in Belgrade. It is an international program for artists and curators. Having both curatorial and artistic positions in close proximity is very important for WCSCD. In many places that lack an art infrastructure, these positions constantly merge, complement and support one another. The WCSCD educational program has been a testing ground for creating a collective learning site and a space to think about how to institute differently. The central place of the educational program in WCSCD’s activities has been vital to the institution. The program has helped guide us, creating a space to collectively consider many practical questions as well as to think about our future. Practical information No prior degree in art or art history are required in order to apply. The program is organized through different sequences. Workshops are held four days a week with mentors and WCSCD colleagues. Selected participants will be provided reading material and instructions for preparation prior to the program. The course fee is charged according to your country income (you need to be a passport holder of that country). For lower income countries, the 2025/2026 program fee is 450 euros. For lower and middle-income countries, the 2025/2026 program fee is 750 euros. For middle and upper-income countries, the 2025/2026 program fee is 1300 euros. For high income countries the program fee is 2200 euros Please use this reference for your country income: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups Payments should be made in advance and in instalments if needed. We encourage individuals and institutions to support cultural workers’ education through supporting their participation in the program. About your stay: The program fee doesn’t include cost of travel to Serbia and Novi Sad, or research trip costs. For the two-month stay in 2025, seven days of the program will take place in the countryside on land that WCSCD has taken custodianship of, while the rest of the program will be in Novi Sad. Food and accommodation in the village will be covered by WCSCD, while participants will need to cover accommodation costs in Novi Sad as well as costs of the research trip. The research trip will be to Topolo Robia for a duration of four days in 2025. For the one month stay in 2026 the same conditions apply. How to apply Applications should include the following items as a single Word or PDF document: a letter of interest stating your reasons for applying to the program your biography and CV portfolio Send your application by email to what.could.curating.do [at] gmail.com with the subject line: Educational program -WCSCD 2025/26

Events Lecture Series Participant Activities Walking as a Way of Knowing – Belgrade For the fall we announce new and revisited existing series of walks as a proposal for artistic interventions to think and practice history and knowledge through entangled encounters. From September onwards, we invite you to join the "Walking as a Way of Knowing – Belgrade", a series of walks within the city, which will be presented each season. These unique explorations are led by local artists, curators, architects, scholars designed through their own research interests, providing different pulses of Belgrade. While drafting these walks, we had in mind Donna Haraway's thinking that only a partial perspective promises an objective vision. (Haraway, Situated Knowledges) These walks are designed to showcase the multifaceted Belgrade, revealing its marginalized histories, and vibrant multicultural identity through the senses and insights. As Australian thinker Stephen Muecke argues that there is a need to study specific, local places in order to “put things more on the scale of everyday living.” [1] Hence, our second season of walking together will start in september and it will be possible to walk with us until the end of October . Each walk will have its own unique focus on the diverse and ever-changing city landscape and show how we can experience it through different senses. Based on her award-winning book Singing Belgrade: Urban Identity and Music Videos Irena Šentevska takes you to a tour of Belgrade which explores some landmarks of the city’s music life since the beginnings of its exposure to influences from the global pop culture. In 2019 The Museum of Modern Art in New York opened an exhibition named Toward a Concrete Utopia and included the original plans and drawings of the building settlement Cerak Vinogradi. Around the same time, Cerak Vinogradi was granted the status of cultural landmark by the state, thus being the first modern neighborhood in this part of Europe and one of three in the rest of the continent with such privilege. Artists Jelena Andzic in collaboration with Kulturni Cerak explores importance of this settlement. With artist Dunja Karanovic we continue feminist walks uncovering histories of the woman and their presence in the public sphere. [1] Muecke, Benterrak and Roe, Reading the Country, 21. Singing Belgrade Walk by Irena Sentevska October 26th 11am Meeting Point: Pobednik Monument, Kalemegdan Fortress Language: English Duration: two to three hours Based on her award-winning book Singing Belgrade: Urban Identity and Music Videos Irena Šentevska takes you to a tour of Belgrade which explores some landmarks of the city’s music life since the beginnings of its exposure to influences from the global pop culture. We start at the Kalemegdan Fortress where we talk about the beginnings of rock ’n’ roll in Belgrade and the culture of lively dance parties (igranke) often held in open air venues. We also talk about neo- folk and the urban-rural divide in Serbia’s popular music. Then we use your smartphones to watch some videos from various music genres, all of them set in Kalemegdan. The tour then takes us to the Students’ Cultural Center (SKC), the unofficial headquarters of Belgrade’s punk and new wave scenes in the 1980s. After some consideration of the importance of SKC for Serbia’s hip-hop and segments of the contemporary underground music scene we take a long ride to ‘South Central Kotež’, Belgrade’s remote northern suburb and home to Serbia’s most famous rappers. If we are lucky, some of them might join us to discuss their rise to stardom. About Irena Sentevska Irena Šentevska received her PhD from the department of arts and media theory of the University of Arts in Belgrade. She is author of two books in Serbian, The Swinging 90s: theatre and social reality of Serbia (2016), and Singing Belgrade: urban identity and music videos (2023), which received the Belgrade City Assembly’s annual award for social sciences and humanities. Her articles have been published by leading academic presses in Europe and the US (Routledge, Palgrave, Taylor and Francis, Peter Lang, Indiana UP, De Gruyter, Berghahn Books, Bloomsbury Academic etc.) She was member of the regional research teams for the project Unfinished Modernisations: Between Utopia and Pragmatism (2012) and exhibition Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia 1948-1980 held in the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York (2018). Irena lectured at the interdisciplinary doctoral studies of the University of Arts in Belgrade and received lecture invitations from various university departments and cultural institutions based in Belgrade, Novi Sad, Ljubljana, Rijeka, Prague, Graz, Zürich, Karlsruhe, Tel Aviv etc. In her spare time she enjoys Nordic walking. The Little Town on Top of The Hill – Cerak Vinogradi October 19th 11:00am Walk by Jelena Andzic and Kulturni Cerak Language: English Meeting point: In front of entrance of Vojno Medicinski Center Duration: two to three hours In 1981 a new building settlement was erected on the outskirts of Belgrade, called Cerak Vinogradi. The author team consisted of architects Milenija and Darko Marušić together with Nedeljko Borovnica. At the time of its construction Cerak Vinogradi represented the peak of modern residential architecture. In 2019 it became the first modern neighborhood in this part of Europe and one of three in the rest of the continent, which was granted the status of cultural asset. Furthermore, the architects' plans and drawings were included in the exhibition Concrete Utopia at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. After the exhibition ended it was selected for the museum’s permanent collection, being one of only two works from Serbia that had the honor of being included in it. The uniqueness of the settlement is, beyond doubt, the fact that it was constructed around the idea of walking. Unlike many architectural projects today, whose main aim is to extract any additional square meter, Cerak Vinogradi was built in harmony with its surroundings, not in spite of it. As the terrain on which the settlement was constructed is steep, the walking paths were built along the idea of isolines - lines that connect same altitude points. This allows the residents to walk easily through the neighborhood, encountering many spots designed for socializing and public use. These are called micro-ambients that take many forms - small amphitheaters, isolated bench nooks, etc. They were carefully designed with intent for the pedestrian to slow down, which is something that we are growing unaccustomed to in this ever-accelerating world. Furthermore, these public spaces are a rarity in today's Belgrade, attesting to their occupation by restaurants and cafes. On the other hand, the public spaces that are decentralized are still open to public use, however due to this very fact, their maintenance is constantly being neglected. The walk will be led in cooperation with Kulturni Cerak, an organization whose main aim is the preservation of the settlement's cultural identity. It consists of architects that have been working closely with Milenija Marušić over the years. It is thanks to their constant effort that the settlement hasn't been overlooked and forgotten, which has sadly been the fate of many past projects of architectural importance. The walk will also feature a private/public reading of the artist's publication Poems for The Little Town on Top of the Hill, a book of collaged poems which she has done as a response to the state's neglect of Cerak Vinogradi About Jelena Andzic Jelena Andžić is a visual artist from Belgrade, Serbia. She received her MFA in Set Design at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville in 2019 and in 2016 graduated from the Faculty of Applied Arts in Belgrade. She spent two years at the Metàfora Studio Arts program in Barcelona and defended her final thesis at MACBA in January 2022. Her artistic practice revolves around the static image and the potential it holds in terms of giving and absorbing knowledge. Her main points of interest are the impenetrability and ambiguity painting inherently possesses, as well as the different roles time plays in painting and photography. She had her solo exhibition at N.O. Concept Gallery (Belgrade) and took part in group exhibitions in Homesession (Barcelona),àngels barcelona | Espai 2 (Barcelona), Mutuo galería (Barcelona), Cultural Center Pančevo (Pančevo), Museum of Applied Arts (Belgrade). In 2022 she was a resident at Fabra I Coats: Fàbrica de Creació in Barcelona. She was a participant in the 2022 WC/SCD educational program. She is currently based in Belgrade. About Kulturni Cerak Tamara Nikolić Prodić Born in 1997 in Belgrade. I have completed both undergraduate and graduate studies at the Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade. Volunteered at the Belgrade Architecture Week and participated in several international architectural congresses and competitions. Currently engaged on architectural and cultural heritage revitalisation projects in private practice. The president and one of the founders of the "Cultural Cerak" association. Nađa Vujović Born in Belgrade in 1997. I have completed both undergraduate and graduate studies at the Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade. Currently working in private practice in the field of urban planning. I studied the topic of citizen participation in the development of strategies for the implementation of sustainable development goals, as well as the return of biodiversity to cities. I am one of the founders of the "Cultural Cerak" association. Olivera Gaborov Lazić Born in 1968 in Zrenjanin. I obtained the title of Graduate Engineer of Architecture from the Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade. Employed in the field of urban planning. As a resident of the Cerak Vinogradi settlement, I have been actively engaged in activism and the protection of the settlement as a cultural asset within my professional domain since 2015. I have been an active member of the association "Cultural Cerak'' since its foundation. As an expert team within our association, we focus on designing and implementing projects in architecture, urban planning, cultural heritage preservation, and environmental protection. Our key projects include: Monitoring planning documents for the Cerak Vinogradi area and Belgrade city; Participating in the preparation of urban and planning documents; Conducting research, preservation and digitization of archival materials related to our locality; Renovating the local green areas by planting specific types of trees as per horticulture and landscaping projects; Organizing urban culture workshops tailored for different age groups. Painter. Poet. National Hero October 12th 11am Walk by Dunja Karanovic Language: English Duration: two to three hours The names and faces we pass on our daily commutes and wanderings are rarely reflected upon, and sometimes they even seem arbitrary, but the ways in which our public spaces are organized are highly political and shape our cultural and collective identities. In Belgrade, only 4.37% of streets are named after women, many of whom are not even historical figures but mythical heroines and metaphors. Out of the 115 streets whose names commemorate women, 73% are among the smallest, and 26.1% are so-called ‘dead end’ streets. What this speaks to is the implicit gendering of public spaces and the century-long division between the private and public spheres as inherently masculine and feminine. In order to see beyond the systematic exclusion of women from public spaces, we have to look not only at what little is there, but at what’s invisible and hidden within the margins. In the second edition of our feminist walks, we will be (re)discovering the streets, monuments, and artistic interventions in public space that tell the history of Belgrade from the perspective of women. Join us from September to learn more about the women artists, authors, heroines, and peace activists who left their mark on the city from the 19th century to the 1990s. Dunja Karanović is a visual artist and journalist based in Belgrade, Serbia. She holds an MA degree from the UNESCO Chair in Cultural Policy and Management at the University of Arts in Belgrade and an MFA from the China Academy of Arts. In her practice, she explores ways of bridging cultural policy, theory, and practice through interdisciplinary and collaborative approaches that foster radical friendship and collective care. Her research is focused on mainstreaming care in cultural institutions and reimagining them as slower, softer, and more inclusive spaces. She is a regular contributor of Liceulice magazine. She is passionate about feminist art histories, embroidery, the small, and the marginal. Please arrive 15 minutes prior to your walk. Pre-booking is required via email or instagram Send us your full name and title of a walk Please note that all group walks have limited capacity Price tickets: 1,760 dinars We do not accept debit or credit cards Photos by Jelena Andzic < Mentors Educational Program How to Apply >

Events Lecture Series Participant Activities Glossary l(a)unch: gender issues WCSCD started its transition through merging rural and urban with research on artistic practices in the region. The research was undertaken through educational program of WCSCD 2023/2024. We encountered the number of examples starting from early 70’s Oho Group, Family of Clear Streams, and some from recent past Gera Museum ( 2000’s). Our research was done though site visits and conversations. Places we visited Gera Museum, Family of Clear Streams were ruins or remains of what was originally there. What was originally there were communities or potentiality for creating one. Program participants developed glossary unpacking key words related to these practices in relation to art making, economy, politics, spirituality, and gender. During the research we spoke mostly with men hearing their stories and that fact left us troubled. What was the role of women in these communities? As a response to that WCSCD program participant, Laura Rositani developed keywords in relation to gender issues that lingered through field trips and conversations we had. Gender issues By Laura Rositani Our case studies revealed a recurring theme: the presence of gender issues. These issues encompass all aspects and concerns related to women's and men's lives - both in the social and art-making realms. In its original meaning, gender issues refers to the historic lack of inclusion and equality for women compared to men. It delves into the power dynamics between genders, their historical evolution, and how these dynamics play out across political, legal, economic, and cultural landscapes. Essentially, gender functions as a powerful social structure, shaping relationships between individuals and institutions in profound and lasting ways. Examining these issues through a gender lens exposes a web of interconnected inequalities. The experiences of men and women diverge dramatically due to unequal access to resources, participation opportunities, and agency. For example, the interviews with the men involved in our archive research served as a stark reminder of this disparity. Instances of sexual discrimination, gender stereotyping, and inappropriate language and conduct emerged during these conversations. It was incredibly difficult to find even a mention of women in these stories, despite the fact that their unseen presence was clearly the foundation upon which most of these projects, at least initially, achieved some measure of success. Women were the ones pulling the strings and holding everything together.[1] However, this crucial role was overshadowed by the overwhelming presence of male figures, whose dominance permeated every corner of the archival material. My observations of the case studies and the overall situation reveal a continuous pattern of women's contributions being either ignored or downplayed. This can be seen as a subtle but persistent form of violence that has relegated and continues to relegate women to the margins of history, artistic practice, and even their own lives as mothers, wives, and simply women. While the case studies don't offer definitive answers about how things could have been different, One can imagine that if these women had been afforded greater gender equality within their families and communities, the outcomes might have been more positive. I'm not suggesting that the projects wouldn't have faced challenges, but perhaps they could have failed in a more constructive way, allowing for a chance to rebuild on a stronger foundation. What remains now are ashes: untold or distorted stories under the oppressive gaze of patriarchy. Interestingly, one aspect I observed that could potentially bridge the gender gap and offer a path to healing is the shared love for the earth. Nature could serve as a common ground, fostering respect and understanding between genders. The Glass Ceiling and Beyond: Unveiling Women's Contributions The glass ceiling metaphor aptly describes the invisible barriers that women often face.This glossary literally refers to a glass box, a cage that confines women's achievements and obscures their impact. In this case, it's not just the barriers that are transparent - the very presence and contributions of women are rendered invisible. This invisibility extends beyond the encompassing art practice, politics, to all aspects of life. Our archive research exemplifies this phenomenon. Women are relegated to the margins of the stories, their contributions as active participants left untold or rarely acknowledged. They are primarily mentioned as wives and collaborators, never as the driving forces behind their communities. This is akin to them being confined within a glass cage, their achievements obscured and their impact minimized. Gender Blindness and the Lingering Shadow of Patriarchy Almost every encounter we had while researching showed the lingering presence of a patriarchal legacy and a lack of gender equality. Gender blindness refers to the failure of recognizing the unequal structure of gender relations: while it might seem like a neutral approach, it actually maintains the status quo and doesn't address the existing power imbalance. Furthermore, the lingering influence of a system that privileges men, continues to shape how we view and discuss gender. This dominance extends to language itself, where the terms used to describe women can often be a subtle form of violence. The research highlighted the need to recognize the crucial roles women played, beyond wives or companions. Moreover, the research exposed a shocking blindness towards these deeply rooted behaviors, a complete failure to recognize their significance and consequences. Co-creation Our research identified several instances where men positioned women as assistants, diminishing their contributions to community building and artistic endeavors. The concept of co-creation extends beyond the artworks themselves. It encompasses the very foundation of life within these communities. However, our research revealed a persistent pattern: while both men and women were undoubtedly involved in the creative process, women were consistently relegated to a subordinate role. This becomes particularly evident in the way women were described. They were partially acknowledged as "makers," but their intellectual contributions are erased. The language used never elevates them to the level of thinkers or authors. The power of stones and plants related to women’s knowledge Across many cultures, women have been the custodians of a vast universe of knowledge and skills related to healing plants, herbs, spices, and the hidden powers of minerals. This knowledge, passed down through generations from woman to woman, reflects a deep eco-sensitivity and connection to the natural world. Plant’s knowledge and other aspects of medicine were often labeled as witchcraft by patriarchal and religious authorities. Women who possessed and used this knowledge were often accused of witchcraft and persecuted, undergoing torture, trials, and death sentences.The repression of this knowledge, aimed to limit women's autonomy, consolidated male power and controlled access to natural resources. Women knew the medicinal properties of every plant, every herb, every root, and they used them to heal themselves, their children, and their communities. The witch hunt was a war against women, against their knowledge and their autonomy. While sexual and domestic violence were undoubtedly prevalent during this era, a deeper examination reveals the underlying economic, social, and structural factors that transformed women into perceived threats, requiring their elimination or confinement to subordinate roles.The witch hunt went beyond mere physical persecution; it aimed to dismantle an entire universe of knowledge and relationships that underpinned women's social power. In many pre-capitalist societies, women held significant economic and social roles, often serving as healers, herbalists, and caregivers. Their knowledge of natural remedies and practices posed a challenge to the emerging patriarchal and capitalist structures. Hence, the witch hunt served as a tool to subdue women's autonomy, suppress their knowledge, and confine them to predefined gender roles.[2] Our case studies reveal that some women possess a rich understanding of traditional knowledge systems related to plants and minerals. This knowledge, often passed down through generations, might involve interpreting subtle signs in the environment or using specific rituals to connect with nature. This process of women seemingly communicating with nature underscores the immense value of their relationship with the land. This deep understanding could be the very foundation for the art-agriculture projects they were developing.[3] [4] It's also clear that this knowledge wasn't previously considered in sufficient depth. Indeed, my (our) observations align with what happened in the past with the “witchcraft”: since women’s roles were not acknowledged, these stories have essentially erased them from the narrative, leading to their marginalization. Ruins as human and non-human resources: The places visited in relation to the practices being researched were all ruins. In some cases they were ruins in literal sense, where space was overtaken by nature and decay and in other sense (metaphorical) ruins of the idea or utopia of community. The intersection of ruins and feminism offers a rich and complex area of study. It provides a way to challenge traditional narratives, reclaim lost histories, and imagine more inclusive futures where women's contributions are recognized and valued. Through the feminist lens, the concept of ruins isn’t solely male-centric representations of fallen empires.Ruins could be re-examined to understand spaces traditionally associated with women's work, domestic life, and cultural practices. By studying the ruins from this perspective, we can attempt to reclaim the lost stories of women who contributed to these societies. Furthermore, according to Posthumanism (ist) theories, ruins become potent symbols of human impermanence and the possibility of coexistence with other forms of life beyond the human, criticizing human exceptionalism. According to this way of seeing things, ruins signifies not the end, but a blossoming of potential. As we delve into the depths of our archival research, we encounter the haunting presence of ruins - remnants of a once-thriving endeavor. Yet, these vestiges seem to whisper tales of unfulfilled potential, a story of progress stunted by a profound sense of detachment. The community, it appears, failed to forge a sense of belonging, fostering an atmosphere of alienation that ultimately led to the project's demise. To fully comprehend the project's decline, we must delve into the depths of the archives. Why did individuals feel disconnected? Was it a structural issue, a lack of shared purpose, or something else entirely? An answer could be the male-centric power structure potentially contributed to the project's downfall and it is recurrent in every archive story.[5] An extremely important open question is the following one: Were there any successful efforts to breathe new life into these relics of the past? This skewed perspective necessitates a rewriting of history, one that acknowledges the full spectrum of participation, encompassing both men and women and more than human world. To fully comprehend the project's trajectory, we must re-analyze into the archives, employing a gender-inclusive lens. Archeological evidence, oral histories, and art practices can all offer valuable insights. Family project: The case studies we have looked at started as a family project- families moving to rural with potential of turning into community. While this approach can offer a strong foundation, it also carries the potential for perpetuating gender inequality. Traditional gender roles often get transported from the family unit to the larger project, potentially limiting women's participation and decision-making. Furthermore, the traditional family often reinforces male dominance: men hold more power, while women are expected to manage domestic labor and childcare. The concept of family, particularly the traditional monogamous structure, is often intertwined with an outdated notion that has little to do with modern ideas of romantic love. This rigid model can become exclusionary, pushing those who don't conform to its narrow definition to the margins, even demonizing them. It reinforces a social construct that assigns a singular "ideal" identity to families, emphasizing exclusivity and a sense of ownership. This monogamous mindset aligns perfectly with the capitalist and patriarchal structures of modern society. It can contribute to a range of social ills, including violence, colonialism, and racism. Furthermore, the traditional gendered definition of family can cultivate possessiveness, exclusivity, and a focus on individualism, potentially hindering social cohesion. From a political perspective, Fascist and totalitarian regimes viewed the traditional peasant family as a model to be championed and controlled. This was due to the specific characteristics it embodied, seen as essential for maintaining social order and consolidating their power. The peasant family was typically defined by a strict patriarchal structure, with the father as the undisputed head and women and children subordinate to his authority. This mirrored the authoritarian hierarchy that these regimes sought to impose on society at large. Life for peasant families was arduous, demanding discipline and unwavering obedience. Regimes heavily emphasized values like hard work, sacrifice, and unquestioned respect for authority, as crucial for maintaining societal order. Additionally, peasant life was deeply connected to the land and rural values. Fascist and totalitarian regimes often romanticized the simplicity and purity of rural life, contrasting it with the perceived "corruption" of urban living. This served to further tighten their grip on society and suppress any ideas deemed subversive. Our case studies consistently reveal the same pattern: the narrative revolves around a family headed by the paterfamilias, with the wife having no say in the matter. This exclusivity and narcissistic approach has led not only to the inability to integrate their project into a community, but also to a failure to achieve independence. When discussing these families, we are not referring to the romantic ideal of shared love, but rather to a strict patriarchal structure that impacts the wives and, subsequently, the children. Kids are the first to break away from what their fathers have tried to build through imposition. Motherhood and invisible labor: Another important aspect related to the women of our case studies is motherhood. Mothers were the ones in charge of keeping the spaces clean, of cooking, of taking care of children and assisting their husbands in every tasks- even if their efforts and irreplaceable help were completely invisible in the narration. It is important to mention, how this invisibility is strictly linked to a gender based idea of motherhood. Ecofeminist theories argue that the patriarchal and capitalist system exploits the female body through forced reproduction. Women are seen as mothers and caregivers, relegated to the private sphere and deprived of their autonomy. Motherhood becomes unpaid labor that perpetuates female subordination.In the main essay on ecofeminism, Françoise D'Eaubonne advocates a "Womb strike" (1974) as a radical solution to curb patriarchal power. This is an act of radical rebellion, in which women reclaim control over their bodies and refuse to be considered as reproductive machines. The “womb strike" is not limited to the mere refusal to have children, but also implies a social and political transformation that challenges existing power structures. According to ecofeminist studies, the threats of overpopulation and resource depletion can be traced back to the power that men have acquired in cultivating the land and their participation in the reproductive act. The relationship between the domination of nature and female subordination gains relevance, in relation to the nature-body connection, where there is an overlap between the exploitation of nature's resources and sexual-procreative potential. A focal point of feminist theories is the critique of the patriarchal model that has relegated motherhood to a subordinate and subservient role to women. Motherhood thus becomes a forced sacrifice, an obligation that limits the woman's personal and professional fulfillment. The mothers in our case studies prioritized their wish to be loved and cared over any professional recognitions, but they were undervalued and ignored.[6] Cooking, cleaning, laundry, childcare, etc. were invisible labor, unpaid and unrecognized work that is often essential for the smooth running of a household or community. [1] While a wider view on case studies is certainly important, Dragana Kojičić's project in Mošorin stands out as a precious exception. It's important to note that her project is contemporary, and thus the social-political context is distinct from the others, even though they share the same national origin. [2] Silvia Federici, “Caccia alle streghe, guerra alle donne”, NERO edition, Rome, 2022 [3] Marko Pogačnik mentioned Kathi Lightstone, Milenko Matanovic’s wife, who, after an experience hitchhiking in Scotland, she got in touch with Findhorn foundation. This community thrived with incredible vegetables, thanks to the women's remarkable ability to connect with the plants. Her knowledge, brought to Šempas, perfectly laid the foundation for a unique idea: agriculture intertwined with art. [4] Marko Pogačnik referred also to Gimbutas's work on millennia of peaceful societies became a revelation, upending his worldview. Inspired by this, he and his daughter, Ajra, developed a method to perceive and understand landscapes as "landscape temples" structured according to the Triple Goddess principle ( they wrote The Daughter of Gaia: Rebirth of the Divine Feminine, Findhorn Press, 2001) Among her most important accomplishments, Gimbutas developed a fundamental glossary of the figurative motifs that serve as an interpretative key to the mythology of an otherwise undocumented era (Neolithic), but also she established, on the basis of the interpreted signs, the characterizing lines and the main themes of a religion that venerated both the universe as the living body of the Mother Goddess Creator and all living things within it as partakers of her divinity. Gimbutas also coined the term “Gilania” ( from the Greek terms gynè, "woman" and anèr, "man”) to describe a society existed in 8.000-2500 a.c in the Ancient Europe based on the equality of rights between men and women and the lack of hierarchy and authority within the community. [5] Gera Museum is an example of ruins in a literary way and it shows how things could be potentially different if the power was not centered on one person but shared with the collective. When things felt apart, nobody took care of what Gera built and nobody felt like belonging to what he created. For Family of Clear stream the story is not that different at all, especially the ending. If at the beginning the idea was to create a collective project, through the time Bozidar ends up alone probably because he didn’t manage to have an horizontal approach to the community but he always put himself and his ideas first. The Sempas didn’t work either in this sense: they weren’t able to build a relationship with villagers but at the same time couldn’t be independent. [6] According to Braila’s experience, the first wife of Bozidar, it is clear how her presence was at the same time fundamental and not recognized: she was the one who took care of three kids, woke up at 5 to cook for the 20 people part of Family of Clear stream, she was also involved, against her wish, to perform and be part of her husband’s art processes. < Mentors Educational Program How to Apply >

< Back On Bor’s Industrial Heritage 28 Aug 2020 Dragan Stojmenovic Introduction This year, two interesting research and art projects are being independently realized in Bor – and perhaps with a not so strange coincidence. One is international — “As you go. . . The roads under your feet, towards a new future” [1] , and the other is national — “Eighth Kilometer” [2] . With their topics, intentions and approach, they made me think about the reasons for their interest in Bor. Bor, as one of the most important industrial, mining and metallurgical centers in northeastern Serbia, is a city with an interesting history, alongside a specific natural environment and cultural heritage that is very difficult to summarize in a general article with facts that would show the current state – because this “current state” presents a stage within the perpetual change of all previous socio-historical, natural and cultural facts. Namely, these facts exist only in certain circumstances and contexts of their use, even when it comes to geological and geomorphological characteristics. Not to mention the ideological discourses of socio-economic formations of the different social systems, and the intentions of the politics of representation. Therefore, I could not write the kind of introduction that would simply describe the city of Bor. Instead, I would like to comment as a professional native who comes “from within”. We have yet to come to some relevant facts, though what is being offered to us must not be taken for granted. However, the aforementioned projects refer to, or confirm the fact that, the company for industrial production and processing of copper — Mining and Smelting Combine Bor , which was owned by the state – has now found its way to the New Silk Road , and that it has only been majority-owned by the new Chinese company for a year. The first mentioned international project is partly realized in Bor and will investigate changes within the aesthetics and practice of everyday life in the local environment, which have occurred with the arrival of Chinese investments. The second, is a project by the artists and architects who will represent the Republic of Serbia at the 17th Venice Architecture Biennale, responding to the question and topic of the International Architecture Exhibition, How will we live together? . It intertwines with the complex and comprehensive presentation of Bor, related to redefining the life-work relationship in the physical layout of the currently existing seven city zones, with a projection of common life in the future at the “Eighth Kilometer” (situated within the new circumstances of the minority strategic partnership with foreign investors from China, with whom we will live and work). As can be seen from the footnotes, the projects were well-timed and designed with flexible methodologies, which have adapted to our current global climate (primarily because they are based on planned ongoing research). In that sense, they are also interested in a more comprehensive understanding of local systems of definitions, classification and division – starting with the most impressive industrial landscapes, sections and developments of the city itself. Therefore, everything evolves from a singular starting point, which could have a zero degree of significance — from the old Bor mine…from the pit… Zero kilometer … fifth side of the world — for those whose level of understanding would require knowing the other seven points…kilometers…chapters. Industrial heritage in the heritage industry “The sublime words of Schiller’s Ode to Joy fell on the gloomy workers’ faces. No, no, no. Sorry. I repeat. They fell on the illuminated… Yes, yes… Illuminated workers’ faces.” [3] „Op mala, op, površinski kop!” (“Oi honey, oi, surface mining!”) [4] The term industrialization implies the use of techniques and technology for a mass, serial production of goods or raw materials; for personal or social economic interests of investors, with the distinct forcing of economic growth and development of organized production; often compared to some previous, technological, technical and “outdated” or “belated” organizational type of production, such as artisanal or manufacturing production. The precondition for performing the play of industrialization is the class privilege of those who possess and know certain techniques and technologies, and through applying them, some automatic authority is gained. In addition to the specialized class of engineers and investors, industrialization is enabled by workers and workers’ culture, with the direct interests of these two groups being realized from completely divergent ideological points of view — private and public, personal and collective. Industrialization brings certain cultural qualifications and processes of a modernization of “others”, and “underdeveloped and backward” areas, known today as “Eastern”, “Southern”, “Southeastern Europe” or “Third World Europe”. Unfortunately, such modernization qualifications and aspirations have long accompanied geographically oriented parts of Serbia that needed to be modernized; “discovered”, “renewed”, “introduced”, “developed”, “reborn”, “improved”. In comparison with their northern and western counterparts, the southern and eastern regions are considered corners of developed areas, or “appendages” of a healthy organism. Such a role was often imposed and lightly accepted, we assume with reasons, which we will look for in socio-political influences, existential impulses and the desire to play and learn. The starting point of the discussed topic is given by the content of the heritage institutions’ funds in Bor [5] and the facts, which in every respect, speak in favor of institutions based on workers’ culture and workers’ organization, logical upgrades and real needs for public institutions – not by the “modernization” and “industrialization” of exclusively privileged classes. We will not consider these initial positions important to show some progressive development of social institutions, but rather, to make an ideological distinction between the social potentials of real needs (necessities) and desires (aspirations). Do public social institutions fulfill the expressed necessary needs, or do they satisfy “desires”? In that sense, we will deal with industrialization and the industry, not only because of their specific material consequences and interests, but primarily because of their cognitive potentials that cause the fixation and recognition of a certain image of a city. That is, a certain, hypothetically derived, dominant attitude; expressed in public discourses surrounding the ideological predominance of the industrial over workers’ culture in Bor during the second decade of the 21st century. As an indicative example of the imposition of a new, distinctly dominant discourse, we will now examine the symbolic gesture of repositioning objects from the Park Museum along the main street in Bor during 2009 [6] , and the prevalence of a new public industrial discourse, at the expense of the discourse of workers’ culture and workers’ organization (which until then, as the dominant ideological formation, was clearly expressed in planned urban solutions and already arranged monuments as symbols of work and workers’ organization in the city center [7] ). We will consider these relocated and rearranged exhibits as a new discursive, syntactic structure that significantly changes the meaning of the exhibits and shows the processes of changing the politics of representation and shifting attitudes around cultural and historical heritage. More precisely, we will try to consider the influence of dominant ideologies on the configuration of the cultural and historical heritage of Bor within public space, alongside the materialization of expressed desires through that newly composed industrial heritage, and taking over the authority of institutions over that cultural heritage. In that sense, the implementation of a new representation policy in a symbolic formation, created by public monuments and redistributed exhibits, enables a new reading, an understanding and an attempt to revise historical facts, as well as expressing some “desires” of the presumed author of the new installation of exhibits and monuments. Firstly, the intention is to expose the “affirmative power” of discourse (Fuko 2007, p. 52) through the representation policy expressed in the mentioned symbolic structure; to use criticism as a “style of learned ease”, as opposed to an expressed genealogical “happy positivism” (Ibid.) (changing the image of the city through a campaign, “For a better Bor” [8] ) in order to understand what we’ve been “told” by the formation in public space. It would be sad if we admitted at the very beginning, that the recently experienced reality showed us the origin of such a materialized exhibition “expression”, so instead, we will further interrogate the topic by explaining and conceptualizing it in the form of a text. In the introduction to his lecture Order of Discourse , 1970, Foucault clearly states his hypothesis, which we will try to understand and apply here: “… in every society, the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organised and redistributed by a certain number of procedures whose role is to ward off its power and dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events, to evade its ponderous, formidable materiality ” (Foucault 2007, p. 8). We should emphasize the implementation of the process of “taming power and danger” within the already existing historical and ideological discourses of workers’ culture and workers’ organization of the past decade, as important for understanding the current suppression of these discourses. From a broader perspective, in creating a new “image of the city” based exclusively on the campaign strategy of “public relations”, the aim was to construct a new “collective identity”, which marginalizes or completely excludes the materialized ideology of workers’ culture from public space and life. What did the author of the aforementioned installation want to achieve, and what are the origins of their expression, which was subsequently materialized within a public space? Such a “general” image or display will be placed in direct relation to the creation and existence of real images or displays, such as photographs and films, as well as institutional and organized visualizations of Bor — which can lead to the identification of certain “commonplace” or locus communis (local “topoi”). In this case, this works to connect the obvious structural organization of urban areas marked by kilometers [9] (which represents the linear historical and communal development of the city) with the narrativization of the topic we will present. Knowledge on the topic of this paper, in that sense, is not limited exclusively to the effects of constructing positive or negative attitudes/images. It is also largely based on responsibility, and the experience and interpretation of the facts surrounding the disinterested and aimless wandering (for the sake of upholding a preventive way of maintaining the health of critical consciousness), in order to “discover the author or authors” of this kind of “optical hygiene”. The very topic of industrial heritage in the heritage industry was chosen to most effectively describe the current state of industrial heritage in Bor from the position of a “native ethnologist” [10] – perhaps more precisely: “professional native” – to explain one of its many possible perceptions. Such freedom of interpretation, of course, does not imply arbitrariness in approach, but obliges to the responsibility of understanding and interpreting real positions and facts, to produce a meaningful “self-critical” structure. It would be necessary, for example, with modern librarianship (due to the existence of an important institution, or the principle of desideratum in acquisition policy, i.e. planned and strategic replenishment of funds with missing materials or rare disciplinary approaches to certain topics). The topic is approached from a critical position precisely because the funds are systematically filled with historical material, while the prevailing expectations are directed exclusively towards the uncritical reproduction of historiographical and contemporary social facts by “innovative technologies”. From the professional obligations of the librarians of the Local History Department of the Public Library of Bor came the motivation to explore this topic; to understand, and to present a part of the industrial heritage preserved in the Library. This motivation not only emerged from the professional obligations of a local history librarian, but also from a collaboration with prof. Slobodan Naumović, (which takes place in several related and intertwined thematic areas through many years of his field work in Bor), on the analytical processing of photo documentation from the point of view of visual anthropology. This has inspired and encouraged multiple approaches, potentials and perspectives for new interpretations, focusing on the cultural-historical, labor and industrial heritage preserved in the mentioned institution. This “key resource” (Naumović, 2013, p. 75–111) with numerous implications in contemporary everyday life, reflected on contemporary creativity and discovering the approach to photography as a continuous practice of visual recording in Bor; pointing out the need to understand and reveal intentions, methodologies and messages that the authors convey with their visual projections. By introducing collaborative (shared) anthropology [11] into the process of interpreting photography – an integrated methodological approach to interpreting “inside” and “outside”, “mirrors” and “windows” – a necessary balance is established, and an essential connection between differing, subjective, and social views, evaluations and meanings is achieved. (See more in: Naumović, Radivojević, 2015). It is precisely the connections between “ life and work ”, “ collective and individual memory ”, “ different types of applied photography and industrial heritage ”, “ institutional and non-institutional visual recording ” that inspired the search for balance between industrial heritage and workers’ culture (Ibid., pp. 126-182). In the joint intention with prof. Naumović, during the elaboration of the topic Visualization of working culture and industrial heritage in Bor , the foundations of the view “from within” were to be established, in order to balance the relations between our current contemporary position of interpretation, and use of visual material. Thus, this text should articulate, set, and describe the reflective state, conditions, and perspectives of the interpretation of industrial heritage and workers’ culture in the “mirror” of modern local society and culture. On the other hand, the impetus came from the domains of librarianship and museology (museum studies), heritology (derived from a critique of museum studies and the need to create a science of heritage skills, and learning about memory skills) and thinking about strategies for selecting and representing cultural goods for the purpose of redefining identity elaborated by prof. Dragan Bulatović. (Bulatović, 2004, 2013, 2015a, 2015b.) The topological narrative of this paper, and the text that accompanies the division of Bor into kilometers, is incorporated into the well-known linear origin of the beginning and end, with minimal historicization to obscure, retain, and evoke “self-understanding” (not to mention environmental pollution) of authentic local expression and condition, that is interlaced into a kind of constitutive mythology. In that sense, it will be important to maintain a balance between the description of the condition and the process, accounting for the frequent slips and sudden braking caused by clumsy driving of a “heavy truck in reverse” – or by dancing “kolo” (circle dance) on the serpentine paths of Bor mines – so that we can “safely” park or dance with the topic. The blue cinemascope in the movie Op, mala, op! Centar za neformalnu komunikaciju – Nemušto, Bor, 2001. The First Kilometer The processes of the industrialization of Bor could be characterized as modernization during the administration of the French Society of the Bor Mines (the Concession St. George) from 1903 to 1941. It was then the intensive exploitation of ore began: metallurgical plants were built, and with a sudden influx of workers, a mining colony was subsequently formed. It is important to note that following only the interests of production, there was only the controlled development of the town and communal structures deemed necessary, in order to maintain the administrative status of the mining colony. “The French built what they had to in the settlement, but they resisted that Bor gains the status of a city, because then they would be obliged to build a lot more (primarily underground sewerage)…” (Jovanović, 1987–1990, p. 196). Until the liberation, and shortly after the Second World War, Bor was known exclusively as Bor mines. Although Bor gained the status of being a city in 1947, but the old name had already been in use for some time. However, it wasn’t until the next cycle of modernization (during the period of the First and Second phases of reconstruction [12] ), in a completely different socio-political system of self-managing socialism, that a new society was established – new metallurgical plants were built, new mines were opened and the city was urbanized. The recent process of industrialization and attempts at modernization can be characterized as a process of “retraditionalization”: the discovery of industrial heritage and local history from completely different political and ideological positions of liberal capitalism, in the period of transition and “reconstruction” during the second decade of the twenty-first century. Therefore, we focus on the trend toward deriving certain cultural characteristics of the dominant economic activities (mining and metallurgy) from certain natural determinations, i.e natural resources (forests, rivers, ores), in order to show historical depth, continuity, permanence or a certain “tradition” (see more in: Romelić, 2017). At the same time, we emphasize their constitutive potential related to modern understandings and uses of the terms “industrial heritage” and “workers’ culture”. Keeping this in mind, we will pay attention to the essential connections between this industrial heritage and workers’ culture, but also to the emphasis on the differences between them, or their tendentious division into two isolated categories. Their essential connection is in the fact that cultural heritage exists as a reality in the balanced interdependence of its tangible and intangible components, not in the selective interpretation of individual contributions. Therefore, we use this connection with a deliberate ideological implication — a “thread”: with industrial heritage as a material, and labor culture and organization as an intangible component of a unique cultural and historical heritage. It is a “thread” that is untied from either the “left” or “right” side. Considering the current situation of the predominance of material industrial heritage over workers’ culture, we can follow from which side, figuratively, the thread is untied – on workers’ boots or off the “fast” and comfortable sneakers of liberal industrial capitalism The thread is, of course, strongly tied on both sides, regardless of the footwear in question. However, according to the social position and responsibility towards cultural and historical heritage, preparation for work itself, (when it comes to work, we count on ambiguity associating the word “work” with the text you are reading) has shown that the most harmful thing for the local community is untying and taking off (visually unrepresentative) worn-out workers’ shoes. The real presence and potentials of industrial heritage and working culture in Bor therefore has a dark side; embodied in demagoguery, populist rhetoric, and the instrumentalization of cultural and historical heritage over the past decade. This resulted in the realization of the greatest fears of workers and citizens: the privatization of the company and granting concessions for the exploitation of natural resources. Privatization of important objects of cultural and historical heritage (e.g. an old building in which Head offices of the successive corporations were situated, or a memorial complex dedicated to the victims of the forced labour in Bor during WWII, which is in the vicinity of the new pit) happened at the same time. On this occasion, we aim to challenge, describe and analyze these different positions of the relationship between property and ownership of cultural goods within the “heritage industry”. The phrase “heritage industry” (Bulatović, 2015, p. 137) is transferred from the museological theory of prof. Dragan Bulatović, who mentions it in the “context of individualization of cultural property” for the development of, for example, cultural tourism, whose priority is to emphasize economic interest, and the main feature: serial production, based on models in the field of management within liberal economics and culture, aimed at construction of “desirable images” (Bulatović, 2013, p. 12) or a positive reputation. An adequate example of this selective conceptualization and instrumentalization of industrial heritage happened during the campaign of the company RTB Bor “For a better Bor”. In our case, to achieve this “desirable image” of the company and the city, we resorted to already defined and cultivated cultural goods and museum artifacts from the Technical Collection of the Museum of Mining and Metallurgy in Bor, as well as deliberately neglecting to show real and constructive contributions of workers’ culture and workers’ organization. However, at that very moment, when the company’s new public relations strategy indicated the need to produce a “positive reputation” of the company and the city, it reached for the “desired” component of the instant market economy — the already organized, systematically raised, and collected cultural and historical heritage in the Park Museum [13] . Why exactly that? Perhaps because in showing some “genealogy” or continuity of industrial activity, its “historical depth” revealed the enablement of a modernist, linear view of the “progress” of industry (as well as of the industry itself), emphasizing its constitutive contributions, (though while doing so, deliberately neglecting the contribution of workers’ culture and organization)? Because of the forced and unauthorized appropriation of industrial heritage, the imposition of only one option in the “managerial strategy” of the city’s representation (the marginalization and ignoring of the professional activities of local heritage institutions)? Museums, libraries and archives carry out their activities based on the belief that cultural goods, under the protection of heritage institutions (the “owners” who use and manage them), are inalienable. That is, according to Article 14 of the valid Law on Cultural Property, they can be “alienated” under the conditions previously determined by the Law, but the “right of ownership” cannot be acquired over them (Law, 1994, Article 14). In the case we will consider, there was an unauthorized alienation of cultural goods that had had a great impact on the development of society, culture, technology and science, which consequently were under the protection of the Museum (Ibid. Article 5). The alienated objects were rearranged and dislocated from the Park Museum to the main street in Bor with the intention of “telling the story of the development of Bor”. Given the obligation of a comprehensive approach to the topic of industrial heritage, choice of methodology, and manner of presentation, it would be necessary to pay attention to this process of unauthorized “industrialization” – this instrumentalization of heritage outside of heritage institutions, to consider the ways in which the heritage has been incorporated into market relations, and how a “positive reputation” of the city/company and their “branding” have been created. In that sense, the “heritage industry” was used to describe in detail the current state of manipulation of cultural and historical heritage, in order to construct an alternative public discourse on the more important characteristics of the city, and the possible influences on creating a new, more positive “city reputation” in 2009-2019. The use of tradition and retraditionalization are processes characteristic of societies in transition. “Having found suitable ground for a society with disrupted, but not completely stopped currents of modernization, for such a society that perceived its situation as a crisis in key areas of activity, such as economy, international relations, ideology or culture, the practice of using tradition as a means of adapting to consequences, and overcoming the causes of the crisis, has spread from the domain of politics to almost all areas of social life in Serbia” (Naumović, 2009, p. 10). On the other hand, in such a situation of presenting the public use of “alienated heritage”, we must resort to a certain cynicism in interpreting the problem. Primarily because in such a situation we must not allow cultural goods, although alienated, to be considered “property” (with exclusive rights to personal vision and their interpretation), whatever newly composed construction they should present in these emerging contexts. prof. Dragan Bulatović problematizes the processes of “branding museum heritage”, showing completely opposing positions of cultural goods within institutions (in charge of their upbringing and preservation) relating to market relations and market logic, which are increasingly applied in those institutions. Representative exhibition activities of cultural institutions are spectacularized thanks to marketing that offers “unique opportunities” for viewing — viewing and access to funds – but: “offered is not available (museum vaults are inalienable, unique, unrepeatable, and sometimes, unfortunately, untouchable)” (Bulatović, 2004. p. 146). “The usual metaphoricality of the slogan should grow into a condensation by which the subject expresses the repressed meaning of his desire (Lacan), and the chosen symbols would have to be replaced by a metonymic movement denoting what desire is – the desire for something else that is always missing.” (Ibid., P. 146). We therefore live the consequences of fulfilled desires (not the needs of social institutions) which we have expressed in recent history. Fulfilled by an unfounded, materialized, symbolic arrangement of cultural goods in public space (which should have a real “historical depth” and wider social significance) in fact, represents an unlit tunnel through a hill of accumulated problems, dug with a concrete intention and hope that in the end, we will be liked by the foreign investors who will allow us to be “reborn” from our womb. What kind of tradition and industrial heritage do we have if our heritage is a constant confiscation and appropriation of cultural and historical values, make-up, and temporariness, while we hold onto the hope that the rich inheritance will eventually be excavated for us? What happens in the end, when cultural goods are used as the “secondary raw material” of daily politics? We must remember that a period of just over a century is still young. Incredibly alive. Usable and dynamic. So paradoxical and brilliant, that it was possible for the miner, Paun Meždinović, who had discovered the ore in 1903 as a working boy, and retired in the 1950s to work as a security guard at the Museum in Bor [14] . Why are we “ashamed” of workers, workers’ culture and workers’ organization today? What led us to have the industrial heritage of machines and technical means collected for the needs of the Park Museum, only to be appropriated and instrumentalized for the purpose of selling what we thought we would inherit — what built us? Such dynamics of uncertainty, impotence of profession, negligence and misunderstanding of the founders of public institutions towards the public good, and active privatization of social property, can be important reasons why Bor is omitted from the review, analysis and strategy of presenting historically relevant potentials of specific (tangible and intangible) cultural heritage encompassed by this recently identified industrial heritage. We can continue to look for these reasons. But first, we must oppose the diminution of the authority local heritage institutions hold over public cultural and historical heritage spaces, as well abolish the ingrained prejudice that dictates places of heavy industry “have no history or tradition” – that they are young, artificially and forcibly created only for the temporary satisfaction of our basic needs (proverbial “to seek one’s fortune”). Living and working in the same place – a segment of culture related to the production, exploitation and the routine of everyday life, burdened by the noise of machines, and the smell of polluted air and land – contradicts the intended outcome of “market logic”. Of rational calculations of civilizational achievements, and an agreeable representational image. By that logic, this image should not seem threatening to foreign investors or tourists. The picture of everyday life in Bor consists mainly of fatigue, mechanically organized routine, hard labor, sickness, and vague and divided emotions, all laid out upon landscapes with serpentines on tailings, reminding us that we are only here temporarily, to earn and survive. This contrasts heavily with the “positive” and “beautiful” characteristics that would benefit the desired image of progress. Local authenticity is lost when the social needs met by public institutions become somebody else’s instrumentalized desires. The intentions of these desires are to be what we are not – or, if we adopt them, to portray us, just as we are. The processes of adopting desires can be silent and gradual, until eventually agreed upon; while the presentation or manifestation of intentions that fit into a certain social praxis, can be considered a “play”. The play itself can absorb and include us to be a part of it – but it also maintains a certain distance, so that the understanding of our spatial position relating to that play is framed by ourunderstanding of the relationship between positions of representation and real conditions; between adopted joint representation and the fulfillment of functions of compensating (or compensation) for certain expectations, shortcomings and needs. The director of such a play may or may not plan the audience’s participation, but he certainly counts on its passive observation. Therefore, a critical consideration of social needs is a corrective in the realization of the activities of public institutions, which, in part, regulate the realization of the expressed desires of individuals. Meanwhile, important facts are being hidden and forgotten. Something was left somewhere to be here. Something important was taken to be as it is now. We suppress and forget something important. Something constantly reminds us that things should really be better than they are – not just look better or prettier. Why must an “aesthetic” criteria be allowed to impose the polarization of citizens: if we are not “for a more beautiful Bor”, we are automatically destined for that “less beautiful Bor”? Additionally, a primary organic attachment – closeness to the landscape and homeland – has been silenced and suppressed. It is “self-evident” and quite obviously present, based on the very choice to be here, even if we have just left from an outdated train at railway platform. We are here, after all. Everyone around us came from somewhere. We are all “foreigners” — natives of “non-places” [15] . “This need to find meaning in the present, and perhaps in the past, is the price we pay for the abundance of events in what we might call the ‘super modern’, to express its essential quality: excess” (Ože M. 2005, pp. 31–32). Augé determines the state of supermodernity through “the figures of excess”. One of them concerns time — exaggeration in the sense of the abundance of time (Ibid., P. 32). Paradoxically, we find this “excess of time” in the already mentioned visualized assembly procedure: in the installation of redistributed industrial machines and public monuments along the main street, which vacuums the history of Bor and explodes in our contemporaneity and everyday life. More precisely, the abundance of “unauthorized alienated”, rearranged objects of the Park-Museum show us the desired state whose intentions we “do not read”. The second, important exaggeration that Augé points out, is spatial. Related to the accelerated crossing of distances and the transmission of images, only one image “possesses a power far in excess of any objective information it carries” (Ibid., P. 32). Meanwhile, Augé warns us of the “false familiarity” that images on screens, or in public spaces, can create. (Which, frankly and outside of the topic of this essay, everyone is currently relying on, to some degree). “The spatial overabundance” is expressed in the abundance of “images and imaginary references, and in the spectacular acceleration of transport (Ibid., P. 36). Such an abundance of images and traffic, we assume, may be a consequence of certain aspects of industrialization (such as the concentration of population in cities and increased population movement), with which Augé introduces us to the “non-places”: “The installations needed for the accelerated circulation of passengers and goods (high-speed roads and railways, interchanges, airports) are just as much non-places as the means of transport themselves, or the great commercial centers, or the extended transit camps where the planet’s refugees are parked.” (Ibid., P. 36). The aforementioned “liberating” phrase — natives of “non-place” — should allow the author and the reader to understand what is read, lived, interpreted, present, here and now in the text, or in the subject itself. It partly “liberates” the author as a “typewriter”, confirms and justifies his position, but paradoxically, also enables the recognition of the production of “commonplaces” (in the text or subject of study) striving to show the authenticity of a given culture and community. In that context, we do not forget that sociologist, Cvetko Kostić, pointed out in 1962 the existence of functional urban zones — “residential aggregates” within several categories of social aggregates – as “a characteristic of a modern city and city life” in relation to Bor. Besides residential aggregates, social aggregates also include crowds, masses, and audiences (Kostić, C. 1962, pp. 97–100), which points to similar characteristics with Augé’s “non-places”. Perhaps this kind of liberating cynicism of being a natives of “non-place”, based on the continuity of “residential aggregates” of workers / citizens, could offer us an adequate critical apparatus to be present in the text or subject, as we would be in our room or workplace. Based on institutional legal regulations and the “reflexive” approach to cultural heritage demonstrated in the texts of prof. Dragan Bulatović [16] (the mentioned balanced, discursive and comprehensive approach to industrial heritage); and the work of prof. Slobodan Naumović, inspired by anthropological and museological theories; as well as library theory and practice, we will use the local spectacularization of the “industrial heritage” in the era of “tourism and the renaissance”, as a contrast when scanning the current situation before setting out to “unwind the film” away from our contemporaneity. Industrial heritage as a “key resource” is still not recognized as a special segment of cultural heritage within the current Law on Cultural Heritage (Law, 1994), but it is a constitutive element and has been the basis of all heritage institutions in Bor since their founding. “One of the current definitions is offered in the so-called Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage. The charter was adopted in Moscow in 2003 by the Assembly of Representatives of the International Committee for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage (TICCIH). According to that charter, industrial heritage can be considered objects and structures built for industrial activities, processes, and means used within them, as well as the cities and landscapes where they are located, together with their tangible and intangible phenomena, of fundamental importance” (Naumović, 2013, p. 76). As an example, technical heritage and objects of technical culture, that are kept in museums and universities, are most closely related to objects and the concept of industrial heritage. Due to the advancement of technology and techniques, more and more instruments, equipment and tools are being overtaken by newer, more efficient, higher quality, faster and more precise means; thus there is a need to preserve old technical objects that are no longer in use. The real fear of the transience and obsolescence of technical objects is equally valid for industrial heritage. Consider: cities and the geographical formations of landscapes and panoramas (as a broader term of industrial heritage which can move beyond a laboratory or factory and into ambient units) and the depths of their impact on people’s lives and their existence. Unlike the idea behind technical heritage, the industrial heritage, in addition to “transience”, implies additional fears related to the alienation of workers from the means of labor, the sale of resources, and the privatization of social property. Reflexive attitudes towards labor, means, and products and production, is the most important because it allows for the recognition of their social values. Such a reflective relationship can also be the basis for understanding workers’ culture and organization as an intangible form of industrial heritage. “Industrial heritage as a concept, and as a field of professional activity, arose when a number of emotionally interested people became faced with the rapid destruction of everything that would later be united by that concept; which was then understood as a set of ugly, naturally scattered waste, or as a remnant of old times that hinders the development of new forms of business, a new industrial cycle” (Naumović, 2013, p. 77). “Heritage exists only when it acquires the status of property in the consciousness of an individual. […] only good knowledge of one’s own property…an awareness of the values we ascribe to the material world, can help plan production activities. Then, a wealth of memory becomes crucial in strategic investment. The latter implies that any individualization of cultural property transpires in order to achieve progress within the life of the community, which [subsequently] forms economic patterns [from] the good sense of memory and inheritance of each other’s own cultural property” (Bulatović, 2015a, p.137). However, Bulatović further points out and warns that “culture is a matter of continuous construction and should not be inherited, as opposed to material remnants of the past that are necessarily part of the hereditary suitcase” (Ibid.), that by inheritance law is possible to have a titular “without culture”, without “sense of heritage”. We will remind you again of the valid Law on Cultural Property, according to which cultural goods are those whose laws and regulations prescribe the value which should be preserved for the public good, and that they are owned by the state, and the institutions who own cultural goods manage, preserve, and make them available under certain conditions. In our case, there is such a titular, or so-called local sheriff, who gives himself the right to participate in the management of cultural goods; placing himself above institutions, above the law, and above a powerless, decent culture “with a bun”, who ultimately has no strength to oppose the newly composed raw, political power. Of course, we can assume the outcomes of the interests of such a titular. Unfortunately, and due to institutional inertia, everything occurs with the newly composed verses “ne može nam niko ništa, jači smo od sudbine” [17] and representation policy of a dominant group of manipulators, so that only the darkest premonitions come true (and always in their favor), leaving us to think about what we have left and what is melted down, lost and sold out. “If it is clear that the civic museum offers a way of understanding time and its stock market value — the surplus value of the time of a capitalist economy – and it is clear that it is vulnerable to the inside, only if the reality whose image it generates changes radically. Any intention to situate the idea of intertwining the conception of reality within his own conception, comes as a side of the order of values which he follows” (Bulatović, 2015, p. 58). We must note that Professor Bulatovic considers “heritage industry” from the standpoint of cultural tourism in the context of the individual and family initiatives who see only the economic side of the economy. “Usually, small initiatives are taken as models of solutions in economically hopeless areas, and in that sense, they act as necessary – often the only – bridges in the current situation” (Bulatović, 2015, p. 157). It could be said that economically “hopeless situations” can befall industrial giants, and so a similar strategy of “bridging” (in fear of deindustrialization) was applied in Bor – only that the real fear of privatization was overcome, in part, thanks to a touristic “heritage industry”. Simultaneously, we could notice that cultural goods, in accordance with the transitional practices of the gray market, are “creatively” viewed as a “secondary raw material” suitable for recycling. This conceptual approach can be recognized, not only in every attempt at non-institutional instrumentalization, historical revision, revitalization, or reconfiguration of heritage, but also the occasional falter of heritage institutions on the waves of their modernization, renewal, and uncritical adoption of innovative technologies imposed by cultural industry agendas. Industrial heritage and the heritage industry, with their arsenal of control machines, are aimed at neglecting the workers’ culture, passivation of workers, and the workers’ organization, in order to achieve their final goal without resistance —privatization. Hence, the urgent need for a polemical view of the current situation, with the use of “contrast when scanning” our current situation, and these issues. — to be continued Photographer: Markovic N. Mihailo 1920 Bor Photo documentation French Society of the Bor Mines. Collection of Ljuba Markov. 18 x 24 cm COBISS.SR-ID512424632. Dostupno na:linku: https://plus.sr.cobiss.net/opac7/bib/nbb/512424632#full WORKS CITED Булатовић, Драган. 2004. „Баштина као бранд или музеј као економија жеље.” Годишњак за друштвену историју (2–3): 137–148. Bulatović, Dragan. 2013. „Kriza muzejske proizvodnje identiteta.” U Muzeologija, nova muzeologija i nauka o baštini, ur. Angelina Milosavljević, 11–25. Beograd: Centar za muzeologiju i heritologiju Filozofskog fakulteta Univerziteta u Beogradu; Kruševac: Narodni muzej. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dFlEOtEMVW1LyzgJAOd3YosM4aKD-wiA/view . Bulatović, Dragan. 2015a. Od trezora do tezaurusa: teorija i metodologija izgradnje tezaurusa baštinjenja [e-book]. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet, Centar za muzeologiju i heritologiju. Acessed 10. 2. 2020. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8_S5L87l0-eMV9MUmYyRDVxUFYxWUdLZlNtVldtaUp2Rk9n/view . Bulatović, Dragan. 2015b. „Studije baštine kao temelj očuvanja humanističkog obrazovanja.” Andragoške studije(1): 41–64. Fuko, Mišel. 2007. Poredak diskursa. Loznica: Karpos. [Foucault, Michel. 1981. “The order of discourse,” translated by Ian McLeod. In Untying the Text : a Poststructuralist Reader, ed. by R. Young, 48-78. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.] Kostić, Cvetko. 1962. Bor i okolina: sociološka ispitivanja. Beograd: Savremena škola. Миленковић, Милош. 2003. Проблем етнографски стварног : полемика о Самои у кризи етнографског реализма. Београд: Српски генеалошки центар. Naumović, Slobodan. 2009. Upotreba tradicije u političkom i javnom životu Srbije na kraju dvadesetog i početkom dvadeset prvog veka. Beograd: Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju: „Filip Višnjić”. Наумовић, Слободан. 2013. „Ресурс од кључног значаја: индустријско наслеђе Бора виђено из перспективе индустријске археологије, етнологије рударства, политичке антропологије и визуелне антропологије.” Добро је за мишљење али је компликовано за јело, ур. Драган Стојменовић, 75–111. Бор: Народна библиотека Бор. Наумовић, Слободан и Радивојевић, Владимир. 2015. Борски алманах – улична фотографија као заједничка антропологија. Бор: Народна библиотека Бор. Ože, Mark. 2005. Nemesta : uvod u antropologiju nadmodernosti. Beograd : Biblioteka XX vek : Krug. [Augé, Marc. 1995. Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, translated by John Howe. London, New York: Verso.] Romelić, Živka. 2017. O rudarskoj kulturi u Boru: tradicija kao podstrek = The Mining Culture in Bor : tradition as a stimulus. Bor: Narodna biblioteka Bor. Available at: http://digitalnizavicaj.org.rs/index.php?query=ispisTextaIzKolekcije&idTexta=413#ad-image-0 . Sorenson, Ričard E i Džablonko, Alison. 2014. „Istraživačko snimanje događanja koja se prirodno odvijaju: osnovne strategije.” U Načela vizuelne antropologije, priredio Pol Hokings, 71–80. Beograd: Clio. [Sorenson, E. Richard and Allison Jablonko. 1995. “Research filming of naturally occurring phenomena: basic strategies“. In Principles of visual anthropology, edited by Paul Hockings. Berlin ; Mouton de Gruyter. Click to read Serbian version Dragan Stojmenović is local history librarian in Public Library Bor. [1] http://old.wcscd.com/index.php/2020/01/07/as-you-go-the-roads-under-your-feet-towards-a-new-future/ [2] https://www.gradnja.rs/bijenale-2020-osmi-kilometar-anketni-konkurs-iva-bekic/ [3] One of the leaders at the beginning of the film “Man Is Not a Bird”, by Dušan Makavejev, dictates to journalists the report from the concert of the 4th movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, which the choir and symphony orchestra performed in the company’s metallurgical plants on the occasion of the smelter. [4] The author of the refrain and the title of the Bor “folk” song is Srba Stančić, first recited within a circle of friends in 2000. It was first filmed and performed publicly in the amateur film Op, mala op! by the Center for Informal Communication Nemušto (2001). The song was then developed, sung and arranged by the local band Duo trojica (2006) for the film Mining Opera (2006) by Oleg Novković and Milena Marković. The authors of the composition and the text under that title are Miroslav Mitrašinović and Saša D. Lović. [5] This is due to the fact that the institutions for the preservation of cultural and historical Heritage in Bor– the Department of Historical Archives of Negotin; the Museum of Mining and Metallurgy; and the Public Library Bor–have their funds mainly based on local economic, geographical, and culturally historical specificities related to workers’ culture, workers’ movements and the industrial heritage since their establishment. As for the Public Library Bor, within its fund organization and systematization is its Local History Department, which collects, processes, preserves and makes available library material created in Bor, and whose authors were working or living in Bor; or which is thematically related to Bor and its surroundings, regardless of the place of origin,. The Library and the Archive collect, process, preserve and make use of this movable cultural heritage, while the Museum, in addition to the movable heritage, also takes care of the immovable cultural heritage. See more about the funds: http://www.arhivnegotin.org.rs/news/item/34 ; http://digitalnizavicaj.org.rs ; http://www.muzejrudarstvaimetalurgije.org [6] A systematized and illustrated overview of the working-mining culture in Bor and its current state is available in the publication of Živka Romelić The Mining Culture in Bor: tradition as a stimulus, Bor 2017. http://digitalnizavicaj.org.rs/index.php?query=ispisTextaIzKolekcije&idTexta=413#ad-image-0 [7] Later in the text, the old and new locations of individual monuments and exhibits will be described in more detail, but for this note we will single out the relocations of Miner with a Drill, and the monument to trade unionist, Petar Radovanović, as the main symbols which have been moved from their original locations to the beginning or end of the new outdoor setting along the main streets in Bor. This will be discussed in more detail in the text. Both sculptures are currently on the newly built roundabouts: Miner with a Drill was placed on the Fourth Kilometer, while the monument to Petar Radovnović was placed on the conditionally said First Kilometer. Photos from the ceremonial rally on the occasion of the unveiling of the monument to Petar Radovanović on August 6, 1981 can be seen on the following link: http://digitalnizavicaj.org.rs/index.php?query=ispisTextaIzKolekcije&idTexta=431#ad-image-0 A photograph of the monument Miner with a drill or Bor miner, photographed at the original location in 1960 can be seen at the following link that is part of the catalog description: https://plus.sr.cobiss.net/opac7/bib/512720056#full [8] The initiator of the campaign for social responsibility “For a better Bor” is RTB-Bor. See example on the link: https://kolektiv.co.rs/novi-rudarski-eksponat-u-park-muzeju/ [9] The division of the city into kilometers from the old surface mine (grope, hole, gaura or the commonly understood, zero kilometer) was probably conditioned by the first urban solutions that foresaw the further development of the city from the north to the south. The expansion of the colony began with the construction of the “New” or Southern Colony in 1928. At the end of the mid-20th century, Bor further developed urbanistically, generating the Second and Third kilometers, and by 1965, the Program of urban-technical conditions, for a detailed solution of the settlement on the III and IV kilometers in the city of Bor, formalized the framework zoning of the city. This division of the city is widely accepted in the informal communication of Bor’s natives, which, with the formation of the city cemetery at the 7th kilometer, produced a linear understanding of the development and life of the city and its citizens. There were several signs of this informal zoning, one of which is on the fountain at the Second kilometer, which was marked after its construction in 2002. This linear concept was used in the amateur film Op, mala op, Surface Mine!, 2001; 0 KM, 2012: an exhibition of photographs by Hervé Dez, Marija Janković and Vladimir Radivojević; and most recently, Eighth kilometer: Survey competition, 2020/21, that will represent Serbia at the Venice Biennale of Architecture 2021, led by Iva Bekić. See more about the exhibition Zero kilometer: http://digitalnizavicaj.org.rs/index.php?query=ispisTextaIzKolekcije&idTexta=260#ad-image-15 http://digitalnizavicaj.org.rs/index.php?query=kolekcijaTekstova&idKolekcije=30 More about the Eighth kilometer project: https://www.gradnja.rs/bijenale-2020-osmi-kilometar-anketni-konkurs-iva-bekic/ [10] A native ethnologist (ethnographer or anthropologist) is brought up in the culture or environment that they study and to which they belong. (See more in: Milenković, M. 2003, pp. 255 – 259) [11] Also referred to as reflexive anthropology from Jean Rouch. The concept of collaborative (shared) anthropology in this context arose from a kind of “digressive search”, which is not programmed (with previously established goals) or opportunistic (unexpected or coinciding with events without adequate understanding), but complementary, to fill segments that contribute to modern understanding of photographing and presenting a certain environment. (On digressive search, see more in: Sorenson and Jablonko 2014, 71–80). It was used to emphasize the importance of researchers’ cooperation with the community they study and community members’ participation in the realization and presentation of research results. [12] The First and Second phases of the construction and reconstruction of the mine were preceded by two five-year plans from 1947-57, when the program of the first phase was adopted and launched, within which new equipment for pit and surface ore exploitation was procured. The transport of mineral raw materials was modernized. A new ore warehouse was built to meet the capacity of the mine to expand to the one in Majdanpek (which started operating in 1961): equipped with five fry furnaces, a new flame furnace and three large converters. A dam was also built to create a new artificial accumulation of industrial water – Lake Bor. A new sulfuric acid factory was also built, simultaneously with the super phosphate factory in Prahovo. The first phase was completed in 1961. The second phase began in 1966, immediately after the economic reform of 1965, which expanded the production capacities of sulfuric acid and precious metals in Bor and Majdanpek. The Bor-Majdanpek railway was built, alongside a new ore transport system, a new electrolysis, a foundry of precious metals, a new smelter, and two more sulfuric acid factories. The second phase of construction and reconstruction lasted until 1971. (See more: Erić, 1975, 113–130) [13] Opening of the Park Museum in 1997 in Bor (settings of the Technical Collection of the Museum of Mining and Metallurgy in Bor) Author of photos: Ljubomir Markov. See more on the following link: http://www.digitalnizavicaj.org.rs/index.php?query=ispisTextaIzKolekcije&idTexta=428#ad-image-0 [14] On the occasion of marking the fiftieth anniversary of the mine, a celebration was organized at which the first miners were solemnly sent to a well-deserved retirement. Plaques and letters of thanks were awarded to deserving miners, including Paun Meždinović. See more on the following link: https://plus.sr.cobiss.net/opac7/bib/512722872 [15] The phrase was created by merging the concept of the notion of the non-place of Marc Augé and the feelings of the author of the text, brought up towards important characters from the films of Wim Wenders. The inspiration for this “liberating” phrase can be found in Marc Augé’s anthropological essay The Near and the Elsewhere. [16] “Preservation has two faces: material (treasury) and reflexive (thesaurus). The distinction is actually drawn by the so-called boundaries of memory – representative (monuments) carriers of documentaries (sources of truth) – and they are embodied in national, state apparatus-protected, cultural vaults. The reflective face has the role of a window into the vault. Through which, every bearer of new life stares into or, to concretize, every material and spiritual activity that arises because of forgetfulness, works in favor of the adoption of a common linguistic and, consequently, lexical fund – thesaurus forgets to permanently preserve the cultural values of the past. ” (Bulatović, 2015, p. 48) [17] Part of the refrain of a newly composed song performed by folk singer Mitar Mirić. Translation: “no one can do anything to us, we are stronger than fate.” Previous Next

As you go … Online Journal Editorial Statement As you go... roads under your feet, towards the new future is transitioning from a long-term research curatorial inquiry into a sustainable, autonomous, transnational, and multiplatform organization. Biljana Ciric conceived and initiated this project in 2019, and it has since developed into a network of organic research cells comprising independent art practitioners, small-scale organizations, state/private museums, and researchers from various fields. As you go… aims to generate alternative modes of working together that debunk the hierarchy of the artistic institution, encouraging creative interplays amidst the vast scope of cultural production and interdisciplinary research. The initiative has organized two encounters, the first in Addis Ababa and the other in Bor, a symposium, and provided support to numerous artists, collectives, and researchers. The transition to a sustainable, autonomous, transnational, and multiplatform organization is a significant step forward for As you go… and its partners. The organization will continue to connect and relate with localities on the margins and expand its network to like-minded individuals, communities, and institutions in various regions. As you go… will nurture art and research as political and solidarity practice within its organization members and beyond, using opacity and visibility as active choices. As you go… transnational organization funding partner cells include: Biljana Ciric , What Could Should Curating Do, Belgrade Larys Frogier , OW Ocean & Wavz, Paris Aigerim Kapar , Artcom Platform, Almaty/Astana Jelica Jovanovic, Belgrade/Vienna Sinkneh Eshetu , Fruitycity Children’s World, Addis Ababa Among our other activities and platforms that we use to connect to and engage with artists, art institutions, and the public, we will continue our online journal. As a journal, we are committed to supporting initiatives that challenge the usual definition of curatorial practice and academic research and aim to generate alternative modes of working together. We believe that As you go… has the potential to make a significant contribution to contemporary arts and humanities by fostering collective and critical learning, building a sense of intimacy, and amplifying unheard voices of shared struggles within different contexts. As you go… member cells in different parts of the globe commit to continuing to contribute to our journal, sharing their personal as well as institutional experiences and learning, as they act within their local contexts with a shared vision as an organic unit. We also encourage and welcome contributions from individual and institutional partners of As you go… to lend impetus to our shared goal of playing constructive roles in contemporary arts and humanities through channeling unheard voices and ‘quoting from the margins’. As you go… funding partner cells will also serve as members of the online journal editorial board. Written by Sinkneh Eshetu April 2023 Addis Ababa Stories from the Room – Conversation A disturbing Chinese dream: scattered thoughts on the cultures of involution and art institution in China Shore Seeing Stillness Non-Alignment Summit Anniversary a difficulty to re-member Seeing the invisi ble The cultural interweaving of China and the Balkans: A textural understanding of artistic exchanges under the Bri < Activities Curatorial Inquiries Projects >