The Spomenik as Locus
Spomenik in Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian (BCS) literally translates to memory or memorial. Though in its generic form it could be applied to any physical marker of commemoration, in architectural, historical, and Balkan studies it has specifically come to denote those monuments erected throughout the former Yugoslav republics of the Western Balkans between the late 1940s and early 1980s.
These spomeniks (BCS: spomenici) provide an invaluable site for the investigation at the heart of this project for numerous reasons.
Firstly, the structures, of which there were (and still are) hundreds, were commissioned through a mix of national competitive commissioning processes and decentralized, localized programs between the 1950s and early 1980s in order to commemorate events that took place during WWII (Horvatinčić 2020: 109). Thus they are consistent with the official Yugoslav narrative on the events of the war and its judgement of the actors involved. In this sense we can think of the spomeniks as artefacts of a top-down history - sanctioned by, reconciled with, and placed in situ by the state.
Secondly, and in counter to their design intentions, these sites figure in the lived, quotidian experience of their actors, human and otherwise. The agency that is enacted by these actors in the midst of these structures is often oblivious or even contrary to their intended meaning. For example, given their often secluded, remote and picturesque settings, the sites (often vast complexes including visitor centers) figure heavily in the unofficial lives of residents - as drinking spots, camping sites, impromptu concert and performance venues. Many abut farmland, and increasingly, residential encroachments. In this way, the spomeniks are part of living ecologies that are in constant flux and can be considered loci of histories from below (Bhattacharya 1983: 3).
A third axis of historical impulse that suggests these sites for study relates to the fragmentation of the former Yugoslavia that commenced in the 1990s. Where once these monuments existed as reflections of a single, centralized power, they now find themselves scattered through seven sovereign states, many of which are further internally demarcated along ethnic lines. These furcations create a political geography more akin to that which existed prior to WWII and which the spomeniks, as they can be considered a pillar of Tito’s policy of Brotherhood and Unity (Bratstvo i Jedinstvo), attempted to paper over. Thus, spomenik sites today variously find themselves razed, commemorated, forgotten, vandalized, renovated and/or repurposed, depending on their location in the post-Yugoslav political geography (Lebhaft 2013: 64-65; Prica and Lajbenšperger 2018: 77-78).
Finally, the spomeniks have over the past decade been subjected to a fetishizing Western gaze. Decontextualized representations of their architectural forms have become regular fodder for a perspective that conveniently ignores the complex nature of their genesis and continued existence (Horvatinčić 2020: 108), whilst perhaps also playing to a dark touristic impulse towards an Eastern and/or Balkan and/or Socialist other. This project attempts to work counter to this trend by honoring complexity, context, and flux, and sitting with the resultant contestation.
It is also worth noting that globally (though most vociferously in Anglo-colonial contexts) the notion of the monument has come to the fore in recent debates around history and its potential for revision and erasure, as well as the threat of its co-option in service of nascent nationalisms. The Balkan context of the disputed monument precedes this by many decades and is somewhat more complex than the case of colonial statues, as evidenced above.