Case
study 2
In a passageway in
the centre of Ljubljana, for 25
years now there has been a graffiti
depicting a sinking ship named
Yugoslavia. During that time, many
other new graffiti and tags have
been added around it, but the image
has in essence remained intact. I
view it as a symptom of the
ambivalent, even polyvalent
relationship of Slovenians towards
their Yugoslav and socialist past.
In this study, my
starting point is this very feature
of contemporary urban culture, one
of the hundreds that I have
photographed during the last several
years or whose photos I have
received from other “graffiti
hunters”. As Barthes (1992, 15)
says, each photograph brings about
“something threatening”, it “brings
back death”. Among the heap of
graffiti and street art that I have
photographed or obtained by other
means, I am interested in this
research in the opposite: “bringing
back life” – the motive therein, the
existence of “Yugoslavia after
Yugoslavia”. In short: I was
fascinated by a picture of it in a
field quite neglected by research –
the contemporary subculture of
graffiti and street art. In other
words, I wondered what its
relationship to the former common
state, its socialism, anti-fascist
struggle, its leadership, and its
ideology was: both in a positive,
affirmative sense, and in a
negative, hostile manner. The
central question of my research was
how contemporary authors of graffiti
and street artists (de)construct the
Yugoslav era; what kind of
pro-Yugoslav or anti-Yugoslav
graffiti and street art there is;
what antagonisms they reflect and
create at the same time. In short:
what the walls of the post-Yugoslav
homelands say about the homeland
that was former Yugoslavia. Or if we
were to use Foucault’s terminology:
What kind of political subjectivity
is created in this process? In this
regard, this analysis is
complementary with other analyses
dealing with the construction and
presentation of the Yugoslav era in
advertising, popular culture,
design, art, and last but not least,
political discourse.
I. Introduction and Definitions of
Political Graffiti and Street Art
The study is part
of my wider interest in researching
cultures of post-Yugoslav collective
memory, post-socialist ideologies
and urban subcultures; specifically,
the exact points in which they
overlap. I have been collecting
these materials by means of “
barefoot culturology” from the late
nineties onwards, particularly in
the northern parts of the former
federation (Slovenia, Croatia,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia). In
this period, I discovered more than
270 examples of graffiti and street
art, most of which I photographed,1
while also finding a smaller portion
in other sources (books, newspapers,
articles, and catalogues). I
followed the usual three-part
organisation of this kind of
fieldwork which was suggested, among
others, by Collieri (1996, 167-173):
preparatory observation, structured
research and final analysis.
I define graffiti
and street art as a form of specific
aesthetic expression in a public
space with a clear message: it is
temporary, it can be destroyed, it
is illegal (condemned as vandalism
in the eyes of dominant discourses
and institutions), it is critical of
the existing, it is represented by
an image or object and/or word, it
always interacts with its
environment (the graffiti’s “text”
must always be read together with
its physical and social “context”),
it is in constant interaction with
its environment (almost always
several at once), it shapes its
subculture (with its ethics,
unspoken rules, its stars,
innovators, epigones, imitators,
experts etc.) and its authors are in
most cases anonymous. Their
characteristics include
untranslatable plays on words and
motifs, humour, paradoxes, loanwords
and the use of paraphrase, rhymes,
aphorisms and witticisms. They are
created and collected primarily by
young people – a rather profiled
medium, generationally speaking.
Graffiti are intended to “entertain,
provoke and make us think” (Sterk
2004, 68); they are a “mode of
communication that is personal and
free from the usual social
limitations which, as a rule,
prohibit people from expressing the
richness of their thoughts” (Abel,
Buckley 1977, 3).
Graffiti are
two-dimensional wall paintings, and
their main types are the tag (logo
and signature of the graffiti’s
author), the piece (abbreviation of
masterpiece, a high-quality and
complex graffiti), the throw-up, or
bomb (a quickly made graffiti), the
roof-top (a graffiti on the upper
part of a building), the character
(a caricature from popular culture),
the wall of fame (walls where the
most elaborate graffiti of the wider
and local scene of the graffiti’s
author are located one next to the
other), and the mural (most often
legally-painted large-scale
illustrations on buildings). Street
art developed later, during the last
20-25 years, which is why it was
labelled as post-graffiti art, and
in most cases it is
three-dimensional (stencils,
stickers, public installations and
visual interventions, paste-up
posters, cuttings etc.). The next
important difference is aesthetic: I
classify graffiti into auratic
creations, it is a case of a “‘here’
and ‘now’ art piece”, which has “a
singular presence in the place where
it is located” (Benjamin, 1998, 150)
– they are in some way always
unique, unrepeatable. Stickers,
posters and stencils, however, are
in a way post-auratic: free from
originals and “rituals” (Ibid, 154,
155), they can be infinitely
technically reproduced, and can be
set up in a public space by
practically anyone. Furthermore: the
essential feature of graffiti and
street art is that they are an
illegal medium of social groups with
a communication deficit – used by
those who cannot otherwise express
themselves (see also: Chaffee 1993,
12, 16, 17).2 In this sense,
McLuhan's maxim that the medium is a
message is a viable reference here:
a graffiti, the very act of its
creation, is in itself a message,
regardless of the specific content,
since it publicly reveals something
that is not contained in other
media. Likewise, it is also
important which graffiti remain and
on the other hand which are erased,
removed and enhanced or have their
meaning replaced – how quickly this
is done, by whom and in what manner.
For this study, it
is important to distinguish between
so-called aesthetic or subcultural
graffiti and political graffiti. The
latter engage more directly in
social criticism, and in accordance
with that I treat them as a
significant political medium: in
addition to the usual
characteristics of the subculture
(specific aesthetic form, the
illegal aspect, etc.), they have a
clear political agenda. The contents
of political graffiti are
definitively superordinate to form:
aesthetically speaking, they are
poorly made most of the time, they
contain neither the standard finesse
of the genre nor insider secrecy,
their goal is political propaganda,
a call to action, mobilisation, and
they are a trigger for it (see:
Velikonja, 2008 and 2013). Crossing
(as well as crossing out, or
crossing over), i.e. drawing
graffiti over existing ones – which
is an exception in the unwritten
ethics of graffiti drawing – is a
rule here.3
II. The Method Question:
Semiology between Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches
Graffiti and
street art, particularly those which
are politically-oriented, are almost
impossible to research from the
author's perspective, because
authors are as a rule anonymous or
difficult to track down – drawing
graffiti is still prohibited and
oppressed. Even when I was
completely certain of who the author
was – based on various information
and sources – the author himself did
not want to admit to it in
conversation. In certain cases, the
authors are explicitly known and
their graffiti signed: right-wing
fan groups (e.g. “Torcida”, “Viola”,
“Delije”), the extreme right-wing
(with the abbreviations of their
organisations, e.g. “Radikalna
Ljubljana”, or the “Autonomous
nationalists of Slovenia”), or the
clerical fascist groups (e.g.
“Serbian Action”, whose graffiti
also include its Internet address).
For this reason, I
explored graffiti at the image’s
very location, not in the place of
its origin, or in the place where it
is observed, i.e. where its effect
is produced.4 However, I must direct
attention to the significance of its
environment: to understand a
graffiti, it is not sufficient to
have a “good eye”, or to interpret
its composition or the power of the
image itself, but its location as
well. Contextual knowledge is
important: social and ideological
knowledge is perhaps even
superordinate to form in that
regard. In other words: a visual
analysis should be carried out
together with the non-visual
background that places the image
aesthetically and ideologically,
with all its completeness.
This is why
choosing semiology as the main
research method makes sense. It
explores images together with their
ideological environment – more
precisely, it explains how images
(de)legitimise the existing balance
of power. In other words: semiology
breaks down the ideological
justification of social structures,
i.e. the way in which certain groups
set up their own ruling position
based on their symbols and
narratives and based on which others
dispute it. This is expressed in
different fields, including the
field of political graffiti. During
the research – referring to the
classic works in the field of
semiology (Barthes 1990, 1992, 1993,
Eco 1998, Hall 2012, Guiraud, 1983)
– I used the semiological method in
two steps. In the first, I was
interested in how both pro-Yugoslav
and anti-Yugoslav ideologies were
constructed in graffiti and street
art. I followed the descriptions of
Yugoslavia, its socialism, its
leadership, anti-fascism, etc. –
simply put, the period between 1941
and 1991 in contemporary graffiti
and street art; in the same way, I
also followed descriptions of the
opposite, the anti-Yugoslav,
anti-socialist and anti-Partisan
ideologies. The third chapter,
therefore, encompasses the
“denotative level” (Barthes 1990,
200), the description, the "literal
meanings of symbols” (Hall, 2012,
405), the discursive construction of
the meaning of such graffiti and
their classification.5
In the second
step, in chapter Four, I delve into
the “connotative level” (Barthes,
1990, 200, 201): what the “higher”
meaning of graffiti and street art
is in the semiotic sense, how
“connotation 'trims' the denoted
message” (Barthes, 1990, 201; 1993,
Barthes, 1993, 111-117; see also:
Guiraud 1983, 33, 34). Hall (Ibid.)
claims that symbols “acquire their
full ideological value – and can
therefore act openly to articulation
with wider ideological discourses
and meanings – at the level of their
'associative' meanings (i.e. at the
connotative level)”. To use Eco's
analytical words (1998, 184), “a
message is received in a concrete
and fixed acceptance that qualifies
it”. I investigated how the
pro-Yugoslav and anti-Yugoslav
graffiti are involved in current
ideological and political conflicts
on the post-socialist and
post-Yugoslav mental map, thus
(also) how they criticise and
antagonise other ideological
discourses and practices. They are,
in fact, as a rule, translated into
the categories of the recent past
and its protagonists. In other
words: in this second step, I deal
with issues such as what kind of
“Manichean ideology”, what kind of
“fundamental opposition” (Eco, 1998,
148, 168, 169) is created by writing
graffiti like “OF” (Oslobodilacki
Front – Liberation Front), “Tito
lives”, “Long live 29 November”, or
spraying red stars and the like and
what all these really mean; and
also, what graffiti of opposing
contents mean today (“Tito is a
criminal”, “NDH” [abbreviation of
Nezavisna Država Hrvatska –
Independent State of Croatia],
“Death to communists”, etc.).
I thoroughly
reviewed the collected material on
multiple occasions, upon which I
refined and classified it. Before
the actual analysis, I would like to
explain some methodological
specifications of the study. First,
this will be done in regards to the
combination of qualitative and
quantitative research cases. The
semiotic approach is as a rule used
for the analysis of specific
examples in the studium and punctum
methods (culturally accepted, or
non-coded image parsing – Barthes,
1992, 27-29, 410-412); of a
dominantly hegemonious, conducive or
oppositionally and globally
contradicting position or code
(Hall, 2012, 410-412), or with a
“play of oppositions” and a “fixed
scheme”, that are constantly
repeated in certain cultural
artefacts (Eco, 1998, 160-162). I
selected the analytically connected
denotation-connotation pair in the
Barthesian sense which I combined
with the other, quantitative method.
The content analysis registers the
frequency with which the same motif
or image is repeated. In the
analysis I connected the two,
firstly by counting how often a
certain group of motifs reappears,
and subsequently exploring their
denotative (descriptive) and
connotative (meaning-centred)
dimensions. Second, the primary
visual structure of graffiti is
multimodal, composed of text
(specifically abbreviations of
different organisations and groups,
names of protagonists, political
salutes and brief calls), images
(political symbols, emblems,
historical specifications etc.) and
colour, whereby sometimes only the
first or only the second element
appears. It is, however, essential
to always analyse them as a unit.
Furthermore, the
fate of graffiti and street art is
such that they almost always
experience some kind of change: they
are crossed out, amended, painted
over in white, muddled or expanded
through text or images. Political
graffiti and street art are a kind
of wall feuilleton, a series: a
medium for the battle between
various graffiti artists,
documenting graffiti battles or
cross-out wars where one layer comes
right on top of the other, the
original message is destroyed,
restored, altered, destroyed again
and so on.6 In short, they are hardly
ever analysed in isolation. This is
also how I divided them: into those
that have, despite everything,
remained more individual, less
confronted and less antagonised
(groups 1 and 2) and those that were
completely antagonised (group 3).
Fourth: Some
graffiti isn’t necessarily connected
to the Yugoslav, socialist or
Partisan experience: the red star
wasn’t only a symbol of
Yugoslavianism, socialism or
Partisanism, i.e. of the period
between 1941 and 1991, much like
Nazi symbolism and imagery – whether
global (the swastika, Nazi salutes,
other Nazi symbols such as 18, 88,
the Totenkoph), or local (symbols of
the Ustashas, Chetniks, Home Guard)
– were not always the antithesis of
anti-Yugoslavianism. Both are also
more general symbols of left-wing
and right-wing sub-politics. The
vast majority of the analysed
graffiti truly refers to the
Partisan and Yugoslav era, while
some don’t as they are “timeless”
symbols of socialism or communism or
Nazi fascism. The same applies to
what they condemn: graffiti like
“Death to clero-fascism”, “Fuck
nations” and the like can refer to
current clero-fascists and Nazis or
to those of the past, in the same
way that “Socialism is a disease” or
“Death to communism” can refer to
socialism of the past or its
present-day “leftovers” (for
example, udbomafija – the State
Security Mafia – in Slovenia etc.).
I have taken into consideration only
those which in some way had a
connotation with the Yugoslav
socialist experience or which were
“translated” into it.
Fifth. Analyses of
this type treat that which was
immediately destroyed and that which
remains with equal importance.
Despite the fact that such urban
visual creations can be destroyed by
definition – the lifespan of
contemporary graffiti is several
months, rarely several years – in
traditionally antifascist areas
(Primorska, Istria, Kvarner in
Slovenia), post-war graffiti can be
spotted to this day, some of which
bare a clichéd witness to “Trst
Gorica Rijeka Istria” (Prestranek,
2015), while others are dedicated to
the Partisan army (Vela Luka, 2008).
“Long live Marshall Tito”, “We want
Yugoslavia” and “This is Yugoslavia”
(villages in the Gorizia Hills,
2013) can also be found. Despite
having faded, they can still be read
and understood. To this I can also
include the huge “stone graffiti”
visible from tens of kilometres
away, with slogans spanning across
dozens of metres of stone, placed in
honour of Tito and Yugoslavia during
the initial post-war decades and
remaining to this day (I found
several examples in Primorska,
Istria and central Bosnia). Two
graffiti dedicated to Stalin have
remained for decades, surviving even
the cruel confrontation with the
Inform Bureau: the first one
alongside the Tito graffiti in the
main street in Ljubljana, Dunajska
(Becka) Street, and the second one
in Kopar. This serves as further
proof of the fact that graffiti are
visible to all but noticed by few.
Sixth. It is
practically impossible to determine
the exact number of (political)
graffiti because they exist one day
and are gone or perhaps changed the
next. It is impossible to simply
“scan” a single let alone multiple
cities at the same time to obtain an
exact graffiti count. Be that as it
may, the quantitative aspect of the
analysis should not be disregarded,
as it is relevant from a research
standpoint as well. That is why I
didn’t treat the graffiti count I
included in the research as an
absolute value, but rather as a
share in relation to others.
Last but not
least, I analysed only some examples
of graffiti and street art products:
if the same graffiti, stencil,
poster or sticker appeared multiple
times, I counted them as one. This
skews or minimises their presence in
urban environments: for example,
stencils with Tito’s portrait and
the “Republic Day” slogan were
present on every corner in central
Ljubljana during the nineties –
which is why I only recorded two of
its variations (the red one and the
black one) in this study. The same
goes for the most common phrases and
symbols (“steel repertoire”, “SF-SN”
[abbreviation of Smrt Fašizmu,
Sloboda Narodu – Death to Fascism,
Freedom to the People], “Tito”, the
red star, the emblem of OF
[Oslobodilacki Front – Liberation
Front], the hammer and sickle etc.),
given that there are many variations
on the theme and that they are also
presented through different
techniques (graffiti, stencil,
sticker, etc.). That is why this
needed to be treated through
primarily qualitative means, not
just the quantitative method which
would only measure the frequency of
their occurrence.
III. Denotative Level –
Classification of Pro-Yugoslav and
Anti-Yugoslav Graffiti and Street
Art
As Rose (2012,
108) says, semiology assumes that
“the constructions of cultural
differences are expressed through
the agency of signs on the image
itself”. Based on the thesis that
views photography as
“self-understood proof” (Rose, 2012,
300), i.e. “standardly precise
perception” (Collier and Collier,
1996, 7), I recorded groups of
repetitive signs and categorised
them. I further divided the
collected corpus of 275 photographs
of graffiti and street art into
three large sign categories
according to their themes (whereby
the first two were divided into
three smaller groups) which rather
precisely articulate the
pro-Yugoslav and anti-Yugoslav
ideologies. The first category,
comprised of 206 examples, includes
pro-Yugoslav symbols, divided into
those with Partisan and NLW –
National Liberation War (1. 1), SFRY
– Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (1. 2), and Tito (1. 3)
motifs. The second large category
stands in contrast to the first. It
includes a total of 43 photos
depicting anti-Yugoslav symbols,
divided by analogy into three
archetypal motifs: the rejection of
NLW (2. 1), the rejection of SFRY
(2. 2) and the rejection of Tito
with the glorification of other
leaders (2. 3). The third large
category includes examples of
“iconoclasts” and the battles
between certain motifs, of which
I’ve recorded 21 examples, whereby
it is practically impossible and to
a larger extent nonsensical to
separate the layers of antagonistic
graffiti and text/images that were
added.
The content of
certain graffiti and street art
conveys a lot more than their bare
quantification. That is why it is
essential to expand the quantitative
approach with the qualitative,
content-focused method. Given that
the pro-Yugoslav examples outnumber
the anti-Yugoslav examples fivefold,
I will henceforth cite more of them.
Some will be left in their original
Serbian/Croatian/ Bosnian or English
form. The text or description of the
graffiti or street art will be
written in cursive while their
location and recording date will be
included in the brackets.
IV. Connotative Level
We will begin with
a Barthesian question: When it comes
to this type of graffiti, which
ideologies or ideological formations
are they fragments of? To find that
out, we must expand denotation and
classification with connotation,
with a quest for broader codes and
with maps of meaning.7 While the
first level of analysis primarily
establishes the similarities in
meaning and their classification
into groups, the second deals with
their differences: I will thus now
focus more on the construction of
meaning through their antagonisms.
In fact, any meaning system connotes
with not only its constitutive
relation, but also its contrast, its
opposing side – the content of the
ideological “thesis” and
“antithesis” is generated from their
mutual polarity.
In regard to their type: the
majority of the graffiti rests on
ideological contradictions –
socialist federalism versus
nationalism. The name of the country
(Jugoslavijo!!! [Yugoslavia!!!]
/Rijeka, 2015/), or its abbreviation
(SFRJ [SFRY] /Ljubljana, 2014/), its
organisations (SKOJ [YCLY – Young
Communist League of Yugoslavia]
/Belgrade, 2012/, JNA [YPA –
Yugoslav People’s Army] /Banja Luka,
2009/, ZKJ [LCY – League of
Communists of Yugoslavia] /Maribor
2011/), symbols (hammer and sickle
/Banja Luka, 2012/, the Coat of Arms
of Yugoslavia /Maribor, 2015/), and
national holidays (Živel 29.
November - Dan republike [Long live
29 November – Republic Day]
/Ljubljana, 1999 and 2010/, 27.
april [27 April] /Maribor, 2014/)
are strung together. The
anti-Yugoslav discourse focuses on
denouncing the organisations of that
era (e.g. JNA zločinci [YPA
criminals] /Zalosce, 1996/), or
establishing the national states of
the Yugoslav people (Nek se ne
zaboravi 10. 4 [10 April must not be
forgotten /Omis, 2005/). As a rule,
the graffiti from one side of the
spectrum are crossed out or amended
with a new text or image: in one
example the symbol of the Ustashas
was crossed out and amended with the
inscription Goli otok and the image
of a five-pointed star (Ljubljana,
2010).
The second ideological opposition
relates to the personality cult:
Tito versus his political opponents.
We can thus find stencils with
Tito’s face (Prizren, 2008;
Ljubljana, towards the end of the
nineties), street-art installations
(Tito’s old statue painted in gold,
bearing a drawn blue heart on its
chest /Maribor, 2015/), graffiti
with his name written in different
ways (I’ve tracked them practically
all over the former Yugoslavia),
streets bearing his name (Tito Way
/Ptuj, 2014/, Titova cesta [Tito’s
Street] /street leading to Trnovo,
2013/), as well as different slogans
and pledges referring to him (Mi smo
Titovi [We are Tito’s] /on the
Sarajevo-Doboj motorway, 2014/, Tito
je naš [Tito is ours] /Zagorje,
2014/). His opponents, of course,
depict his enemies from that time
(Vuk Rupnik, vstani! [Stand up, Vuk
Rupnik!] /Ljubljana, 2014/, Momčilo
Đujić [Momcilo Djujic] /Banja Luka,
2015/, Ante Pavelić [Ante Pavelic]
/Ljubljana, 2012/). Even here we
encounter a fierce wall battle: in
Ljubljana (2015) the original
graffiti saying Josip Broz Tito
vaginalni izbljuvek (vaginal
discharge Josip Broz Tito) was
expanded with a Živio (Long live)
comment adorned with red stars.
The third ideological polarity is
between anti-fascism and fascism. We
encounter repetitions of Partisan
salutes (Smrt fašizmu [Death to
fascism] /its variations occur
across the former Yugoslavia/),
abbreviations of organisations (OF
[LF – Liberation Front] with a
picture of Triglav /re-occurring
across Slovenia/), celebrations of
Partisanism and the rejection of
collaboration (artivistic
intervention Banja Luku su
oslobodili antifašisti, a ne četnici
[Banja Luka was liberated by
anti-fascists, not Chetniks] /Banja
Luka, 2012/, Rozman with an added
swastika /Maribor, 2015/), names and
the faces of fighters (Ivo Lolo
/refers to Ivo Lola Ribar, of
course, Zagreb, 2015/), as well as
conflicts with ideological opponents
(Fašisti v fojbah [Fascists in
foibe] /road towards Ilirska
Bistrica, 2015/). Supporters of the
fascist ideology countered with
salutes, slogans and symbols used by
the Chetniks and Ustashas (S verom u
Boga [With Faith in God] /Banja
Luka, 2015/, Za dom spremni [For
home (land) – ready] /in multiple
locations in Croatia/, with the
letter U and a Catholic cross /in
multiple locations in Croatia/
etc.), self-identification
(Osvetnici Bleiburga [Avengers of
Bleiburg] /on the motorway between
Ilirska Bistrica and Ljubljana,
2014/) and their own sites
(Jasenovac ’43 with the SS sign
/Sarajevo, 2015/). Graffiti authors
have clashed here as well: for
example Smrt levemu terorju! [Death
to left-wing terror!] and the symbol
of the extreme-nationalist group,
the Autonomous Nationalists of
Slovenia, were added to the OF [LF -
Liberation Front], NOB [NLW -
National Liberation War] and red
star symbols (ANSI; Ljubljana,
2011).
V. Ideological Strategies of
Graffiti and Street-Art Subcultures
Graffiti authors and street artists
introduce into political discourse
new forms of expression, a new
language, a new diction, and
something which we will analyse in
further detail – specific strategies
of expression. Graffiti is “a clear
message” – virtually bereft of any
needless adjectives, metaphors,
complications, interpretive openness
or Aesopian ambiguity. It breaks
away from the clench of polysemy and
standardisation. It differs from
other, significantly more elaborate
media used in the antagonistic
construction of the past, e.g.
books, films, shows, poems and
videos etc, which approach the
subject through a scientific or
artistic lens. Not only because it
does not have time for it, but also,
and primarily even, because there is
no need for such an approach: the
graffiti author and street artist
say what they have to say quickly,
bluntly, as effectively as the
Ramones, with knife-sharp precision.
Slovenian street jargon would
describe it as “šus”: nothing should
be added or taken away, we can only
(dis)agree with it. As such,
graffiti are a part of all
contemporary political activism and
are increasingly becoming integrated
into mainstream modes of
communication since the supporters
of current ruling ideologies are
opting to use them all the more
often.8
The first ideological strategy of
pro-Yugoslav and anti-Yugoslav
graffiti and street art is
provocation and criticism: if
aesthetic graffiti represent an
attack on established, “high art”,
if they are a form of counter-art
(kept outside of galleries,
temporary, illegal, unsigned –
simply put: not compliant with the
conventions of institutionalised
art), political graffiti represent
an attack on dominant institutions
and ideologies. That is the origin
of the obsessive use of Yugoslav,
party, Partisan and similar kinds of
jargon and symbolism in places (and
at times) where (and when) it “hurts
the most”. The following examples
demonstrate the importance of
location.9 Slogans like KPJ [LCY –
League of Communists of Yugoslavia]
and Tito could have been spotted on
the building of the archdiocese in
Split (2005); towards the end of the
nineties, one of the government
buildings in Ljubljana was covered
with symbols of the most prominent
factors in the former Yugoslavia
(KPJ [LCY], Tito, SFRJ [SFRY], OF
[LF], Partija [Party]), Svetlana
Makarovic, a poet critical until the
point of revisionism, hung a
conspicuously large red star (2015)
on her balcony at a retirement home
with a direct view of one of
Ljubljana’s main access roads.
Something similar is also occurring
in post-Dayton Bosnia and
Herzegovina where
Yugoslavia-nostalgic graffiti
primarily target the boards of
different entities, or in Croatia
where – during a visit of the
current Culture Minister – anonymous
culprits wrote Hassanbegoviću ustaša
[Hasanbegovic, you’re an Ustasha] on
the entrance wall of the Croatian
History Museum due to his
inclination towards the movement
(2016). This is a typical example of
a discourse twist because the
context decidedly enters into the
field of the text itself. The second
strategy is the affirmation and
continuity of the previous identity
in the present time, i.e. a
resistance to historical revisionism
and the planned expunction of the
Yugoslav and socialist period.
Graffiti with this theme convey that
not everything started in 1991. A
particular example on a secondary
school in Maribor declares that the
students were truly Born in SFRJ,
and Grown in SERŠ [Born in SFRY, and
Grown in SERŠ – Electrical
Engineering and Computer High
School] (2011); however, a stencil
from the late nineties found in
multiple locations across Ljubljana
repeats the slogan Born in SFRJ four
times as it alludes to Springsteen’s
chorus Born in the USA. The third
example is from the Drvar
battlegrounds (2009), where a now
undoubtedly grown-up Dzana from
Sarajevo has identified herself to
this day as Titov pionir [Tito’s
Pioneer] to this day.
Pro-Yugoslav and anti-Yugoslav
graffiti are spatial markers as
well: the third strategy is marking
the turf. The supporters of
Yugoslavia, socialism, Partisanism
and Tito declare that they are
“still here”. The presence of the
SFRJ Coat of Arms (Maribor, 2015),
as well as the simple Tito graffiti,
found practically all across the
former Yugoslavia, are a true
testament to that. The fourth
strategy is the perpetual
antagonisation of the existing, a
counter-punch to the prevalent
discourses and symbolic dominance
over them. A poster in Maribor
(2014) calls attention in this way
to the hardships of many young
people: Rojen v Jugoslaviji – Šolan
v Sloveniji – Nezaposlen v Evropi
[Born in Yugoslavia – Educated in
Slovenia – Unemployed in Europe],
while a graffiti in Labin (2007)
calls for the resurrection of
Yugoslavia: Stvorimo je opet
1945-1990 [Let’s recreate it
1945-1990]. And the final
ideological strategy within the
graffiti and street art culture is
the semiotic guerrilla. One graffiti
from the end of the nineties in
Ljubljana symbolically restores Tito
to his Pioneer salute which
Slovenian punks had ironically
changed towards the end of the
seventies into Za domovino s punkom
naprej! [For the Homeland with punk
– Forward!] – it can now be seen
that it once again says Tito instead
of punk. In Croatia, the original
pro-Ustasha graffiti – the capital
letter U – is commonly changed into
Nisam išao U školu [I didn’t get an
edUcation] (2016). The supporters of
Janez Jansa, a right-wing
politician, have been changing the
original OF [LF] with the Triglav
Partisan symbol into JJ with the
Triglav; while Jansa’s critics keep
restoring the original OF [LF] and
the cycle continues. While the
Triglav – as the undoubtedly most
significant geographic landmark of
Slavic culture – remains the same,
as a common thread, its current
political interpretation is
undergoing changes.
VI. Conclusion: Too Much and Too
Little of Yugoslavia
In the concluding section of the
research paper, I return to the
introductory questions: What kind of
socialist Yugoslavia with all the
contradictions of its “fulfilled
utopia”, about which Suvin (2014)
excellently warns, have street
artists sprayed on the walls of
post-Yugoslav cities? Which of its
aspects are celebrated and which are
denounced? What ideologies are at
play in the diametrically opposed
graffiti motifs on the subject
matter? I find that there are two
answers to the posed questions: a
historical one and a contemporary
one. From the historical
perspective, some graffiti are
exclusively connected to the past.
The analysis of their ideological
formations demonstrates that the
evaluation of those times in our
history is still entirely polarised,
antagonistic. Much like Eco explains
on the example of popular novels
that the “schematisation and
Manichean division is always
dogmatic and intolerant” (1998,
170), there is no dialogue here
either, nor is there a productive
resolution of conflict, nor truce,
nor atonement, nor alternative –
what remains is only the
unbridgeable dichotomy between the
pro-Yugoslav and anti-Yugoslav
sentiments. And so the game of
political ping-pong continues.
These unique ideological twins
depict, mirror and create a
fundamental and unsolvable political
controversy of transition: between
the once-dominant ideologies and
practices (Yugoslav multiculturalism
in the form of brotherhood and unity
in the enthnocultural sphere and of
socialism in the socio-economic
sphere) and their new replacements
(ethno-nationalism in the
enthnocultural sphere and
neoliberalism in the socio-economic
sphere). Anti-Yugoslav,
anti-socialist and nationalist
graffiti are in fact just the
street’s appropriation of dominant
political discourses, reflecting the
“street’s view” of the current
hegemony. Graffiti can therefore
also be what Haraway calls a
“communication of power” (1999,
391), to which we could respond by
referencing Foucault (1978, 95):
“where there is power, there is also
resistance”. If nothing else, the
pro-Yugoslav and pro-leftist
graffiti on urban walls are a form
of expression: they amaze people,
empower them, lift their spirits and
boost their moral strength: (Chaffee
1993, 20). The fact that
pro-Yugoslav sentiments outnumber
their anti-Yugoslav counterparts on
walls attests to the fact that the
former is marginalised, that it
faces a communicational deficit and
that graffiti are one of its rare
media of expression. They are “a
weapon of the weak”, to cite the
effective phrase of James C. Scott.
The fact that there is no
“synthesis” between the Yugoslav
“thesis” and the anti-Yugoslav
“antithesis”, which is still quite
literally demonstrated on walls as a
“red” and “black” truth (literally
red graffiti versus black graffiti),
is a fruitful research topic while
also being exhausting and
obstructive in a political sense.
The reason for this is not the past
in itself: graffiti that refer to
the divisions from the past actually
speak about the confrontations in
the present. The second conclusion
is in my opinion much more important
and of a wider scope, and refers to
the present state. Despite the fact
that the frame of reference for this
kind of urban calligraphy is the
recent past, i.e. some form of
Yugoslav exceptionalism,10 we
encounter in it an explicit
criticism of the current, the
existing, the post-Yugoslav here and
now. It is in fact the actualisation
of (the former) multiculturalism,
the (former) socially more just
society, for the purpose of
criticising (the current)
ethno-nationalism and (the current)
social injustices birthed by the new
capitalism. Much like other media,
graffiti (re)produce relations of
power in society, while also
attacking them – a perpetual
(counter-)hegemonic battle exists
here as well.
In other words, contemporary
political battles are translated
into the time and categories of the
NLW and Yugoslav socialism. Examples
of such graffiti express
disappointment with the outcome of
the transition (Bili smo 3 blok,
sedaj bomo 3 svet [We were the 3rd
block, now we will be the 3rd world]
/Ljubljana, 2010, 2012/; Poslje Tita
dopala nas kita [After Tito we got
dick] /Zagreb, 2015/), an escape
into nostalgic day-dreaming (Dok je
bilo Tita bilo je i šita! [During
Tito there was also shit-o!] /Split,
2011/), or treat historical
revisionism sarcastically (Janezu
Janši v trajni spomin s slikami
pohabljenih žrtev nacizma [For Janez
Jansa to never forget the pictures
of maimed victims of the Nazis]
/Ljubljana, 2009/; Skini Fak Of, Če
bi Hitler praznoval, ne bi ti
slovensko znal with the OF symbol
[Remove the Fuck OFf, if Hitler won,
you wouldn’t be speaking Slovenian]
/Ljubljana, 2010/), glorify
historical leaders while degrading
their successors (Tito je živ, a
Tuđman ne! [Tito is alive, Tuđman is
not!] /Rijeka, 2015/), prefer the
former international community over
the current one, (Bolje Yu nego EU!
[Better Yu than EU!] and the hammer
and sickle /somewhere in Croatia,
2012/), recognise fascism in current
right-wing movements (SKOJ [YCLY],
hammer and sickle above the graffiti
of the right-wing National Alignment
/Banja Luka, 2012/; Antifa Area
Since 1941 added under the Slovenia
graffiti of right-wing organisations
/Ljubljana, 2016/), lash the
opportunism of the current ruling
class (Druže Ramsfeld mi ti se
kunemo… [Comrade Rumsfeld we bow to
you…] /Ljubljana, 2003/), project
current political divisions onto
those from the past (a sticker with
the politicians from the right-wing
Slovenian Democratic Party
(Slovenacka Demokratska Stranka –
SDS) with the added slogan Dost
je!!! domobranske vladavine
[Enough!!! of Home Guard’s rule]
/Ljubljana, 2013/) and ironically
equate the former international
federation of Yugoslavia with the
current international union – the EU
(E/Y/U /Zagreb, 2015/). Something
similar can also be found on the
anti-Yugoslav side where the present
is criticised from the perspective
of the past: current events are
parsed in the categories of the
former Yugoslavia (SDP = Jugoslavija
[SDP = Yugoslavia] /Rijeka, 2015/).
In conclusion: pro-Yugoslav and
anti-Yugoslav political graffiti and
street art are a kind of “Litmus
paper” for current social events and
for evaluating the past. Anonymous
considerations thereof can primarily
be seen on walls. In the view of the
graffiti artists supporting
Yugoslavia, its socialism,
antifascism, etc, such examples are
nowadays far too scarce which is why
with their work they strive to
restore a symbolic “balance” in the
public space by literally restoring
things “to their rightful place”. On
the other hand, according to those
opposed to Yugoslavia and everything
connected to it, such sentiments are
far too frequent which is why
adhering to the generally common
ideological mantra of the
post-Yugoslav right-wing, they
cross-out the “continuation” of the
aforementioned sentiments at every
turn. In light of the increasingly
intensifying economic, political and
overall social situation in
post-socialist post-Yugoslavia, as
well as the ever-deeper polarisation
across the mentioned antagonisms
(socialism vs. neoliberalism,
multiculturalism vs.
ethno-nationalism), we can expect
even more intense street
interventions of this kind.11
VII. Selected bibliography
Abel, Ernest L.; Buckley, Barbara
E., The Handwriting on the Wall –
Toward a Sociology and Psychology of
Graffiti, Greenwood Press, Westport
(Connecticut) & London (UK), 1977.
Abram, Sandi, Komodifikacija ter
komercializacija grafitov in street
arta v treh korakih: od ulic prek
galerij do korporacij: v: Abram, S.;
Bulc, G.; Velikonja, M. (ur.),
Veselo na belo – Grafiti in street
art v Sloveniji, Časopis za kritiko
znanosti, Ljubljana, št. 231-232,
2008, str. 34-49.
Barthes, Roland, Retorika Starih,
Elementi semiologije, ŠKUC,
Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana,
1990.
Barthes, Roland, Camera lucida –
Zapiski o fotografiji, ŠKUC,
Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana,
1992.
Barthes, Roland, Mythologies,
Vintage, London, Sydney, Auckland,
Bergvlei, 1993.
Benjamin, Walter, Umetnina v času,
ko jo je mogoče tehnično
reproducirati: v: Izbrani spisi,
Studia Humanitatis, Ljubljana, 1998,
str. 145-176.
Castleman, Craig, Getting Up.
Subway Graffiti in New York, The MIT
Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts),
London (UK), 1999.
Chaffee, Lyman G., Political
Protest and Street Art – Popular
Tools for Democratization in
Hispanic Countries, Greenwood Press,
Westport (Connecticut), London (UK),
1993.
Collier, John Jr., Collier,
Malcolm, Visual Anthropology -
Photography as a Research Method,
University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque, 1996.
Eco, Umberto, Il superuomo di
massa – Retorica e ideologia nel
romanzo popolare, Bompiani, Milano,
1998.
Foucault, Michel, The History of
Sexuality – Volume I: An
Introduction, Pantheon Books, New
York,1978.
Guiraud, Pierre, Semiologija,
Prosveta – Biblioteka XX vek,
Beograd, 1983.
Hall, Stuart,
Ukodiranje/razkodiranje: v: Luthar,
B.; Jontes, D. (ur.), Mediji in
občinstva, Založba FDV, Ljubljana,
2012, str. 399-412.
Haraway, Donna J., Opice, kiborgi
in ženske – Reinvencija narave,
Študentska založba, Ljubljana, 1999.
Kropej, Monika, Grafitarske bitke.
Sprej kot sredstvo (sovražne)
komunikacije: v: Abram, S.; Bulc,
G.; Velikonja, M. (ur.), Veselo na
belo – Grafiti in street art v
Sloveniji, Časopis za kritiko
znanosti, Ljubljana, št. 231-232,
2008, str. 255-265.
Rose, Gillian, Visual
Methodologies – An Introduction to
Researching with Visual Materials,
Sage, Los Angeles & London & New
Delhi & Singapore & Washington DC,
2012.
Suvin, Darko, Samo jednom se
ljubi. Radiografija SFR Jugoslavije
1945.-72., uz hipoteze o početku,
kraju u suštini, Rosa Luxemburg
Stiftung – Southeast Europe,
Beograd, 2014.
Šterk, Slavko, Umjetnost ulice –
Zagrebački grafiti 1994-2004, Muzej
grada Zagreba, Zagreb, 2004.
Tasić, David, Grafiti, Založba
Karantanija, Ljubljana, 1992.
Velikonja, Mitja, Politika z zidov
– Zagate z ideologijo v grafitih in
street artu; Časopis za kritiko
znanosti; Ljubljana; št. 231-232;
2008, str. 25-32.
Velikonja, Mitja, Nadaljevanje
politike z drugimi sredstvi –
Neofašistični graffiti in street art
na Slovenskem; Časopis za kritiko
znanosti, Ljubljana, št. 251, 2013,
str. 116-126.
Zimmermann, Tanja, Novi kontinent
– Jugoslavija: politična geografija
“tretje poti”; Zbornik za umetnostno
zgodovino, Ljubljana, Vova vrsta
XLVI, 2010, str. 163-188.
Zrinski, Božidar; Stepančič,
Lilijana (ur.), Grafitarji –
Graffitists, Mednarodni grafični
likovni center, Ljubljana, 2004.
|