‘Politics, Architecture and It’s Role on Shaping Society’
The Example of Yugoslavia during Tito’s Administration
by Sara Sylejmani
Modernism can be seen as a society’s re-genesis, as Marshall Berman argues in his book “All that is Solid Melts into Air”, in which architecture and city planning were pivotal keys. Modernization is process and modernity is era of these rearrangements. (Berman, 1982). During modernism, architecture and urban planning were observed as a public issue, collective and political venture. The idea of a city reflected collectivity and equal access of citizens to public spaces (Miller, 2005). Modernism as an antagonist of a cultural heritage, became unvalued heritage itself. Looking at unvalued heritage of modernism from today’s conjecture would make us reexamine the significance of incomplete processes and abounded projects that reflected the force of architecture and urban planning in structuring society in a way to live together in harmony through and within planned spaces.
The Yugoslav Federation, a region touched by world wars, cold war, iron curtain and destruction of an iron curtain, gives an example of interrupted and diverse modernizations. Yugoslavia’s geographical position between capitalist west and socialist east, inner economic situation of which was between financially developed north and underdeveloped south, portrays a complex political and historical backgrounds. Yugoslavia consisted by diverse ethnicities and cultures was a place of different ideological experiments that were manifested with economic tradition metamorphosis from socialism to neoliberalism (Kulic, East West or Both, Foreign Perceptions of Architecture in Socialist Yugoslavia, 2009). Between two World Wars, Yugoslav governmental system was monarchic, multinational, avant-gardes were far from eye perception and were not included in artistic spheres. After World War II, Socialist Yugoslavia was integrated in Soviet Block, the ‘Socialist Realism’ doctrine was dominating the Art and Architecture, and thus avant-gardes and neo avant-gardes were treated as an extreme expression of a Western bourgeois cosmopolitanism and were not included in politics. After Tito-Stalin break in 1948 ‘Socialist Realism’ doctrine was abounded and cultural scene was left to leftist avant-gardes again (Suvakovic, 2003). Yugoslav self- governing socialism as a unique model of management, established ‘Socialist Modernism’ as an institutional and productive art world.
Around 1952-1954 there were academic battles, between ‘Realism’ and ‘Modernism’ that ended with the triumph of ‘Modernism’. Official Art of Yugoslavia was ‘Socialist Modernism’ during the 1960s and the 1970s (Pejić, 2014). Thus International Art, Architecture that was being applied all over the world touched also Yugoslavia. Creation of a new unified identity of nations with different ethnicities, religions, cultural and historical backgrounds was a problem to be faced in the establishment of the United Yugoslav Federation. In Yugoslavia after WWII, architecture played an important backdrop role in the formation of a modern society in the frames of a new unified nation. It also played a cultural role in the Yugoslav image in the international sphere. Architecture can be seen as a tool of political manifestation that changed social life. Changing from agricultural to industrial system, formation of a new cities and city centers required a lot of infrastructural work. Urbanism and architecture were pens of political and strategic decisions. Establishment of administrative and cultural buildings, creation of public areas, gradually changed the habits of people living there.
The obscurity of Yugoslavia’s historic, politic, economic and cultural scene composed a perimeter that was skeptical to discuss, nevertheless substantial enough to be unconsidered. Modernization of a destructed country after world wars and therefore of its society, its inner political situation of the time, economic circumstances and international relations formed opposed factors in which the identity characterizing operation occurred, and everything besides should pursue these operations. Following a long period of imperialism, the status of architecture was going to be ambiguous, in a country recently freed of historical spasm. Although political and economic situation of Yugoslavia was complicated, architecture of its constitutive republics (and after 1974 constitutional changes, two autonomous provinces as well) was opulent. Accordingly, architecture and urban planning could be significant factors or ‘avant-gardes’ for designing the identity and the future of a country. Along the entity of Yugoslavia, architecture and governmental politics were directly proportional to each other, consequently architecture may not be seen as a sovereign character. Diplomacy of Yugoslavia formed after WWII may not be distinguished from its architecture.
The transcendental conjunction of the political efforts of Yugoslavia, made its modernist architects to transact an atypical architecture in communist scope. Even though artistically, Yugoslav architecture’s inclination may not reached utopic purposes, yet it portrays investigations for a modern character. Although it is not a harvest of its diplomacy, Yugoslav architecture performed an important act in the political legation of a country (Kulic, V).
As Maja Babic, argues in her thesis ‘Modernism and Politics in the Architecture of Socialist Yugoslavia, 1945-1965’, the narrative of Yugoslav architecture can be examined in two methods. One negotiating architecture in its integrity and the other negotiating the theme of architecture in constituent republics in terms of creating ‘national identity’. Margin histories of constituent republics, shaped the characteristic architecture of Socialist Yugoslavia, and unconsciously formed national character via its variations. Various involvements of each republic and different impacts substantiated to be important in the establishment of a distinctive composition of architectural influences in the recently established country. Adaptation of modern architecture in different ways assisted in forming various architectural authenticities. The struggles in establishing the Federation, instituted on dissimilar historic, diplomatic, religious and economic scenarios limited government in the endeavor to form a unified architecture throughout the country, but each constituent republic’s architecture was a factor in creating Yugoslav architecture, as eccentric combination of segregations, which followed the advancement of European architectural scene.
Modernist architecture unintentionally was determined by Yugoslav administration to symbolize the country. It was more a result of a natural progress of the architectural streams advanced between world wars period, with the exclusion of ‘Socialist Realism’ intermezzo. Modernism in Yugoslavia was instituted in initial years of its enterprise as a sovereign territory. Kingdom’s architects were guided in educational institutions of Vienna, Berlin and Prague and functioned in ateliers of Europe’s significant modernist architects. Yugoslav intellectuals of that time were architects of the cultural bridge between Yugoslav and European art and architecture fields. The modernism between World Wars, pursued diplomacy of royalty. In the period of WWII the Kingdom was demolished, more than one million people were dead, under these circumstances no architectural facilities were initiated.
After war there was a field for development of architectural potentials, in this duration governmental diplomacy did not preserve its impact on architecture. Diplomacy had to answer to a generic political existence and its relations with Soviet Block under Stalin’s dictatorship. International diplomacy performed an important act in influencing architecture to form unavoidable remains. Yugoslavia traced the administration formed by Stalin in the decennium of ‘Socialist Realism’. Along this period, modernism in Western context was animadverted as ‘bourgeois’ and ‘ignoring society’s necessities’, therefore ‘Avant-Garde’ predispositions were compressed. Modernist architects were against ‘Socialist Realism’ doctrine, for this reason architectural works were limited in this period. The subject of protests against ‘Socialist Realism’ doctrine was deficiency of designating comprehensible cultural schedule to be pursued. Since doctrine limited Yugoslav architects, accession to utopic projects was delayed. According to this doctrine, architects had to encapsulate cascade customs of architectural history, and not develop innovations. Architects of Yugoslavia could not encounter persistence betwixt ‘Socialist Realism’ and ‘Modernism Between World Wars’. Doctrine was sensed inorganic and compulsory, subsequently with the break from Soviet Block after 1948, ‘Socialist Realism’ was rejected and actuality in architecture was altered rapidly (Kulic, Land of The In-Between: Modern Architecture and the State in Socialist Yugoslavia 1945-65, 2009).
Architects as adherents of modernism debated that socialism had to advance its genuine style like any former era in history. The style had not to invalidate antecedent architectural progress and history, it had to be capable to advance through them. After the break from Soviet Block in 1948, Yugoslav government stopped its ventures to implement inspection on country’s architecture. Yugoslav architects, with lefty attitudes and protagonists of liberation war were on voyage to experience the future that was present in Western architecture. Even though updated intense industry made possible to Yugoslav architects to apply innovative materials in their designs, architecture of a country on no account traced the trajectory of technologically advanced futuristic projects also known as ‘space-age futurism’. Yugoslav architects were engaged with actual prospectus of modernization of a country, thus utopian architecture remained undiscovered (Thaler, Mrduljas, & Kulic, 2012).
Yugoslavia antithetical to Soviet Block or Czechoslovakia did not have its authorized methodology of art and architecture or cultural representation, however architects, left their signatures after the epoch of world wars (Burghard & Kirn, 2012). Reformist architecture in postwar Yugoslavia was not embarked with socialist governmental containments, it was shaped by interwar Europe’s artistic movements that impressed the republics of Federation. The reason of freedom in architectural expression, in Socialist Yugoslavia was participation of architects as partisans in anti-fascist war, except ‘Socialist Realism’ period of 1945-1948. Architects that studied in European modernist universities contributed in doctrinal of architecture rhetoric in their own countries between World Wars. After 1948 these movements would be the basics of Yugoslavian ‘Socialist Modernism’ (Kulic, 2012). In international platform, the separation from Soviet Block after 1948, opened a way of integration with the West. Yugoslavia freed its governance on cultural manufacture. Even thought it was never publicly promoted, architecture in Yugoslavia adopted the ‘International Style’ as a way of designing. Simplicity, purity, and transparency with simple white volumes and glass towers, in 1950’s became an architectural stream of socialist modernization in Yugoslavia.
Yugoslav diplomacy used architecture as an apparatus of articulating its international adherences. After Tito-Stalin split, modernist progresses were instrumentalized in relations with Western Block. Even after the 1948’s breakdown, Yugoslavian devotion to communism did not amendment, Stalin’s Soviet maintained to be diplomatic template for country. In parallel transnational exhibitions like EXPO’58 in Brussels demonstrated sincere modernist projects, portraying Yugoslav architect’s and politician’s association with Western Block . (Kulic, An Avant-Garde Architecture for an Avant-Garde Socialism: Yugoslavia at Expo’58, 2012). Yugoslav government made a sensible verdict to participate in the international interchange of cultural virtues and material benefits. Political shift after 1948, and emancipation of cultural scene from ‘Socialist Realism’ doctrine, made architecture to unlock to the West. Works of international modernist maestros were exhibited in capitals of consistent republics of Yugoslav Federation. Students of architecture frequented Western countries and had the opportunity to work in ateliers of significant European modernists. Yugoslav architecture pursued the similar methodology in internal architectural politics. Yugoslav architects worked in several nations inside Federation, correlating modernist concept to vernacular characteristics, investigating and displaying regional modernism via modernist regulations and hermeneutics (Stierli, 2019).
In the same years a Croatian, Experimental Atelier, 1950-56, from Zagreb, ‘Exat 51’ consisting active artists, such as: architect and designer Bernardo Bernardi, architect Zdravko Bregovac, painter and graphic designer Ivan Picelj, architect Zvonimir Radic, architect, stage designer and painter Bozidar Rasica, architect and sculptor Vjenceslav Richter, architect Vladimir Zarahovic, painter and animated filmmaker Vladimir Kristi, and painter, sculptor Aleksandar Srnec, declared their manifesto in 1951, in which they stated the progress and synthesis of all art forms, and an experimental approach as a characteristic of art nature. EXAT 51 group, was the most striking projection of socialism. It was a portrayal of a revitalized avant-garde movement characteristics such as Constructivism and Bauhaus, lifting up parallels to a self-management socialist spirit. Although, Yugoslav pavilion in EXPO’58 Brussels, was their superlative example of composing architecture with plastic arts, expressing a union of society in socialism, perceptions on this pavilion were myopic. Design was seen as a symbol of a break with Soviet Bloc. The position of a Yugoslav pavilion next to the ones from Portugal, Switzerland, Great Britain; and the exhibition program in pavilion were curated carefully to magnetize the interest of western cultural aristocracy (Kulic, An Avant-Garde Architecture for an Avant-Garde Socialism: Yugoslavia at Expo’58, 2012).
In parallel Western architectural scene was exposed to ‘Metabolist Movement’ as a representative of Japanese modernism, in ‘World Design Conference’ held in Tokyo in 1960. This conference was going to be the genesis of prolonged correlation with Japan and Japanese design (Colquhoun, From Le Corbusier to Mega-structures: Urban Visions 1930-65′, 2002). The symbol figure in integrating Yugoslavia in an international arena, could be taken, Croatian architect Ernst Weissmann who worked in Le Corbusier’s atelier in 1920, later establisher of Croatian CIAM group. Wiessmann, was operating in UN Secretariat Department of Economic and Social Affairs, which was a social position that served as a catalyst of international assets in Yugoslavia, exclusively for reconstruction of Skopje after the earthquake of 1963. In 1965 with the advancement in the Chair of International Consulting Team, he regulated an international competition for Skopje’s regulative plan under the sponsorships of Yugoslav Government and UN. The winner of the competition among eight international architectural groups was Kenzo Tange. Although, reconstruction plan of Japanese architect was partly implemented. It brough out buildings of architects from both the East and the West (Lozanovksa, 2012).
United States of America inspite of sponsoring constructions of international designes, it offered a scholarship to local architects in American Universities. As a result several Yugoslav architects went for courses and specializations in USA’s different universities. By which they brought American ‘Brutalism’ of Luis Khan and Paul Rudolph in Yugoslavia. Among the architects that went to USA for the specialization were Georgi Konstantinovski, Svetlana Kana Radevic and Zivorad Jankovic. Svetlana Kana Radevic later worked in Kisho Kurokawa’s office, verse Konstaninovski in I.M.Pei Office, underlining the Yugoslav Architectural connections with intellectual achievements of world’s architecture. Consequently, Skopje became a field and laboratory of Japanese ‘Metabolist Movement’s and American Brutalism’s mixture (Stierli, 2019).
‘Non-Aligned Movement’ founded in early 60’s was a diplomatically important endeavor. Collaborations with the so-called Third World countries effected positively the economy of the Federation and brought political strength by freeing country from the dependence by both the East and the West. The architecture was not affected by this political shift in artistic manner, as it was affected in economic manner by administrating construction industry in post-colonialist nations. Yugoslavia after 1961 the period of ‘Non-Aligned Movement’ with post-colonial, new nations have exported its architecture to Africa and Middle East and became a promoter of a modern architecture in these places. This was a good economical exchange between these countries. 1960 Africa’s seventeen nations declared their independence, a favorable time for economical investments. Tito’s politics was empathetically towards these nations and offered Yugoslavia’s socialist example as model to these places. ‘Energo-project’ as a constructing company, was engaged in infrastructure projects in Africa. After the First Conference of ‘Non-Aligned Movement’s in Belgrade in 1961, Yugoslavia provided substantial international political platform, which was portrayed with significant transnational political, cultural and sport phenomenons. Main economic and cultural domains were provided by Olympic Games. These happenings required design and construction of new buildings as an answer to the Olympic needs (Kulic, Architecture and Ideology in Socialist Yugoslavia, 2012).
As a result of this venture and free market economy, many sport cultural and trade complexes were build all around Yugoslavia and Kosova too. The display of this political endaevour in Kosovar Architectural History is building of ‘Boro-Ramiz: Sport, Culture and Trade Complex’ in Prishtina, designed by DOM Architectural Office in Sarajevo. Complex reflects not only market transformation, it is known as a landmark of Prishtina, a symbol of socialist spirit and a fruit of Federation’s inner and international politic and economic relations in Kosova. In accordance with analyzes, two important statments might be specified, one building of a ‘Boro-Ramiz: Complex’ as a symbol of ‘Brotherhood and Unity’ which represents Yugoslavia’s inner political venture, the other categorization of a design as representation of ‘Metabolist Movement’s ‘structuralism’, like a paraphase of collective samples which displays international politics, cultural and artistic relations with world trends, economic metamorphosis and status of Yugoslavia after 1948 Tito-Stalin Split, turn towards Western Block and creation of ’Non-Aligned Movement’ with Third World Countries. Architects of a Complex (Zivorad Jankovic, Halid Muhasilovic and Srecko Epsek) had a high degree of proffesional and cultural knowledge and a clear vision that brutalist megastructures reflect in the context of global modern culture; urban project combining three different functions as Sport, economy and culture was a progressive and experimental concept that offered new social and spacial typology.
‘The Case of Kosova’
Relations of Albania and Yugoslavia were directly reflecting in Yugoslavia’s politics towards Kosova. In the time when Enver Hoxha declared it’s loyalty to Stalin, economy in Kosova marked downturn during the years of 1949, 1951 and 1953. In Kosova’s Albanian’s perspective, the 1950s and the 1960s were the hardest times of Tito’s regime. There was an ethnic unbalance: according to demographic register of 1953, Serbians and Montenegrins were forming 27% of a Kosovar population. However Serbians and Montenegrins constituted 50% of Communist Party members, 68% of employees in institutions and leading positions and 50% of workers in factories. Industry was slowly developing, after 1957 budget of Federal Yugoslavia started to invest in industrializing Kosova. The investments were channelized mainly in electric centrals, mines and basic chemical industry. This industry required serious capitals but not labor force. This was misfortune for a place with highest rate of population growth. Compering to other constituent republics, Kosova was the most underdeveloped place (Malcolm, 2011).
As Noel Malcolm argues in his book, “Kosovo: A Short History”, the socio-economic problems in Kosova were accompanied with comedown of Kosova’s ‘autonomous’ status in 1963 Constitution of Federal Yugoslavia. Kosova was named ‘Province’, but lost its constitutional status in Federal platform and was represented by Constitution of Serbian Republic. In 1966 situation changed with the discharge of Aleksander Rankovic, who was blamed for serial politic failures. Serbian hegemony in Yugoslav politics was little diminished. The difference now was that autonomous Kosova and Vojvodina were included in decentralized politics of Tito. In 1967, Tito visited Kosova where he talked about ethnic unbalance and Albanian rights. In 1968, the revision of Constitution of 1963 was debated. In the end of 1968 important amendments were approved. 7th amendment, by which ‘Kosova-Metohia’ name was simplified to ‘Kosova’ and 18th amendment by which autonomous provinces would have the same socio-politic rights as other constituent republics of Federal Yugoslavia. These amendments, compared to priorities of Republic of Montenegro with 370 thousand Montenegrins were not enough for 1 million and 200 thousand Albanians who wanted Kosova to become a ‘Republic’. During 1961-1962, Communist Albania lost its status as Soviet Union’s ideological ally, leader Enver Hoxha, was giving the signals that he intended reconciliation with Yugoslavia. The equilibrium of relations in international platform had changed, Tito together with Third World Countries were establishing ‘Non-Aligned Movement’. Soviet Union invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, made Tito to connect with anti-Soviet countries in Balkans. These ally affected Kosova, in 1969 important decisions were made. Tirana-Belgrade transport agreement was approved, a group of faculties that already existed in Kosova as a branch of Belgrade University, were extended and an independence of Prishtina University was authorized.
‘Architectural Education in Kosova’
According to Mehdi Raci’s interview given to Ilir Gjinolli for ‘Kosovo Modern, an Architectural Primer’ book, architectural section in Prishtina University was instituted with the initiative of Nexhat Orana, Dean of Technical Faculty of Prishtina University together with Mehdi Raci, Bashkim Fehmiu, Skender Hasimja, Suade Mekuli, Momir Vuciq. On 17 October 1978 chairman of the Kosova Presidency, Xhavit Nimani demanded from Yugoslav Commission of Education to establish Architectural Department in Technical Faculty of Prishtna University. Assembly approved this demand on 25 October of 1978. Recently established Architectural Department of Prishtina University was composed of different architectural currencies both in education and projecting. Sarajevo trajectory was functionalist with regional features verse Skopje flow was modernist affected by Japanese Metabolism after Kenzo Tange’s involvement in reconstruction of Skopje City, after the earthquake in 1963. Urbanism in Prishtina University was influenced by Modernist Urbanism flow developed in Belgrade University with Professor Bashkim Fehmiu as admirer of Yugoslavian Modernist Urbanism.
In the article of Ilir Gjinolli, ‘Is There a Kosovar School of Architecture’, is stated that, with the change of political amendments of 1974 Constitution, Kosova became an autonomous place inside Yugoslav Federation. Subsequently, Prishtina University that was functioning as a part of Belgrade University became independent and established its own Architectural Department on 25 October of 1978. Administration of Architecture Faculty of Belgrade University and Kosova Assembly President Dusko Ristic, opposed formation of architectural department in autonomous Kosova, with the argument that urbanism and architecture are only for republics, since the characteristic of these professions are state forming. In consequence of Belgrade University’s protest against the establishment of Architecture Department in Prishtina University, in the beginning of first semester, teaching staff could not be provided. Only a professor of ‘Basic Design’ from Belgrade, managed to come without the authorization of Belgrade University.
Later, the agreement of Architecture Department of Prishtina University with Urbanism and Architecture Faculty of Sarajevo University, in 1979, opened a circulation corridor between Architectural Faculty of Sarajevo University academic staff and Prishtina University Architectural Department. After the arrangement between Sarajevo and Prishtina Universities, Serbian Professors in Prishtina University commented this act as an aspiration to bring Muslim professors from Sarajevo to Prishtina. In fact most of the professors that came from Sarajevo were with Serbian origin and had a high reputation in former Yugoslavia such as Zivorad Jankovic and Branko Bulic. However subsequently, pacts with University of Belgrade and Skopje were actualized.
The program of Prishtina architecture section was the combination of major architecture university programs of Former Yugoslavia. In the first ten years of its beginning, lecturers were coming from Sarajevo, Zagreb, Skopje and Belgrade Universities. Main lecturers came with their own assistants or were assisted from local architects that were graduated in universities of Yugoslav Republics. This model were considered as a kind of experiment in which architects all around Yugoslavia brought their visions in Prishtina and broke all the barriers of tradition and culture widening spectrum of modernism. In 1985 first graduated generation from Architecture Department of Prishtina University continued their post diploma studies in Zagreb, Sarajevo, and Belgrade Universities and were engaged as assistants in Prishtina University.
Architectural Department of Prishtina University was composed of different architectural currencies both in education and projecting. Sarajevo trajectory was functionalist with regional features verse Skopje flow was modernist affected by Japanese ‘Metabolist’ after Kenzo Tange’s involvement in reconstruction of Skopje City. Urbanism in Prishtina University was influenced by ‘modernist urbanism’ flow developed in Belgrade University with Professor Bashkim Fehmiu as admirer of Yugoslavian modernist urbanism.
Architectural lessons were mainly based on International Style and functionalism outline. Functionalism, ideologically was understood as reflection of Yugoslavia’s Socialist System based on answering sociologic needs in optimal way. Attendance of architects and students of architecture in conferences hold in Universities of consistent republics of Yugoslavia was another opportunity for interactive exchange of architectural knowledge and trends. Architect’s that studied in Yugoslav Universities and were influenced by their modernist pioneers, contributed in construction of modern cities in Kosova. Architects involved in constructing modern institutions projects in Kosova, were employing their local assistants from Architecture Department of UP, so they could directly been trained for technics in architecture and transmit them to new students (Gjinolli, 2015). Despite that Kosova was the province with the least economical investments in all Yugoslavia (Malcolm), its protagonists and its emerging architecture, influenced people’s lives in a process of modernization. Whether in the name of modernity or in the name of socialism, whether as an instrument or purpose, it had its role or influence in the formation of modern social infrastructure.
Yugoslav architecture traced ideological, political and economic instructions. In parallel there was a historic persistence in every consistent republic and their arising architecture. Interwar period was a time of emergence of modern architecture in Yugoslavia through an architects that studied in Western schools or worked in prominent architect’s offices of a time. Yugoslav architects merged modernist approach with traditional elements advancing orthodox modernist venture. Despite that Socialist Yugoslavia searched for unified national identity, the architecture of a country was diverse since each consistent republic digested modernism it in its own way. The aim for modernity and the way to explore it was unifying characteristic portrayed in cities of Yugoslavia. After the 1960s architecture in Yugoslavia as a protagonist finds its unique character touching all the cities of a region and represents country in international platform as modern in Western perspective.
The roles of architecture and urban planning in inner and international politics are fundamental and reciprocal. They shape the visions, visions shape architecture and urban planning. Correspondingly the political roles of urban planning and architectural visions are undisputed: they shape the space, parallely people’s behavior change in the phase of adopting to the envioremental conditions and it goes on, in response…
As Albanian Architect and professor of Urbanism Bashkim Fehmiu, stated in his article ‘Prizren – Master Piece of Unknown Builders’ wrote in 1971, for ‘Arhitektura i Urbanizam 1964-95’ magazine: City and society are directly proportional, and have a dialectical cause-consequence continued relations with each other. Thus an understanding as an important postulate of city’s development, is imperative symbiosis of material and spiritual heritage with contemporary, increasing human manifestation intensity.
*This article is based on the thesis ‘Kosova’s Architecure in the Frame of Socialist Modernization: Boro-Ramiz Sport, Culture and Trade Complex by DOM Architectural Office’.
Babic, M. (2013). A Thesis in Master of Science in Architecture: Modernism and Politics in Architecture of Socialist Yugoslavia 1945-1965. Washington: University of Washington.
Berman, M. (1982). Introduction Modernity- Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. In M. Berman, All that is Solid Melts Into Air (p. 371). New York: Simon and Schuster.
Burghard, R., & Kirn, G. (2012). Yugoslavian Partisan Memorials: The Aesthetic Form of the Revolution as Form of Unfinished Modernism . In V. Kulic, & M. Mrduljas, Unfinished Modernizations: Between Utopia and Pragmatism (pp. 86-98). Zagreb: UHA/CCA.
Fehmiu, B. (2015). The Dilemmas of Kosovar Architecture. In I. Gjinolli, & L. Kabashi, Kosovo Modern an Architectural Primer (pp. 57-63). Prishtina: National Gallery of Kosova.
Gjinolli, I. (2015). Is There a Kosovar School of Architecture . In I. Gjinolli, & L. Kabashi, Kosovo Modern an Architectural Primer (pp. 64-79). Prishtina: National Gallery of Kosova.
Kabashi, L. (2015). The Dilemmas of Kosovar Architecture: Tracing an Article about Kosorav Architecture from 1981. In I. Gjinolli, & L. Kabashi, Kosovo Modern an Architectural Primer (pp. 28-49). Prishtina: National Gallery of Kosova.
Kulic, V. (2009). East West or Both, Foreign Perceptions of Architecture in Socialist Yugoslavia. The Journal of Architecture, 129-147.
Kulic, V. (2012). An Avant-Garde Architecture for an Avant-Garde Socialism: Yugoslavia at Expo’58. Journal of Contemporary History, 161-184.
Kulic, V. (2012). Architecture and Ideology in Socialist Yugoslavia. In M. Mrduljas, & V. Kulic, Unfinished Modernizations: Between Utopia and Pragmatizm (pp. 36-63). Zagreb: UHA/CCA.
Kulic, V. (2009). A Land of Multiple Between-ness. V. Kulic, The Land of The In-Between: Modern Architecture and The State in Socialist Yugoslavia, 1945-65 (s. 3-9). Austin: The University of Texas.
Lozanovksa, M. (2012). Kenzo Tange’s Forgotten Master Plan for the. The Journal of The Society of Architectural Historians, Autralia and New Zealand, 140-163.
Malcolm, N. (2011). Kosova nën Titon: 1945-1980. In N. Malcolm, Kosova: Një Histori e Shkurtër (pp. 398-419). Prishtina: KOHA.
Miller, T. (2005). Incomplete Modernities: Historicizing Yugoslavian Avant-Gardes. 713-722.
Pejić, B. ( 2014). Yugoslav Monuments: Art and the Rhetoric of Power, . In D. Brumund, & C. Pfeifer, Monumenti- The Changing Face of Remembrance (pp. 10-14). Belgrade: Forum Ziviler Friedensdienst.
Suvakovic, M. (2003). Impossible Histories. In D. Djuric, & S. Misko, Impossible Histories: Historical Avant-gardes, Neo-Avantgardes and Post-avant-gardes in yugoslavia, 1918-1991 (pp. 2-36). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Thaler, W., Mrduljas, T., & Kulic, V. (2012). Between Past and Future. In W. Thaler, T. Mrduljas, & V. Kulic, Modernism In-Between: The Mediatory Architectures of Socialist Yugoslavia (pp. 214-265). Berlin: Jovis Verlag GmbH.
 ‘Brotherhood and Unity’ was a powerful inner political endeavour to unite margin ethnicities of Yugoslavia for the representation of its strength in international platform. Architecture and urban planning were instrumentalized in concretizing the abstract notion of ‘Brotherhood and Unity’, from big landscape interventions to small scale operations. ‘Boro’ and ‘Ramiz’ was the most endemic cult in Kosova. Street, Schools and institutions were named after ‘Boro Ramiz’. ‘Boro-Ramiz: Complex’ was designed to display cult’s concept, it was not named after the construction. Complex as a landmark of Prishtina, with its two volumes that were united via ferro-concrete pylon structures was containing stong symbolism within itself. Repetetive structure of along the width of a mass represents six republics and two autonomous places of Federal Yugoslavia. After 1974 Constitution amendments design can be seen as a display of semi-independent Kosova, which might be stated as an important achievement of Albanians.
 Serbian politician, Minister of Internal Affairs, who had followed anti- Albanian politics.
 Metohija derives from Greek word that means a place owned by Serbian Orthodox monasteries. Naming the west part of Kosova, ‘Metohija’ was upsetting Albanians since the plateau of Dukagjini originally was named from Albanian Dukagjini family. Dukagjini family was one of the most important Christian feudal families in medieval Albania.
 Serbian politician in Kosova.
 Co-author of ‘Boro Ramiz- Sport Culture and Trade Complex’.
According to a citation of Slobodan Maldini from Enciklopedia Arhitekture (2013), in article of Ilir Gjinolli, Is There a Kosovar School of Architecture, “Kosovo Modern, an Architectural Primer,” (Prishtina: National Gallery of Kosova, 2015) pp.64-79, p.67.
 Yugoslav Architects and Professors of Architecture in major Yugoslav Architecture Faculties that in the same time were professors in University of Prishtina.
 by Sara Sylejmani