Memorial Center Goli otok_Master's Thesis_Hren Mia-Martina by Mia

Memorial centre Goli otok/Memorijalni centar Goli otok

Mia-Martina Hren, BSc

Memorial center Goli otok

MASTER’S THESIS to achieve the university degree to Master of Science Master’s degree programme: Architecture

submitted to

Graz University of Technology

Supervisor Univ.-Prof. Dipl.-Arch. Dr.sc.ETH, Urs Leonhard, Hirschberg Institute of Architecture and Media Co-supervisor Ass.Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr.techn. Milena, Stavrić

Graz, March 2017.

AFFIDAVIT I declare that I have authored this thesis independently, that I have not used other than the declared sources/resources, and that I have explicitly indicated all material which has been quoted either literally or by content from the sources used.The text document uploaded to TUGRAZonline is identical to the present masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;sthesis dissertation.

Date

Signature

SUMMARY The theses of this work is mainly focused on understanding and reconstructing of the political camp on Goli otok between 1949. and 1956., that existed in former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The main idea of this project is to properly denote and to give a lost meaning to a island which was a place of complete isolation, hard physical work, poor living conditions, thirst, hunger, epidemic diseases, physical and mental abuse and the absence of any human rights, by designing a memorial center. Through the reconstruction of the past camp and the research of individual and collective memory as well as understanding of importance of reviving it, the solution came. The result is space that speaks about repression, teaches us to properly deal with the past and place where memory becomes a memorial.

SAŽETAK Tema diplomskog rada je usmjerena na razumijevanje i rekonstrukciju političkog logora na Golom otoku između 1949. i 1956. godine, koji je egzistirao u bivšoj Socijalističkoj Federativnoj Republici Jugoslaviji. Glavna ideja projekta je prikladno naglasiti i dati izgubljeni značaj otoku koji je bio mjesto potpune izolacije, teškog fizičkog rada, loših životnih uvjeta, žeđi, gladi, epidemija, fizičkog i psihičkog maltretiranja uz potpuni izostanak ljudskih prava, osmišljavanjem memorijalnog centra. Kroz rekonstrukciju bivšeg logora i istraživanje individualne i kolektivne memorije kao i razumijevanja važnosti njihovog oživljavanja, došlo je do rješenja. Rezultat je prostor koji progovara o represiji, uči nas pravilno nositi se s prošlošću, prostor gdje sjećanje postaje spomen.

CONTENT INTRODUCTION / UVOD 3

1.MEMORIAL ARCHITECTURE / MEMORIJALNA ARHITEKTURA 1.1.THE NOTION OF MEMORY/POJAM SJEĆANJA

1.2.THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MONUMENT AND MEMORIAL /RAZLIKA IZMEĐU SPOMENIKA I SPOMEN-OBILJEŽJA

1.2.1.MONUMENTS/SPOMENICI

1.2.2.MEMORIALS/SPOMEN-OBILJEŽJA

1.3.BRIEF HISTORY OF MEMORIAL ARCHITECTURE/POVIJESNI PREGLED MEMORIJALNE ARHITEKTURE

1.4.DEFINITION AND IMPORTANCE OF MEMORIAL ARCHITECTURE TODAY/DEFINICIJA I VAŽNOST MEMORIJALNE ARHITEKTURE DANAS

2.GOLI ISLAND/GOLI OTOK

2.1.GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE/ZEMLJOPISNI POLOŽAJ I KLIMA

2.2.BRIEF HISTORY OF GOLI ISLAND/POVIJESNI PREGLED GOLOG OTOKA

2.3.FORMING AND GENESIS OF SPACE/PRIKAZ FORMIRANJA I GENEZE PROSTORA

2.4.PHOTO DOCUMENTATION OF THE EXISTING SITUATION/FOTODOKUMENTACIJAPOSTOJEĆEG STANJA

3.POLITICAL CAMP GOLI ISLAND 1949-1956 / POLITIČKI LOGOR GOLI OTOK 1949-1956 3.1.FOUNDING OTOKU

CAMP ON GOLI ISLAND /OSNIVANJE LOGORA NA GOLOM

3.2.LIFE ON THE ISLAND /ŽIVOT NA GOLOM OTOKU

3.3.POLITICAL RE-EDUCATION-WORK AND PUNISHMENT ON GOLI ISLAND POLITIČKI PREODGOJ-RAD I KAŽNJAVANJE NA GOLOM OTOKU

3.3.1.WORK ON GOLI ISLAND/RAD NA GOLOM OTOKU

3.3.2.PUNISHMENT ON GOLI ISLAND/KAŽNJAVANJE NA GOLOM OTOKU

3.3.3.RUNNING THE GAUNTLET/ŠPALIR

3.3.3.1.HISTORY OF RUNNING THE GAUNTLET/ POVIJEST ŠPALIRA

3.3.3.2.RUNNING THE GAUNTLET ON GOLI ISLAND/ŠPALIR NA GOLOM OTOKU

3.4.CAMPS ON GOLI ISLAND/LOGORI(RADILIŠTA)NA GOLOM OTOKU

3.4.1.FIRST CAMP-OLD WIRE/PRVI LOGOR-STARA ŽICA

3.4.2.BIG WIRE/VELIKA ŽICA

3.4.3.CAMP 101-PETAR’S HOLE/RADILIŠTE 101-PETROVA RUPA

3.4.4.CAMP V-WOMEN’S CAMP/RADILIŠTE V-ŽENSKI LOGOR

3.5.CAMP ORGANIZATION ON GOLI ISLAND/ORGANIZACIJA LOGORA NA GOLOM OTOKU

3.6.INFLUENCE OF NAZI CAMPS ON ORGANIZATION OF CAMOS ON GOLI ISLAND/ UTJECAJ NACISTIČKIH LOGORA NA ORGANIZACIJU LOGORA NA GOLOM OTOKU

4.THE REFERENCES/REFERENTNI PRIMJERI

4.1.GORDON MATTA-CLARK/GORDON MATTA-CLARK

4.2.MONUMENT TO THE RESISTANCE IN CUNEO, 1962, ALDO ROSSI /SPOMENIK OTPORU U CUNEO-U, 1962, ALDO ROSSI

4.3.ITALIAN CONCENTRATION CAMP RISIERA DI SAN SABBA/TALIJANSKI KONCENTRACIJSKI LOGOR RISIERA DI SAN SABBA

5.MEMORIAL CENTER GOLI OTOK/MEMORIJALNI CENTAR GOLI OTOK 5.1.MEMORIAL CENTRE VELIKA ŽICA/MEMORIJALNI CENTAR VELIKA ŽICA 5.2.MUSEUM AS A PART OF MEMORIAL CENTRE VELIKA ŽICA/MUZEJ KAO DIO MEMORIJALNOG CENTRA VELIKA ŽICA

85 93 111 121

5.3.MEMORIAL BUILDING/MEMORIJALNI OBJEKT

6.FOOTNOTES, REFERENCES AND FIGURES/FUSNOTE, LITERATURA I SLIKE

141

INTRODUCTION/UVOD

Not so long ago, the history of the territory of today’s Republic of Croatia was being written under a different system, name and leader. After severing friendly relations with the USSR in 1948, the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia founds one of the most brutal labour camps on the island Goli otok in the summer of 1949. Often called the “Croatian Alcatraz,” Goli otok remained the symbol of the communist regime’s clash with its dissidents.1 Hit by bora winds, bathed in salt in the Velebit bay of the Adriatic Sea, it is no wonder the island was left untouched and completely bare until 1949. Strategically selected due to its lack of infrastructure, the bare stone and karst become a correctional facility for the first 100 convicts from all parts of the former Yugoslavia. In the following six years, around 16,000 convicts2 passed through the island, subjected on a daily basis to poor living conditions, hard physical and mental abuse, hungry, thirsty and sick, suffering through severe weather conditions. 300 to 400 prisoners3 never made it home, while those who survived remained scarred forever. Today the island lies corroded by salt, completely untouched and forgotten. Some 60 years later, a question arises – is it necessary to leave the area of Goli otok untouched, at the mercy of time that erases traces along with our memory, or is it necessary to emphasize and commemorate the suffering that marked Goli otok? Why and how to remember a crime of this kind? How to keep the memory of inhumanity, heartlessness and sacrifice alive? Is it worth it and necessary to reopen the long suppressed issues? That is precisely the topic of this paper which is trying to find an answer and the right solution through the analysis of the island’s condition and the reconstruction of history.

Ne tako davno, na danasnjem teritoriju Republike Hrvatske povijest je ispisivala stranice pod drugim sistemom, nazivom i vođom. Nekadašnja Socijalistička Republika Jugoslavija nakon prekida prijateljskih odnosa sa SSSR-om 1948., osniva jedan od najbrutalnijih logora na Golom otoku u ljeto 1949. godine. Često nazivan ‘’Hrvatski Alcatraz, Goli otok ostao je simbol obračuna komunističkog režima s neistomišljenicima.1 Udaren burom, opijen solju u Velebitskom zaljevu Jadranskog mora s razlogom je do 1949. godine ostao netaknut i potpuno ogoljen. Strateški odabran bez infrastrukture, goli kamen i krš postaje preodgojna ustanova za prvih 100 kažnjenika iz svih dijelova bivše Jugoslavije. Kroz narednih šest godina otok je prošlo oko 16 000 kažnjenika2 koji su bili svakodnevno izloženi lošim životnim uvjetima, teškom fizičkom i psihičkom maltretiranju, gladni, žedni i bolesni uz teške vremenske nepogode. Tristo do četristo logoraša3 nikada se nije vratilo kući, dok su preživjeli doživotno ostali obilježeni. Danas otok leži nagrizen solju potpuno netaknut i zaboravljen. Šezdesetak godina poslije postavlja se pitanje, je li potrebno prostor Golog otoka ostaviti netaknutim, na milost vremenu koje briše tragove zajedno s našim sjećanjem, ili je neophodno patnje koje su obilježile Goli otok naglasiti i obilježiti? Zašto i kako se prisjećati takvog zločina? Kako održati živim sjećanje na nehumanost, bezosjećajnost i žrtve? Je li vrijedno i neophodno ponovno otvarati davno potisnuta pitanja? Upravo je to tema rada koji kroz analizu stanja otoka i rekonstrukciju povijesti pokušava naći odgovor i pravilno riješenje. Stvaranje prostora na Golom otoku u funkciji memorijalnog centra omogućilo bi suočavanje sa stvarnošću koju je donio Titov režim. Pružila bi se mogućnost pra-

Creating a space on Goli otok functioning as a memorial centre would allow us to face the reality that Tito’s regime brought. It would open up the opportunity to properly cope with the memories and the past. For that reason, the importance of this memorial space is indisputable, because today, after a long period of time, it is necessary to develop a space that speaks of repression, sends a message to never forget or repeat, a message for the present, but also the future generations.

vilnog nošenja sa sjećanjem i prošlošću. Iz tog je razloga važnost takvog memorijalnog prostora neupitna, jer danas nakon velikog vremenskog odmaka potrebno je razviti prostor koji progovara o represiji, koji odašilje poruku da se nikada ne ponovi i ne zaboravi, poruku za sadašnje, ali ibuduće generacije.

1.MEMORIAL ARCHITECTURE 1.1.THE NOTION OF MEMORY/POJAM SJEĆANJA

FIGURE 1. DETAIL ON GOLI OTOK, MARCO MENSA

1.2.THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MONUMENT AND MEMORIAL / RAZLIKA IZMEĐU SPOMENIKA I SPOMEN-OBILJEŽJA

1.2.1.MONUMENTS/SPOMENICI 1.2.2.MEMORIALS/SPOMEN-OBILJEŽJA 1.3.BRIEF HISTORY OF MEMORIAL ARCHITECTURE/POVIJESNI PREGLED MEMORIJALNE ARHITEKTURE

1.4.DEFINITION AND IMPORTANCE OF MEMORIAL ARCHITECTURE TODAY/DEFINICIJA I VAŽNOST MEMORIJALNE ARHITEKTURE DANAS

1.MEMORIAL ARCHITECTURE/MEMORIJALNA ARHITEKTURA

‘’Too much memory in one place, too much forgetting in other’’4 Ricoeur ‘’Previše sjećanja na jednom, previše zaborava na drugom mjestu’’4 Ricoeur As one of the oldest forms of architecture, memorial architecture continues to represent an important role in the society because it allows people to materialize their basic instinct, “memory,” in the only possible way, and gain a space to channel and examine their thoughts and feelings. By providing a way to materialize and localize memories, memorial architecture is also a communicator of history that allows every society, group and individual to resist the strategy of forgetting, to which we are constantly exposed. It is also important because it sends the most important message, the message of reconciliation and a more positive look into a more peaceful future filled with coexistence and understanding. That is why it is significant, even a hundred years later, to talk about the truth and send a clear message to never forget and never repeat.5

Memorijalna arhitektura kao jedna od najstarijih oblika arhitekture i dan danas predstavlja važnu ulogu u društvu jer pruža ljudima da svoj osnovni instikt ‘’sjećanje’’ na jedini mogući način materijaliziraju te dobiju prostor kanalizacije i preispitivanja svojih misli i osjećaja. Uz pružanje načina materijalizacije i lokalizacije sjećanja, memorijalna je arhitektura ujedno i komunikator povijesti koji omogućava svakom društvu, grupi i pojedincu da se odupre strategiji zaboravljanja kojoj smo konstantno izloženi. Važna je i jer odašilje najbitniju poruku, poruku pomirenja i pozitivnijeg pogleda u mirniju budućnost prožetu suživotom i razumijevanjem. Iz tog razloga značajno je i nakon sto godina progovoriti o istini i dati jasnu poruku da se nikada ne zaboravi i ne ponovi.5

1.1.THE NOTION OF ‘‘MEMORY’’/POJAM ‘‘SJEĆANJA’’ In order to understand memorial architecture, which is a reflection of the materialization of memory, it is especially important to understand the concept of memory and to separate it from the concept of history. Memory and history are not synonyms, and, as Pierre Nora, a French historian explains, they are in complete opposition. He states that memory is life because it is transferred by living humans and it is sensitive to appropriation and manipulation, susceptible to long dormancies and sudden revivals, while, on the other hand, history always remains an incomplete reconstruction of the past.6

Za razumijevanje memorijalne arhitekture koja je odraz materijalizacije sjećanja prvenstveno je bitno shvatiti pojam sjećanja te ga odvojiti od pojma povijesti. Sjećanje i povijest nisu sinonimi, te kako je objasnio francuski povjesničar Pierre No, oni su potpuno suprostavljeni pojmovi. On objašnjava da je sjećanje život jer ga prenose živi ljudi te je osjetljivo na prisvajanje i manipulaciju, podložno dugim mirovanjima i naglim oživljavanjima, dok s druge strane povijest uvijek ostaje nepotpuna rekonstrukcija prošlosti.6 Da bi preciznije razumjeli memorijalizaciju treba razlikovati dvije vrste memorije: s jedne stra-

In order to understand memorialization more precisely, it is necessary to distinguish two types of memory: on the one hand, memory as a multi-significant mental ability of reconstruction, and on the other hand, memory in a cultural sense, which includes concepts such as “social and collective memory,” “material or medial memory” and “mental or cognitive memory.” Although they are two different procedures, cognitive interpretation of memory is metaphorically transferred into the sphere of cultural memory.7 It is important to explain the term “collective memory” which was first used by a sociologist Maurice Halbwachs8, who, already in the 1920s, researched the forms of social memory in different sociological groups, and on the basis of it came up with a thesis that people do not actually build, in a strict sense of the word, any individual memories, but that they are always involved in a collective memory.9Jan Assmann10 represents a similar thesis, believing that memory never develops in isolation and that it is already socially directed towards other individuals and their group connection which reacts and affects other collective memories.11 Official commemorations as well as memorials make up the connective tissue of collective memory. The forms of collective memory ask for participation and are able to provoke emotions in the participants, and therefore can influence or even become personal memories. Memorial objects and buildings, along with fine art, film and literature, are the basis of cultural memory, because they are intertwined with the process of memory and therefore a direct means in building identity. They are an indelible part of collective and personal memory because they provide a way of localizing the memory itself. Investing cultural memory in monuments and memorial centres is of extreme importance because it is a type of memory that can be prolonged in time and transferred to the next generation, so they should be understood as inseparable parts of the dynamic process of memory, as confirmed by the prolific history of memorial architecture.12

strane sjećanje kao višeznačajnu mentalnu sposobnost rekonstrukcije, a s druge strane sjećanje u kulturnom smislu koje obuhvaća pojmove ‘’društvenog i kolektivnog sjećanja’’, ‘’materijalne ili medijalne memorije’’ te ‘’mentalne ili kognitivne memorije’’. Iako su dva različita postupka, kognitivna interpretacija sjećanja metaforički se prenosi u sferu kulturne memorije. 7 Značajno je objasniti izraz ‘’kolektivno sjećanje’’ kojeg je prvi upotrijebio sociolog Maurice Halbwachs8, koji je već u 20-tim godinama 20. stoljeća istraživao oblike socijalnog pamćenja kod različitih socioloških grupa te na osnovu njega došao do teze da ljudi uopće ne izgrađuju, u striktnom smislu riječi, nikakvo individualno sjećanje, nego da su uvijek uključeni u zajedničko sjećanje.9 Sličnu tezu zastupa Jan Assmann10 smatrajući da se sjećanje nikad ne razvija u izolaciji te da je ono već socijalno usmjereno na druge individue i njihovu grupnu povezanost koja reagira i utječe na druga kolektivna sjećanja.11 Službene komemoracije kao i spomen-obilježja čine vezivno tkivo kolektivnog sjećanja. Oblici kolektivnog sjećanja traže sudjelovanje te su u stanju izazvati emocije sudionika i na taj način mogu utjecati ili čak postati osobno sjećanje. Memorijalni objekti i građevine, zajedno s likovnom umjetnosti, filmom i književnošću nositelji su kulturnog pamćenja, jer su isprepleteni s procesom sjećanja te su stoga neposredno sredstvo u izgradnji identiteta. Neizbrisiv su dio kolektivnog i osobnog sjećanja jer pružaju način lokalizacije njega samog. Ulaganje kulturne memorije u spomenike i memorijalne centre je od izuzetne važnosti jer je to vrsta sjećanja koju je moguće produžiti u vremenu, te ju je moguće prenijeti na sljedeću generaciju te ih je potrebno shvaćati kao neodvojive dijelove dinamičkog procesa sjećanja, kao što i potvrđuje plodna povijest memorijalne arhitekture.12

1.2.THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MONUMENT AND MEMORIAL IZMEĐU SPOMENIKA I SPOMEN-OBILJEŽJA

Throughout history, as well as today, memorial architecture has included a great spectre of different objects and buildings. From the oldest original forms of memorial architecture such as Stonehenge and Maeshowe in the United Kingdom or Newgrange in Ireland, to different tombs such as Taj Mahal in India and different shapes of pyramids. Monuments with sepulchral function were very important and used in every culture and religion. In the 18th century, however, there is a popularization of monuments to famous people, popular heroes or the ones commemorating significant historical events, while the 20th century brings a different understanding of monuments as well as the emergence of memorials as the result of historical events that marked the century. After the First World War, monuments were still in the service of celebrating victory, but the Second World War changes that image and understanding of monuments. The term memorial is now used more often, and it is primarily in the service of memory and honouring the victims, and that is why it is important to mention the different understandings of monuments and memorials.13

/RAZLIKA

Tijekom povijesti, ali idanas memorijalna arhitektura obuhvaća veliki spektar različitih objekata i građevina. Od najstarijih prvobitnih oblika memorijalne arhitekture kao što su Stonehenge i Maeshowe u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu ili Newgrange u Irskoj, do različitih vrsta grobnica kao što je Taj Mahal u Indiji i različitih oblika piramida. Vrlo bitni i korišteni u svim kulturama i religijama bili su spomenici koji su imali nadgrobnu funkciju. Ipak u 18. stoljeću dolazi do popularizacije spomenika slavnih ličnosti, narodnih heroja ili obilježavanja značajnih povijesnih događaja, dok razdoblje 20. stoljeća donosi drukčije shvaćanje spomenika kao i pojavu spomen-obilježja kao rezultat povijesnih događaja koji su obilježili to stoljeće. Nakon Prvog svjetskog rata i dalje su spomenici bili u službi slavljenja pobjede, međutim Drugi svjetski rat mijenja sliku i dotadašnje shvaćanje spomenika. Dolazi do sve češćeg korištenja izraza spomen-obilježje koji je prvenstveno u službi sjećanja i odavanja počasti žrtvama te je zbog toga bitno spomeniti različita shvaćanja između spomenika i spomen obilježja.13

1.2.1.MONUMENTS/SPOMENICI “There is nothing in this world as invisible as a monument.” 14 This Robert Musli’s thought may best describe the process of neglecting the strength that monuments carry. Memory’s collaborators become invisible in the wake of public neglect. In 1930, referring to the traditional concept of a public monument, Musli describes monuments as buildings dedicated to memory of a person or an event, which are usually in the form of a sculptural work installed on a pedestal. The discussion about the invisibility of the monument implies that there is an expiration date to the monumental presentation of memory, which refers to a complicated set of circumstances that put the monument in the first place. With reference to Musli’s observation, Young notices that the reason for the monuments’ invisi-

‘’Ne postoji ništa na ovom svijetu tako nevidljivo kao spomenik.’’14 Misao Roberta Muslia možda najbolje opisuje proces zanemarivanja snage koju nose spomenici. Suradnici sjećanja postaju nevidljivi uslijed javnog zanemarivanja. Godine 1930. referirajući se na tradicionalni pojam javnog spomenika Musli opisuje da su spomenici građevine posvećene sjećanju na osobu ili događaj koji obično ima oblik skulpturalnog djela instaliranog na pedestal. Rasprava o nevidljivosti spomenika podrazumijeva da postoji rok trajanja za spomeničko predstavljanje sjećanja, koji se odnosi na zamršen skup okolnosti koje stavljaju spomenik na prvo mjesto. Young, pozivajući se na Musliovo opažanje, primijećuje da je razlog za nevidljivost spomenika esencijalna ukočenost njih samih te pretvaranje podatne

FIGURE 2. THE MONUMENT AGAINST FASCISM, JOCHEN GERZ AND ESTHER SHALEV-GERZ, HAMBURG, 1986

bility is their own essential stiffness and that they turn supple memory into stone. In that sense, monuments represent the act of cessation because they are rarely erected in one’s lifetime. The affective nature of monuments has the task of keeping memories alive for future generations, and it is precisely that nature which is often neglected, and it is a tendency that Young recognized, claiming that “‘too often, a community’s monuments assume the polished, finished veneer of a death mask, unreflective of a current memory, unresponsive to contemporary issues.”15 According to Alois Riegl, an Austrian art historian who published Moderne Denkmalkultus: sein Wesen und seine Entstehung in 1903, monuments are in their original and oldest form human creations, erected for the purpose of preserving individual human acts or events in the thoughts of future generations.16 According to Riegl, the perception that the future generations will have towards monuments depends on the existing context, norms and values or “Kunstwollen”17 of the epoch. He recognizes three types of monuments: intentional, unintentional and monuments that possess age value. Intentional monuments fall in a specific category because they have a more or less protected status throughout history. Unintentional monuments memorialize the person that existed in many cultures and is usually left for the future generations. During Renaissance, when beauty gained its place, people started to realize the value of memory as a part of heritage, and not as a mere display of patriotic memory. Intentional monuments are not just informative structures from a certain historical period, but also interesting buildings permeated with living memories. Works of art that remind of a certain moment or of complex moments in the past belong to this category.18 Much later, Horst Janson, an art historian, categorized the three types of Western monuments: tombstones, monuments of historical events, and monuments honouring the greats.19 Commemorative monuments were always built with the intention to last, however that usually proved impossible and led to monuments ending up as signs of failed infrastructures of memory, turning them into a mysterious and an unwanted reality.

memorije u kamen. U tom smislu, spomenici predstavljaju čin prestanka, jer su rijetko podignuti za život. Afektivna priroda spomenika ima zadatak očuvati sjećanje živim za buduće generacije, a upravo ona je često zanemarena i to je tendencija koju je Young prepoznala, tvrdeći „prečesto, spomenici neke zajednice postaju uglađen, završni furnir posmrtne maske, ne odražavaju trenutačno sjećanje i ne pridaju pažnju suvremenim problemima.“15 Prema Alois Riegl-u austrijskom povjesničaru umjetnosti koji je 1903. godine objavio Moderne Denkmalkultus: sein Wesen und seine Entstehung, spomenici su u svom najstarijem i originalnijem obliku, ljudske tvorevine, podignute za posebnu svrhu očuvanja pojedinačnih ljudskih djela ili događaja u mislima budućih generacija.16 Prema Rigelu percepcija koju će buduće generacije imati prema spomenicima ovisi o postojećem kontekstu, normama i vrijednostima ili ‘’Kunstwollen’’ 17neke epohe. Prepoznaje tri vrste spomenika: namjerne, nenamjerne i spomenike koji posjeduju dobnu vrijednost. Namjerni spomenici spadaju u specifičnu kategoriju jer imaju više manje zaštićen status tokom povijesti. Nenamjerni spomenici memorijaliziraju osobu koja je postojala u mnogim kulturama i obično je prepuštena budućim generacija. Tijekom renesanse kada je ljepota dobila svoje mjesto, ljudi su počeli shvaćati vrijednost sjećanja, kao djela baštine, a ne kao puki prikaz patriotskog sjećanja. Namjerni spomenici nisu samo informativna struktura iz određenog povijesnog razdoblja, već i zanimljiva građevina prožeta živim sjećanjem. Toj kategoriji pripadaju djela koja podsjećaju na određeni trenutak ili kompleksne trenutke prošlosti.18 Mnogo je kasnije povjesničar umjetnosti Horst Janson kategorizirao tri vrste zapadnih spomenika: grobni spomenici, spomenici povijesnih događaja te spomenici podignuti u čast velikana.19 Komemoracijski su spomenici uvijek građeni s namjerom da traju, međutim, to se često pokazalo nemogućim i vodilo je do toga da spomenici završavaju kao znakovi propale infrastrukture sjećanja, pretvarajući ih u tajanstvenu i neželjenu stvarnost.

FIGURE 3. CANADIAN MEMORIAL VIMY RIDGE

1.2.2.MEMORIALS/SPOMEN-OBILJEŽJA Studies that deal with memory often use the term “memorial” interchangeably with the term monument, and make a barely visible distinction between the two. Similarly, in architecture architects also often intertwine the two terms. Doss points out that in the context of English language, two words are used to describe different commemorative projects, from traditional stone obelisks to other content including parks, roads, libraries, museums etc. This is the legacy of the post-World War II discussion about “living memorials.” At the same time, Doss claims that the word “memorial” is becoming more popular because many recently built projects, such as the Pentagon Memorial (2008), or the Oklahoma City National Memorial (2001), are indicated as memorials. The indication also exists in the perception of designers and architects who see monuments as celebratory, and memorials usually as spaces of contemplative nature that can offer more possibilities.20 This distinction in purpose and content was also recognized by Arthur Danto who explained: “‘Monuments make heroes and triumphs, victories and conquests, perpetually present part of life. The memorial is a special precinct extruded from life, a segregated enclave where we honor the dead. With monuments we honor ourselves.”21 Danto finds his argument in the discussion about Washington Monument (1885), a symbol of victory, and Lincoln Memorial (1922), a temple for channelling emotions, but it cannot be taken as a formula because monuments can call for retrospection while at the same time memorials do not necessarily have an uncelebratory character. The opposing attitudes and heated debates about the connection and the appearance of the two terms have been permeating literature to this day.22 In his scientific paper, David Todd Norman classifies memorials in three groups: form and symbolism, landscape, and historical marker. 23 Memorials characterized by form and symbols use chaotic but simple symbols, while the meaning is reflected through elements that create a sense of monumentality. Different forms, such as walls, pillars, arches, can be used to create the sense of monumentality and to convey the

Studije koje se bave sjećanjem, pojam ‘’spomen-obilježja’’ često koriste naizmjenično s pojmom spomenik i prave jedva vidljivu razliku između ta dva pojma. Slično je i u polju arhitekture, jer arhitekti često isprepliću ova dva pojma. Doss ukazuje kako su u kontekstu engleskog jezika korištene dvije riječi za opisivanje raznih komemorativnih projekata, od tradicionalnih kamenih obeliska do drugih sadržaja uključujući parkove, ceste, knjižnice, muzeje itd. Ovo je nasljeđe rasprave nakon Drugog svjetskog rata o ‘’living memorials’’. Istovremeno Doss tvrdi da riječ ‘’memorial’’ postaje sve popularnija jer su mnogi nedavno izgrađeni projekti kao što je Pentagon Memorial (2008), odnosno Oklahoma City National Memorial (2001) naznačeni kao memorial. Naznaka postoji u i percepciji dizajnera i arhitekata da spomenike vide kao slavljeničke, a memorial obično kao prostore kontemplativne prirode koji mogu ponuditi više mogućnosti.20 Ovu razliku u svrsi i sadržaju prepoznao je i Arthur Danto te objasnio: ‘’Spomenici čine heroje i trijumfe, pobjede i osvajanja, stalnim dijelom života. Memorial je posebna oblast istisnuta iz života, izdvojena enklava u kojoj odajemo počast mrtvima. Spomenicima odajemo počast samima sebi.’’ 21 Danto nalazi svoj argument u raspravi o Washington Monument (1885) kao simbola pobjede i Lincoln Memorial (1922) kao hram kanalizacije osjećaja, međutim ne može se uzeti kao formula jer spomenici mogu pozivati na retrospekciju dok u isto vrijeme spomen-obilježja nisu nužno neslavljeničkog karaktera. Suprotni stavovi i oštre rasprave o vezi i izgledu ta dva pojma pune literaturu sve do danas.22 U znanstvenom radu David Todd Norman klasificira spomen-obilježja na tri skupine; formu i simboliku, pejzaž i povijesni marker.23 Spomeni karakterizirani formom i simbolima koriste kaotične ali i jednostavne simbole, dok se značenje reflektira kroz elemente koji stvaraju osjećaj monumentalnosti. Različite forme poput zidova, stupova, lukova mogu se koristiti pri stvaranju samog osjećaja monumentalnosti i prenošenja poruke javnosti. Primjer je spomen.obilježja koji je okarakteriziran formom i

FIGURE 4. MONUMENT DEDICATED TO JEWISH VICTIMS OF FASCISM, BOGDAN BOGDANOVIÄ&#x2020;, 1952.

fašizma na Sefardskom groblju u Beogradu. Cilj arhitekta Bogdana Bogdanovića bio je proučavanje židovske simbolike koja ga je od samog početka osvojila. Osim uobičajenih židovskih simbola kao što je Davidova zvijezda i menora na spomeniku se nalaze simboli i oblici iz drugih kultura. Centralna kapija sastoji se od dva pilona koji podsjećaju na drevne hramove iz antičkog perioda. Na prednjoj strani arhitekt je osmislio kamene stupove tako da podsjećaju na Mojsijeve ploče sa zapovijedima. Vanjski profili dvaju krila imaju klasične proporcije dorskih stupova, koji prema grčkom shvaćanju predstavljaju razvoj mladića. Unutrašnji se profil ugleda na jonske stupove koji predstavljaju idealan oblik mlade žene. Na prilazu spomeniku nalazi se metaforička fontana, simbolička asocijacija na obredno kupatilo u judaizmu, ali i drevni simbol gotovo svake civilizacije. 24 Pejzaž predstavlja drugu tipologiju spomena koji imaju u cilju stvaranje narativnog putovanja. Da bi stvorili uvid narativnog putovanja koriste se putići, točke vrijedne zaustavljanja, spomenici, simbolička i druga obilježja koja nose značenje. Za razliku od ostalih oblika spomen-obilježja, pejzažni spomeni imaju tendenciju da uvijek idu korak dalje u uspostavljanju niza perceptivnih iskustava kao i raspoloženja, stvarajući seriju događaja kroz koje posjetitelji evociraju različite emocije i asocijacije. Treća vrsta spomena prema Davidu T. Normanu povijesni su markeri. Oni egzistiraju na mjestima od primarne važnosti koja su obilježena povijesnim događajem i sama po sebi progovaraju o prošlosti i gubitcima. Ruševine, dijelovi iz prošlosti, pričaju sami po sebi priču i posjetitelj može lako dobiti informacije putem promatranja ostataka. Smatraju se markerima i svjedocima prošlosti.25 Savršen spoj pejzažnog spomen-obilježja, a u isto vrijeme spomena koji je povijesni marker, spomen je Goranu Ledereru pod nazivom ‘’Slomljeni pejzaž’’ arhitektonskog ureda NFO u suradnji s kiparom Petrom Barišićem. Za lokaciju je izabrano brdo Čukur u Hrvatskoj gdje je Lederer snimio svoju zadnju fotografiju za vrijeme Domovinskog rata. Spomen se sastoji od pristupnog puta i slomljenog objektiva fotoaparata. Put od betonskih ploča zamišljen kao simbolizacija Ledererovog života. Svaka betonska ploča uokvirena je crnim okvirima od čelika s ugraviranom godinom Ledererova života u negativu kao interpretacija

message to the public. An example of a memorial characterized by form and many symbols is the Memorial to Jews, victims of fascism at the Sefard cemetery in Belgrade. The goal of the architect Bogdan Bogdanović was studying Jewish symbolism which fascinated him from the beginning. Apart from the usual Jewish symbols such as the Star of David and the menorah, there are also symbols and forms from other cultures. The central gate consists of two pylons which remind of ancient temples from the classical period. The architect designed stone pillars on the front so that they remind of Moses’ commandments tablets. The exterior profiles of the two wings have the classic proportions of Doric pillars which, according to Greek beliefs, represent a young man’s development. The interior profile is modelled after the ionic pillars which represent the ideal shape of a young woman. At the access to the monument there is a metaphoric fountain, a symbolic association to a ritualistic bathroom in Judaism, but also an ancient symbol of nearly every civilization.24 Landscape represents another typology of memorials whose goal is to create a narrative journey. In order to create an insight into a narrative journey, elements such as paths, points worth stopping for, monuments, symbolic and other features that carry meaning are used. As opposed to other forms of memorials, landscape memorials have a tendency to always go a step further in establishing a set of perceptive experiences as well as moods by creating a series of events that evoke different emotions and associations in the visitors. The third group of memorials are historical markers, according to David T. Norman. They exist in places of primary importance, which are marked by a historical event and speak out about the past and the losses. The ruins, parts from the past, contain within them a story and the visitor can easily receive information by looking at the remains. They are considered markers and witnesses of the past.25 The perfect combination of a landscape memorial and a memorial that is also a historical marker is the Goran Lederer Memorial, called “Broken landscape,” developed by the NFO architecture studio in cooperation with the sculptor Petar Barišić. The Čukur hill in Croatia, the place where Lederer took his last photograph during the Croatian War of Independence, was selected as the location.

The memorial consists of an access path and a broken camera lens. The path, made out of concrete slabs, was designed as a symbol of Lederer’s life. Every concrete slab is framed in black steel frames and engraved with a year of Lederer’s life in negative as an interpretation of film frames. The path goes tensely through natural terrain leading to the last slab, a memorial plateu, without a number, representing the last year of his life, and at the same time indicating the end of the path and a final view in a figurative and the real sense. The view towards the lens directs the visitors’ view towards the Una river valley, just like Goran Lederer confronts them with the reality of events that took place there when he took his “last shot.”26

filmskih okvira. Put prolazi napeto kroz prirodni teren koji vodi do posljednje spomen-ploče, bez broja koja predstavlja zadnju godinu njegova života, a ujedno ukazuje kraj puta i konačni pogled u figurativnom i stvarnom smislu. Pogled prema objektivu usmjerava posjetitelje da vide dolinu rijeke Une kao što ju je vidio Goran Lederer, kada je napravio ‘’posljednji snimak’’ i suočava ih s realnošću događaja koji se dogodio na tom mjestu.26

FIGURE 5. MEMORIAL ‘‘BROKEN LANDSCAPE’’, NFO ARCHITECTURAL STUDIO + PETAR BARIŠIĆ,2015.

1.3.BRIEF HISTORY OF MEMORIAL ARCHITECTURE/POVIJESNI PREGLED MEMORIJALNE ARHITEKTURE

After residential architecture, memorial architecture represents the oldest form of construction. It was an indispensable, and often the most important part of ancient civilizations’ architecture. It represented the only material bond between humans of the earth and the divine world. The first structures of memorial architecture such as Stonehenge or Maeshowe, and the roman Pantheon were and still today are a great inspiration.27 When it comes to the history of memorial architecture, it is important to mention the 18th century when monuments celebrating personality gain popularity. Studies such as Pierre Patte’s work Monuments eriges en France a la gloire de Louis XV influenced its popularity. They were usually influenced by the forms and compositions derived from ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome and Byzantine. In accordance with that, Egyptian pyramids were the usual inspiration for many tombstones and memorials across Europe. It can be concluded that neoclassicism was adopted by French architects as an ideal language for celebration and memorialization. The period after the French-Prussian war (1870-71) was marked together with the spread of nationalism and an increased occurrence of public monuments. The decades before the First World War were marked with Denkmalkultur that developed in Europe and especially in Germany where a great affinity towards monuments arose. It is called Denkmalsflut – a flood of monuments, while in France a similar occurrence starts in 1871, and is called “statuomania” because many public sculptures were dedicated to historical figures.28 Through history, memorial architecture gained different forms, social meanings and ideological background, but during the 20th century it receives a completely new meaning. The time after the First World War represented a period of recuperation and a search for modern society after such great tribulations, but that period, the 1920s and 30s, was also significant as a period of defining memorial architecture. In 1918, heroic monuments, national sanctuaries and other war features appear in nearly every place stron

Nakon stambene arhitekture, memorijalna arhitektura predstavlja najstariji oblik graditeljske djelatnosti. Bila je neizostavan, a često i najvažniji dio arhitekture drevnih civilizacija. Predstavljala je jedinu materijalnu vezu između čovjeka, ovozemaljskog svijeta s božanskim. Prvobitne strukture memorijalne arhitekture kao što su Stonehenge ili Maeshowe te rimski Panteon bili su i ostali velika inspiracija do današnjih dana.27 Za povijest memorijalne arhitekture bitno je spomenuti period 18. stoljeća kada veliku popularnost imaju spomenici koji slave ličnost. Na popularnost su utjecale studije kao što je rad Pierre Pattea Monuments eriges en France a la gloire de Louis XV. Obično su rađene pod utjecajem oblika i kompozicija izvedenih iz starog Egipta, Grčke, Rima i Bizanta. U skladu s tim, egipatske piramide bile su uobičajena inspiracija za brojne pogrebne spomenike i spomen-obilježja diljem Europe. Može se zaključiti da je neoklasicizam usvojen od strane francuskih arhitekata kao idealan jezik za obilježavanje i memorijalizaciju. Period nakon francusko-pruskog rata (1870.-71.), obilježen je širenjem nacionalizma i povećanom pojavom javnih spomenika. Desetljeća prije Prvog svjetskog rata obilježena su Denkmalkultur-om razvijenom u Europi te posebno u Njemačkoj u kojoj se javlja velika sklonost prema spomenicima. Nazivaju je Denkmalsflut - poplava spomenika, dok u Francuskoj slična pojava počinje 1871. te je nazvana ‘’statuomania’’ kada su brojne javne skulpture bile posvećene povijesnim ličnostima.28 Tijekom povijesti memorijalna arhitektura poprimala je različite oblike, društvene značaje i ideološku pozadinu, međutim tijekom 20. stoljeća dobiva potpuno novo značenje. Osim što je vrijeme nakon Prvog svjetskog rata predstavljalo period oporavljanja i traženja modernog društva nakon velikih stradanja, vrijeme 1920-tih i 30-tih ostalo je značajno kao period definiranja memorijalne arhitekture. Herojski spomenici, nacionalna svetišta i ostala ratna obilježja nakon 1918. nastaju u gotovo svakom mjestu koje je jače pogođeno ratom. Cilj memorijalizacije nakon Prvog svjetskog rata bio je locirati rat kao događaj od velikog značaja

FIGURE 6. STONEHENGE

gly affected by war. The goal of memorialization after the First World War was to locate war as an event of great significance within a historical period and to give an example of collective service and duty for the future generations. Monuments to unknown fighters of the First World War become a new form of memorial architecture; these monuments were at first imagined as monuments celebrating victory, but soon become places that represent the suffering of millions of people who never returned home. Individual identity was replaced by symbolic representation, and with it became a monument to “every mother’s son.”29 The epochal break and turn in modern history of mankind was brought by the year of 1945 – the year of the defeat of fascism and National Socialism, as the bloodiest totalitarian orders in human history. The Second World War changed the understanding of collective memory and refined the sensitivity to the ethics of memory. After the Second World War, the concept of memorial architecture is based on gathering living memories that materialize people’s suffering and the escape from destruction, providing a place where people can channel their emotions.30 The term Manhmal, as a concept of memorial architecture, along with the new rhetoric of peace and reconciliation of the entire warfare, which resulted in numerous civilian victims, acquired a prominent place in the postwar reality defined by ruins. Since there was no precedent for commemorating civilian victims, a discussion arose in the affected countries about an appropriate form of memorialization. They had to be built around the war ruins which were strictly preserved as a warning of war crime. Already in the early 1950s, first memorials are erected across Europe – from Mémorial des Martyrs de la Déportation by Georges-Henri Pingusson to Jasenovac Memorial Centre by Bojan Bogdanović and Risiera di San Sabba in Trieste by Roman Boico. After 1985, the public is faced with memorial projects whose goal is to destabilize the very idea of memorials of the time. Counter-memorials, as a new generation of memorials dominated by German artists such as Jochen Gerz, aim to encourage active participation of the visitors. The best example of a counter-memorial is the Monument against fascism designed in Hamburg in 1989, when

unutar povijesnog perioda i dati primjer kolektivne službe i dužnosti za buduće generacije. Novi vid memorijalne arhitekture postaju spomenici nepoznatim borcima Prvog svjetskog rata koji su u početku bili zamišljeni kao spomenici koji slave pobjedu, međutim uskoro postaju mjesta koja predstavljaju patnje milijuna ljudi koji se nikad nisu vratili kući. Individualni je identitet zamijenjen simboličkim prikazom, a time postaje spomenikom ‘’sina svake majke’’.29 Epohalni prijelom i obrat u modernoj povijesti čovječanstva donijela je 1945. godina - godina poraza fašizma i nacionalsocijalizma, kao najkrvavijih totalitarnih poredaka u ljudskoj povijesti. Drugi svjetski rat promijenio je razumijevanje kolektivne memorije te istančao osjetljivost za etiku sjećanja. Nakon Drugog svjetskog rata koncept memorijalne arhitekture zasniva se na prikupljanju živih uspomena koje materijaliziraju patnju ljudi i bijeg od uništenja, pružajući prostor gdje ljudi mogu kanalizirati svoje osjećaje.30 Pojam Manhmal, kao koncept memorializacije zajedno s novom retorikom mira i pomirenja cjelokupnog ratnog stanja, koje se odrazilo brojnim civilnim žrtvama, našlo se na istaknutom mjestu u poslijeratnoj stvarnosti koja je bila definirana ruševinama. Budući da nije bilo presedana za obilježavanje sjećanja na civilne žrtve, u pogođenim zemljama razvila se rasprava o prigodnom obliku memorijalizacije. Morali su biti izgrađeni oko ratnih ruševina koje su strogo prezervirani kao upozorenje ratnom zločinu. Već od ranih 1950-ih diljem Europe podižu se prvi memorijali od Mémorial des Martyrs de la Déportation arhitekta Georges-Henri Pingusson-a do Memorijalnog centra Jasenovac Bogdana Bogdanovića preko Risiera di San Sabba-e u Trstu arhitekta Romana Boico-a. Nakon 1985. godine, javnost je suočena s memorijalnim projektima kojima je cilj destabilizirati samu ideju dotadašnjih spomen-obilježja. Counter-memorial kao nova generacija spomenika u kojoj dominiraju njemački umjetnici poput Jochen Gerz-a, imaju za cilj potaknuti aktivno sudjelovanje od strane posjetitelja. Najbolji primjer counter memorial je Spomenik protiv fašizma osmišljen u Hamburgu 1989. kad su umjetnici Jochen Gerz i Esther Shalev Gerz pozvali građane da ispišu svoja imena na spomeniku i na taj način budu direktno povezani sa samim dijelom.31 Sličan primjer aktivacije građana Gerz je napravio u Grazu

the artists, Jochen Gerz and Esther Shalev Gerz, invited citizens to write their own names on the monument and therefore be directly connected with the work itself.31 A similar example of citizens’ active involvement was made by Gerz in Graz in 2010 designing a memorial named “63 Jahren danach,” when the citizens were invited through the media to collect photographs from the Second World War which were then selected through the newspapers by the citizens and used as memorials at 12 locations in Graz.32

2010. pri osmišljavanju spomen-obilježja pod nazivom ‘’63 godine nakon’’, kada su građani preko medija bili pozvani na skupljanje fotografija iz vremena Drugog svjetskog rata nakon što su putem novina od strane građana izabrane i iskorištene u vidu spomen-obilježja na 12 lokacija u Grazu.32

FIGURE 7. RISIERA DI SAN SABBA MEMORIAL, ROMANO BOICO

1.4.DEFINITION AND IMPORTANCE OF MEMORIAL ARCHITECTURE TODAY/DEFINICIJA I VAŽNOST MEMORIJALNE ARHITEKTURE DANAS In every society there are attempts at leaving the traumatic past behind, repressing the memories and creating a sense of moving forward or leaving the past in the past. According to Liz Sevcenko, memory is the basic human instinct and cannot stay repressed because it will usually come out in one form or the other. This is precisely where memorialization comes in and the importance of the very act of memorialization to use the memory and therefore learn a history lesson in order not to repeat it. According to Ereshnee Naidu form the Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation in Braamfontein, South Africa, memorialization has different forms that include a series of processes and commemorations. Memorialization as a process satisfies the desire to honour victims and becomes a means of questioning the past. In today’s hectic life monuments and memorials are still mediators and communicators of historical messages, and architects and artists are capable, through monumental complexes, of mediating and evoking an emotional reaction, but also hope for a smarter and more compassionate future. Memorial architecture today, as well as the process of memorialization itself, play a great role in the society. Apart from allowing the materialization of memory and the creation of a place for channelling emotions, memorialization promotes reconciliation, providing a new form of national identity or repairing strained relations between different groups. It encourages civic engagement as well as the educational program to include a wider social community in the dialog about the past, and also encourages a discussion about a better, more peaceful future based on coexistence. 33 Today, building memorials differs from other architectural projects in the way that architecture becomes the centre, and not just a place for collecting artefacts of memory. Memorial is a place filled with memories, a place that causes the visitors to reminisce about events that affected or scared them, and to find new meaning and peace. The power of true memorialization is the ability to create

U svakom društvu postoje pokušaji izlaska iz traumatske prošlosti, potiskivanja sjećanja i stvaranja osjećaja da se krene dalje ili da se ostavi prošlost u prošlosti. Prema Liz Sevcenko, sjećanje je osnovni ljudski instinkt i ne može ostat potisnut jer će obično izići u jednom ili drugom obliku. Upravo tu nastupa memorijalizacija i važnost samog čina memorijalizacije da se sjećanje iskoristi i na taj način nauči lekcija iz povijesti u nastojanju da se slično ne ponovi. Prema Ereshnee Naidu iz Centra za proučavanje nasilja i pomirenje u Braamfontein u Južnoj Africi, memorijalizacija ima razne oblike koji obuhvaćaju niz procesa sjećanja i komemoracije. Memorijalizacija kao proces zadovoljava želju za odavanjem časti žrtvama i postaje sredstvo propitivanja prošlosti. Danas u hektičnom životu spomenici i spomen-obilježja su i dalje medijatori i komunikatori povijesnih poruka, a arhitekti i umjetnici sposobni kroz spomeničke komplekse posredovati i evocirati emocionalnu reakciju, ali i nadu u pametniju i suosjećajniju budućnost. Memorijalna arhitektura danas kao i sam proces memorijzacije igraju veliku ulogu u društvu. Osim što omogućavaju materijalizaciju sjećanja i stvaranja prostora za kanalizaciju osjećaja, memorijalizacija promiče pomirenje, dajući novi oblik nacionalnog identiteta ili popravka narušenih odnosa među različitim skupinama. Potiče građanski angažman kao i sam obrazovni program na uključivanje šire društvene zajednice na dijalog o prošlosti te potiče raspravu o boljoj, mirnijoj budućnosti temeljenoj na suživotu. 33 Izgradnja spomen-obilježja danas se razlikuje od drugih arhitektonskih projekata po tome što arhitektura postaje središte, a ne samo prostor za prikupljanje artefakata sjećanja. Spomen-obilježje je mjesto ispunjeno sjećanjem, mjesto koje izaziva posjetitelje da ponovno evociraju događanje kojim su bili pogođeni ili preplašeni i nađu novo značenje i mir. Snaga istinske memorijalizacije je sposobnost stvaranja mjesta u kojem sjećanja bezbroj pojedinaca s više ili manje

places where countless individuals, more or less connected to the event itself, can exist simultaneously. The power of memorialization also lies in the possibility of combining a diverse program that deals with the needs of several different groups of people. James Young explains: “. . . it is not that we are sharing a common memory, it is that we are sharing a common place of memory.” 34 Creating a place that is at the same time universal and specific, a place for education but also healing, a place that remembers not only the historical event but also the victims, the heroes and the survivors.35

privrženosti samom događaju, mogu istovremeno egzistirati. Snaga memorijalizacije leži i u mogućnosti kombiniranja raznolikog programa koji se bavi potrebama više različitih skupina ljudi. Kao što James Young objašnjava ‘’ ...nije da dijelimo zajedničko sjećanja, djelima mjesto sjećanja “. 34 Stvaranje mjesta koje je u isto vrijeme univerzalno i specifično, mjesto koje služi za obrazovanje, ali i izlječenje, mjesto koje ne samo da pamti povijesni događaj, već i žrtve, heroje i preživjele.35

FIGURE 8. DETAIL ON GOLI OTOK, MARCO MENSA

2.GOLI ISLAND/GOLI OTOK 2.1.GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE/ZEMLJOPISNI POLOŽAJ I KLIMA

2.2.BRIEF HISTORY OF GOLI ISLAND/POVIJESNI PREGLED GOLOG OTOKA 2.3.FORMING AND GENESIS OF SPACE/PRIKAZ FORMIRANJA I GENEZE PROSTORA

2.4.PHOTO DOCUMENTATION OF THE EXISTING SITUATION/FOTODOKUMENTACIJA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA

2.GOLI ISLAND/GOLI OTOK 2.1.GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE/ZEMLJOPISNI POLOŽAJ I KLIMA Goli Otok belongs to one of the northern islands of the Kvarner archipelago of the Adriatic Sea. It is situated between the northeastern part of the densely-forested island Rab and the coast in the northern part of the Velebit Channel. The island St. Grgur (St. Gregory) which used to be a Correctional Institution for Women from 1948. until 1988. is located to the west in relation to the Goli Otok, while to the north is the island Prvić.36 The name Goli, meaning naked, truly describes the island. Together with the neighboring St. Grgur it belongs to the limestone massif which extends parallel with Kamenjak massif on the island of Rab and the island Prvić. It is located 6km from the mainland and 5km from Rab. The total area of the island is 4.53 km², and the total coastline is 14.2 km. Its north and east coast are steep, gorgeable and high without bays and shelters while the southwestern coast is low and accessible with its bays, Senjska and Tetina. The westernmost is rocky cape Sajalo while the southernmost is low cape Blažna with the islet Mali Goli with its only but large population of seagulls. In the northeast is the highest peak of the island, Glava- Head, with its 223 m in height.37 Almost all the island is covered in bare rocky slopes with sparse undergrowth. Only along the west coast you will find neglected pine parks and Chinese pittosporum, forcedly planted by former prisoners in this rocky and inadequate area. Goli Otok is largely barren and has no permanent residents. Without natural sources of water (streamless), surrounded with strong sea water currents, without greenery, it is exposed to high temperatures during the summer as well as strong bora wind in the winter. The temperatures on the island are not systematically monitored, but together with the surrounding area its climate

Goli otok spada u sjevernu kvarnersku otočnu skupinu Jadranskoga mora. Smješten je između sjeveroistočnog dijela najšumovitijeg otoka Raba i kopnene obale u sjevernom dijelu Velebitskoga kanala. Zapadno od Golog nalazi se otok Sveti Grgur (nekadašnji kazneno-popravni dom za žene od 1948. pa do 1988. godine) i sjevernije otok Prvić.36 Naziv Goli otok vjerno opisuje sliku otoka. Zajedno sa susjednim Svetim Grgurom dio je vapnenačkoga masiva koji se proteže paralelno sa Kamenjakom na otoku Rabu i s otokom Prvićem. Od kopna je udaljen oko 6km, a od otoka Raba 5 km. Ukupna je površina otoka 4,53 km², a ukupna obalna linija iznosi 14,2 km. Sjeverne i istočne obale Gologa otoka su strme, klisuraste i visoke bez uvala i zaklona dok su jugozapadne obale niske i pristupačne s uvalama Senjska i Tetina. Najzapadniji je stjenoviti rt Sajalo, a najjužniji je niski rt Blažna i uz njega otočić Mali Goli s velikim naseljem galeba.Na sjeveroistoku, nad visokim klisurastim rtom Markonj smješten je najviši otočni vrh Glava, 223 m.37 Veći dio otoka čine goli kameniti obronci s oskudnim niskim raslinjem. Samo duž zapadne obale nalaze se zapušteni parkovi borova i kineskoga pitospora, koje su u golom kršu prisilno sadili bivši zatvorenici. Goli otok uglavnom je neplodan i nema stalnih stanovnika. Bezvodan je, okružen jakim morskim strujama, bez zelenila i izložen velikim vrućinama tijekom ljeta kao i jakim udarima bure tokom zime. Klima Gologa otoka nije sustavno praćena, ali zajedno s okolnim područjem pripada zoni umjerene tople vlažne klime s vrućim ljetima. Pripada perimediteranskom prijelaznom pojasu gdje se osim utjecaja sa Sredozemlja, osjećaju i utjecaji sa kontinenta. Ljeta su vruća, a zbog kontakta s Gorskom Hrvatskom ima obilne padaline te su zime

FIGURE 9. MAP OF CROATIA WITH MARKED GOLI OTOK

1 RT MERKONJ

NAD LOKVOM

COVE MELNA

DOMALOVICA GLAVINA

POD GLAVINOM

COVE TETINA

MASLINJE RADILIŠTE 3

COVE VELA SENJSKA

SPAROŽINJE

COVE VELA DRAGA

BLAZNO

2 MALI GOLI 23

36M

111M

AREA NAD LOKVOM 156M

SECTION 1-1

AREA ŠPAROŽINJE 59.5M

AREA BLAZNO 37M

SECTION 2-2

AREA MASLINJE 59.18M

COVE VELA DRAGA

AREA ŠPAROŽINJE 79.5M

AREA RADILIŠTE 67.8M

SECTION 3-3

GLAVINA 226M

SECTION 4-4 AREA DOMALOVICA 60M

AREA MASLINJE 52.1M

SECTION 5-5

88.8M

belongs to the zone of moderate warm humid climate with hot summers. It belongs to the perimediteranskom transitional zone with the influences not only from the Mediterranean, but also from the continent. Summers are hot, but because of its contact with Mountain Croatia it has abundant precipitation and cooler winters. 38 Its geographical location together with harsh climatic conditions were crucial in choosing the Goli Otok for the location of the camp. Being close to the mainland (6km) and major urban centers like Senja (47 km), Rijeka (80km) and the port of Pag (13 km), as well as the Velebit mountain39 were essential for the creation of a productive economic system under the disguise of the company Velebit that was in the property of Udba. At the same time, the harsh climatic conditions and strong currents prevented people from escaping. Its coastal bluffs and rugged and inaccessible coast facing the mainland hid the other secret story of the more accessible south-western part of the island.

bio je ključan pri odabiru lokacije logora na Golom otoku. Blizina kopna (6km) i većih gradskih središta poput Senja (47 km), Rijeke (80km) i luke Stara Novalja (13km) kao i planine Velebit39 bili su bitni za stvaranje produktivnog gospodarskog sustava pod krinkom firme Velebit u vlasništvu Udbe. Dok klimatski uvjeti i jake morske struje nisi dozvoljavale bijeg, strmovite i nepristupačne obale Gologa otoka okrenute prema kopnu skrivale su drugu, tajnu priču jugozapadnoga pristupačnijeg dijela otoka.

2.2.BRIEF HISTORY OF GOLI ISLAND/POVIJESNI PREGLED GOLOG OTOKA It is very little known about the history of Goli Otok. It is not certain when it was first mentioned and how it got its name, but according to the maps from 1774 to 1887, it is evident that at the time there was no infrastructure on the island.40 As well there were no settlements until the World War I, when the Austro-Hungarian Empire made camp for Russian prisoners from the Eastern Front. In the interwar period, Goli island belonged to a wealthy merchant from Brinja, Rade Vuković who under the impression that the island is rich in bauxite, approved the excavations on Goli Otok to Italian companies for commercial purposes. The investment has brought little profit due to the poor quality of the ore. At the mining site of bauxite ore during the conflict with the IB in 1950., so called Peter’s Hole (Petrova rupa) emerged,a camp for irreversible prisoners. Rade Vuković’s possession was confiscated in 1945.41 In 1939, the Yugoslav general of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Dušan Simović, proposed for the Goli island to be converted into a concentration camp for communists.

O povijesti Gologa otoka zna se vrlo malo. Nije sigurno kada se prvi put spominje te kako je dobio ime, međutim prema kartama od 1774. do 1887. godine vidljivo je da na Golom otoku nije bilo infrastrukture.40 Sve do Prvoga svjetskog rata, kada je Austro-Ugarska napravila logor za ruske zarobljenike s istočnog bojišta. na Golom otoku nije bilo naselja. U međuratnom razdoblju Goli je otok bio u vlasništvu bogatog trgovca iz Brinja, Rade Vukovića, koji je pod dojmom da je otok bogat boksitom, odobrio talijanskim tvrtkama iskope na Golom otoku u komercijalne svrhe. Investicija je donijela malo profita s obzirom na kvalitetu rude. Na mjestu iskapanja boksitne rude za vrijeme sukoba sa IBom 1950. godine nikla je tzv. Petrova rupa, logor za nepopravljive zatvorenike. Radi Vukoviću posjed je oduzet 1945. godine.41 Godine 1939. general Jugoslavenske vojske Kraljevine Jugoslavije Dušan Simović predložio je da se Goli otok pretvori u koncentracijski logor za komuniste. Prijedlog je odbijen, ali deset godina kasnije slična sudbina obilježila je

FIGURE 10. EAST PART OF ISLAND, MARCO MENSA

FIGURE 11. GOLI OTOK, MARCO MENSA

FIGURE 12. GOLI OTOK, MARCO MENSA

The proposal was rejected, however ten years later a similar fate marked the island.42 Under the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia after World War II the Goli island started to form its history, a history that will mark it to the present time. In 1948, Yugoslavia was expelled from Cominform-consultative and coordination bodies of nine of the communist and workers’ parties (the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Italy and France). With this it terminates the extremely friendly relations with the Soviet Union and Stalin. Due to the confrontation with supporters of Stalinism within the Yugoslav Communist Party, a camp on Goli Otok was established in the summer 1949. According to Vladimir Dedijer, academic, historian and publicist, Goli Otok was encountered by the head of the Croatian UDBA43 Ivan Krajačić-Stevo and a sculptor Antun Augustinčić while looking for a quality marble for a sculpture. The supreme body was informed about their findings and after discovering that the island is barren with minimal chances of escape, in the first half of 1949 the decision was made on the establishment of political camps. The construction of the camp began in June 1949 and it operated until 1956 when it was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Socialist Republic of Croatian. Throughout the six years the island received around 16000 convicts, of which 300 to 400 never returned home.44 During the jurisdiction of the Federal Republic of Croatia it served mainly as a prison for political prisoners, as well as for the persons who have committed criminal acts (murder, theft, etc.) Later on it was converted into a juvenile correctional facility. The prison was shut down in 1988 and it was completely abandoned a year later.45 Today, 60 years after its terrible fate, the island eroded by salt is completely untouched and forgotten, visited only by shepherds from the island of Rab and not a lot of tourist during the summer season.

otok.42 Nakon Drugog svjetskog rata za vrijeme Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije dogodila se povijest koja je obilježila Goli otok do današnjih vremena. Godine 1948. Jugoslavija je izbačena iz Informbiroa - savjetodavnoga i koordinacijskoga tijela devet komunističkih i radničkih partija (SSSR-a, Poljske, Čehoslovačke, Mađarske, Rumunjske, Bugarske, Jugoslavije, Italije i Francuske). Time je Jugoslavija raskinula do tada izrazito prijateljske odnose sa SSSR-om i Staljinom. Zbog obračuna s pristašama staljinizma unutar Komunističke partije Jugoslavije osniva se logor na Golom otoku u ljeto 1949. Prema Vladimiru Dedijeru, akademiku, povjesničaru i publicistu, šef hrvatske Udbe43 Ivan Krajačić-Stevo tražio je s kiparom Antunom Augustinčićem kvalitetni mramor za skulpture te su tako naišli na Goli otok. O pronalasku Gologa otoka obaviještena su vrhovna tijela, a nakon što se utvrdilo da je otok pust, s minimalnim šansama za bijeg, u prvoj polovici 1949. donesena je odluka o osnivanju političkog logora. U lipnju 1949. započeta je izgradnja logora koji je djelovao do 1956. kada prelazi u nadležnost Socijalističke Republike Hrvatske. Kroz šest godina otok je prošlo oko 16 000 kažnjenika od kojih se 300 do 400 nikada nije vratilo kući.44 U nadležnosti SR Hrvatske otok je služio kao zatvor uglavnom za političke zatvorenike, no poslije su zatvarane i osobe koje su počinile kriminalna djela (ubojstva, krađe, itd.), a kompleks je naknadno pretvoren u kazneno-popravni dom za maloljetnike. Zatvor je prestao s radom 1988., a godinu dana poslije potpuno je napušten.45 Danas, 60-tak godina nakon spomenutih strašnih zbivanja, otok leži nagrizen solju potpuno netaknut i zaboravljen, a posjećuju ga jedino pastiri s otoka i turisti u svojim stihijskim obilascima tijekom ljetne sezone.

FIGURE 13. GOLI OTOK FROM THE SPACE

2.3.FORMING AND GENESIS OF SPACE/PRIKAZ FORMIRANJA I GENEZE PROSTORA

INTERWAR PERIOD/MEĐURATNO RAZDOBLJE According to current informations, there are no records of any infrastructure on Goli otok until the establishment of the camp by the orders of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the summer of 1949. However, it is important to mention the interwar period when the Italians, in pursuit for bauxite ore, dug a hole 7-8 meters deep with a diameter of 20 meters that later in 1950-1952. has been repurposed to the most brutal camp called Petrova rupa(Peter’s hole).46

Prema dosadašnjim spoznajama na Golom otoku do osnivanja logora u ljeto 1949. po naredbi Komunističke partije Jugoslavije nije postojala infrastruktura. Međutim bitno je spomenuti međuratno razdoblje kada su Talijani u potrazi za boksitnom rudom iskopali rupu promjera 20-ak metara i dubine 7-8 metara koja je u vrijeme između 1950. i 52. bila u svrsi najokrutnijeg logora pod nazivom Petrova rupa.46

YEAR 1949./1949. GODINA The first fifteen barracks of the first camp ‘’Wire’’ builds up before the arrival of the first group of prisoners on Goli otok in 1949. For its construction were in charge the prisoners from Lepoglava familiar with building crafts. After the arrival of the prisoners, the number of barracks just kept growing. The camp was surounded with a wire and under constant surveillance, while the administration was outside the camp. The year 1949 is important because of the construction of the first stone object called ‘’Stone building’’ in the bay Tetina where, in the first phase of the camp, were situated interrogators and the camp administration. 47

Prvih petnaest baraka prvog logora Žica gradi se prije dolaska prve grupe zatvorenika na Goli otok 1949. godine. Za izgradnju su bili zaduženi zatvorenici građevinskih struka iz zatvora Lepoglava. Broj baraka je nakon dolaska zatvorenika rastao. Logor je bio opasan žicom te pod stalnim nadzorom, dok je uprava bila izvan logora. Za 1949. godinu bitno je spomenuti izgradnju prvog kamenog objekta pod nazivom Kamena zgrada u uvali Tetina gdje su u prvoj fazi logora bili smješteni isljednici i uprava logora. 47

YEAR 1950./1950. GODINA The year 1950 was marked by the construction of other camps which existed on Goli otok. Thus,in the earlier mentioned Peter’s hole, a result of searching for bauxite, was built the cruellest camp consisted of two wooden barracksbedroom and kitchen. In the same period, on the eastern side of the island were constructed the facilities for the women’s camp. Due to the increasing number of prisoners, the first camp ‘’Žica’’ (Wire) becomes too crowded and requires building of a new camp ‘’Big Wire’’ in the bay Vela Draga. It is also important to mention the construction of the first surface for collecting rainwater near the camp Žica. The same year in bay Tetina was built a facility named Hotel where the administration was transplaced.48

Godina 1950. bila je obilježena izgradnjom ostalih logora koji su egzistirali na Golom otoku. Tako se u rupi nastaloj pri iskopavanju boksita gradi najokrutniji logor Petrova rupa koji se sastojao od dvije drvene barake-spavaonica i kuhinja. U istom periodu na istočnoj strani otoka se grade objekti za ženski logor. Zbog povećanja broja kažnjenika prvi logor Žica postaje kapacitetom premalen te počinje izgradnja logora Velika Žica u uvali Vela Draga. Bitno je spomenuti izgradnju prve površine za skupljanje kišnice u blizini logora Žica s obzirom da je Goli otok bio obilježen nedostatkom vode. 1950. godine u uvali Tetina gradi se objekt pod nazivom Hotel u koju prelazi uprava. 48

YEAR 1951./1951. GODINA The year 1951 was significant for building the infrastructure related to agriculture as well as transforming the area of the camp ‘’wire’’ into a workshop space that will in the following years reach its full potential. The big wire is still in process of upgrading due to lack of capacity. Nearby the Big wire was built the second and also the largest area for collecting rainwater. Near the facility called Hotel was buildt a restaurant by the sea for the camp administration along with the facility called ‘’bowling alley’’ that was used in their free time. 49

Godina 1951. značajna je jer se gradi infrastruktura vezana za gospodarstvo i poljoprivredu. Također područje prvog logora Žica pretvara se u prostor za radionice koje će tek u sljedećim godinama dosegnuti svoj vrhunac proizvodnje. Velika Žica je i dalje u postupku dogradnje s obzirom na manjak kapaciteta. U blizini Velike žice gradi se druga i najveća sabirna površina za skupljanje kišnice. U blizini zgrade Hotel gradi se restoran uz more za upravu logora i zgrada poznata pod nazivom Kuglana koju su koristili upravnici u toku slobodnog vremena. 49

YEAR 1952./1952. GODINA Year 1952 was marked by building even greater number of facilities for wood, stone and metal production as well as the construction of shipyard facilities on the northwest coast of the island. During this year the women’s camp was relocated to the contiguous island Sv. Grgur (St. Gregory) while the Petrova rupa (Peter’s hole) moves from the bauxite hole to the surface. The positions of the objecs on the surface is no longer familiar. 50

Godina 1952. obilježena je izgradnjom još većeg broja objekata bitnih za proizvodnju drveta, kamena i metala kao i izgradnje objekata u službi brodogradilišta na sjevero-zapadnoj obali otoka. Tokom 1952. godine ženski logor je premješten na susjedni otok Sv. Grgur, a Petrova rupa se seli iz boksitne rupe na površinu. Položaj objekata na površini danas nije poznat. 50

YEAR 1953./1953. GODINA The 1953 was the year when the camp on Goli otok got its final form. At that time the only new facilities were the library and the facility for visits along with smaller service facilities in the area for workshops and shipyard.51

Godina 1953. je značajna kao godina kada je logor na Golom otoku dobio svoj konačan oblik. U to vrijeme jedino je izgrađen je novi objekt knjižnice i zgrade za posjete uz manje servisne objekte u zoni brodogradilišta i radionica.51

PERIOD BETWEEN 1956 AND 1968/PERIOD IZMEĐU 1956. I 1968. GODINE After 1956. the camp on Goli otok stoped existing and was replaced with jail for political and other prisoners. The diference in infrastructure is primarily seen in building materials, stone is replaced with concrete. The only major construction projects were faicilities north of the Vekika Žica (Big Wire) with various functions like hosiptals, libraries and vocationals schools.

Nakon 1956. godine logor na Golom otoku prestaje egzistirati, a zamjenjuje ga zatvor za političke i ostale zatvorenike. Razlika u infrastrukturi je vidljiva prvenstveno u građevinskom materijalu, dotadašnji kamen zamjenjuje beton. Jedini veći poduhvat izgradnje bili su objekti sjevernije od Velike Žice koji su imali različite funkcije poput bolnice, biblioteke te različitih zanatskih škola. 52

PERIOD AFTER 1968. UNTIL TODAY/PERIOD NAKON 1968. DO DANAS In the period from 1968 until 1988 Goli otok was completely abandoned it is evident that the existing pavilions and the elementary appearance of the Velika Žica (Big Wire) was disrupted. The pavilions were completely destroyed and in the foothill are built concrete prison complexes. There are some visible changes in the bay Tetina where the few concrete objectswere built as well as workshop expansions. Today, most buildings are in a very poor condition due to lack of maintenance and extreme conditions such as sun, salt and wind.

Nakon 1968. godine do 1988. , kada je Goli otok potpuno napušten, vidljivo je da su postojeći paviljoni te osnovni izgled Velike Žive narušen. Paviljoni su potpuno uništeni, a u podnožju izgrađeni su betonski zatvorski kompleksi. Vidljive su promjene i u uvali Tetina uz koju se gradi par betonskih objekata kao i proširenje radionica. Danas je većina objekata u jako lošem stanju s obzirom na neodržavanje i ekstremne uvijete poput sunca, soli i vjetra.

2.4.PHOTO DOCUMENTATION OF THE EXISTING SITUATION/FOTODOKUMENTACIJA POSTOJEÄ&#x2020;EG STANJA

FIGURE 14. FORMER WORKSHOPS BUILDINGS

FIGURE 15. FORMER RESTAURANT BUILDING

FIGURE 16. FORMER SHIPBUILDING SPACE

FIGURE 17. AREA FOR COLLECTING WATER

FIGURE 18. FORMER SPACE OF VELIKA Å½ICA (BIG WIRE)

FIGURE 19. SCULPTURE IN STONE, AUTHOR UNKNOWN

3.POLITICAL CAMP GOLI OTOK 1949-1956 / POLITIČKI LOGOR GOLI OTOK 1949-1956 3.1..THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CAMPS ON GOLI OTOK/OSNIVANJE LOGORA NA GOLOM OTOKU 3.2.LIFE ON THE ISLAND /ŽIVOT NA GOLOM OTOKU 3.3.POLITICAL RE-EDUCATION-LABOUR AND PUNISHMENT ON GOLI ISLAND /POLITIČKI PREODGOJ-RAD I KAŽNJAVANJE NA GOLOM OTOKU 3.3.1.LABOUR ON GOLI ISLAND/RAD NA GOLOM OTOKU 3.3.2.PUNISHMENT ON GOLI ISLAND/KAŽNJAVANJE NA GOLOM OTOKU

3.3.3. RUNNING THE GAUNTLET/ŠPALIR 3.3.3.1.HISTORY OF RUNNING THE GAUNTLET/ POVIJEST ŠPALIRA

3.3.3.2.RUNNING THE GAUNTLET ON GOLI OTOK/ŠPALIR NA GOLOM OTOKU

3.4.CAMPS ON GOLI OTOK/LOGORI(RADILIŠTA)NA GOLOM OTOKU

FIGURE 20. DETAIL ON GOLI OTOK, MARCO MENSA

3.4.1.FIRST CAMP-OLD WIRE/PRVI LOGOR-STARA ŽICA 3.4.2.BIG WIRE/VELIKA ŽICA 3.4.3.CAMP 101-PETAR’S HOLE/RADILIŠTE 101-PETROVA RUPA 3.4.4.CAMP V-WOMEN’S CAMP/RADILIŠTE V-ŽENSKI LOGOR 3.5.CAMP ORGANIZATION ON GOLI OTOK/ORGANIZACIJA LOGORA NA GOLOM OTOKU

3.6.INFLUENCE OF NAZI CAMPS ON ORGANIZATION OF CAMOS ON GOLI ISLAND/UTJECAJ NACISTIČKIH LOGORA NA ORGANIZACIJU LOGORA NA GOLOM OTOKU

3.POLITICAL CAMP GOLI OTOK 1949-1956 / POLITIČKI LOGOR GOLI OTOK 1949-1956

3.1.THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CAMPS ON GOLI OTOK /OSNIVANJE LOGORA NA GOLOM OTOKU

The decision on the establishment of the camp was made in the first half of 1949 and the same year the construction of the camp began. The first eleven wooden prefabricated barracks with the associated facilities were built by the convicts from Lepoglava who were brought to Goli island by UDBA for the particular occasion. The convicts spent a month on Goli Otok during which the first camp known as The Old Wire was formed. The first group of convicts, or better to say, the opening group, came to Goli on 7th of July in 1949. Over the next six years 16 groups of men have been transported on the island. According to UDBA’s register from the Croatian State Archives the nationalities were mostly Serbs (44%) followed by Montenegrins (21.5%), Croats (16%), Macedonians (5%), Slovenes (3.5%), Albanians (3% ) and others (7%). The organisation of the camp started from scratch and the first task of the administration was to set up the basic conditions for daily operation of Goli Otok. The initial camp regime was quite liberal and and it is hard to recognize it compared with the coming period. Convicts were engaged in the construction of the infrastructure (docks, new barracks, roads, etc.) while all their free time they could spend hanging out with each other . After these first liberal months the change for the worse began with the arrival of the Bosnian group, so called Bosnians. Little is known about their origin, however, this group was crucial for the creation of the sadistic system of ‘’ political re-education ‘’ in the camp. With their arrival every aspect of life on Goli Otok was changed, starting with the work, food and relationships among convicts. Heavy physical work in extreme weather conditions, disease, thirst and

Odluka o osnivanju logora donesena je u prvoj polovici 1949., a u lipnju iste godine započela je izgradnja logora. Za izgradnju prvih jedanaest drvenih montažnih baraka s pripadajućim logističkim objektima zaslužni su osuđenici iz Lepoglave koji su za tu priliku bili dovedeni na Goli otok pod nadzorom Udbe. Osuđenici su proveli mjesec dana na Golom otoku tijekom kojeg je nastao prvi logor, poznat kao i Stara Žica. Prva grupa, tj. predgrupa, došla je na Goli otok 7. srpnja 1949. godine. Tijekom narednih 6 godina na otok je transportirano 16 muških grupa. Prema Udbinom popisu iz Hrvatskoga državnog arhiva među zatvorenicima je po nacionalnosti bilo najviše Srba (44%) potom Crnogoraca (21,5%), Hrvata (16%), Makedonaca (5%), Slovenaca (3,5%), Albanaca (3%) i ostalih (7%). Ustroj logora počeo je od nule pa su prvi zadaci uprave bili stvaranje osnovnih pretpostavki za svakodnevno funkcioniranje Golog otoka. Prvotni logorski režim bio je poprilično liberalan i potpuno neprepoznatljiv u usporedbi s periodom koji će uslijediti. Isprva su kažnjenici sudjelovali u izgradnji infrastrukture (pristaništa, nove barake, putevi, itd.), dok su slobodno vrijeme provodili u druženju. Liberalni je režim nakon samo mjesec dana doživio korjenite promjene, i to po dolasku Bosanske grupe tzv. Bosanaca. O njihovom se porijeklu malo zna, međutim značaj ove grupe bio je ključan za stvaranje sadističkoga sistema ‘’političkog preodgoja’’. U narednom periodu svaki aspekt života na Golom otoku bio je promijenjen, počevši od rada, prehrane i odnosa među kažnjenicima. Težak fizički rad pri ekstremnim vremenskim uvjetima, bolesti, žeđ i glad postali su svakodnevnica, a špalir

hunger have become a part of their everyday life, and the gauntlet as the ‘welcoming’ act to Goli Otok remains deeply embedded in the memories of the prisoners. 52

kao prva stepenica pri dolasku na Goli otok ostao je duboko usađen u sjećanjima zatvorenika.52

FIGURE 21. BUILDING CALLED ‘‘KAMENA ZGRADA’’, AUTHOR UNKNOWN

3.2.LIFE ON GOLI OTOK /ŽIVOT NA GOLOM OTOKU

‘‘There are no Seagulls that fly above this island, but our working troops that tend to its land! These granite rocks we shall destroy and upon the Party and Tito’s path deploy! Where once strong winds roared, our cultural homes shall be restored. These granite rocks we shall destroy and upon the Party and Tito’s path deploy!’’53 ‘‘Nad ovim otokom Galebi ne lete, već na njemu rade naše radne čete! Idemo, rušimo stene od granita i na put se vraćamo Partije i Tita! Gde su nekad brujale oluje i bure,radićemo domove narodne kulture. Idemo, rušimo stene od granita i na put se vraćamo Partije i Tita!’’53

Life on the Goli Otok was characterized by a monotonously traumatic everyday regimes. Working hours were from 8 a.m. to 12, sometimes even longer. The arrival to and departure from work was routinely followed by the same ritual: epsalier, singing and obscene shouting and cantillating. Relocation of the concentration camp Stara Žica (Old Wire) to Velika Žica (Big Wire) triggered development of natural resource economics and industry resulting in growth of the Goli Otok as a productive economic and industrial system, now dealing with more than internment of pro-Soviet members. The main branches of inudstry with a range of sub-branches dealt with wood-, metal- and stone working. Craftsmanship was an advantage as the alternative was stone-breaking. Along with dayto-day hard labour there was a problem with scarce food resources and thirst during sultry days. After each working day there were lectures on politics held simultaneously, in order to politically rehabillitate the prisoners. Except leaving for work, it was strictly forbidden to leave Velika Žica and all the entrance activities were planned and carefully surveilled. All the prisoners had to be in bed by 10p.m. and were not to leave the sleeping pavilions untill the next morning. Even in cases they had to use the bathroom urgently, the inmates had only a container in front of pavilions in which they urinated. Another hardship was related to poor sanitation and crowded living conditions – there were up to 250 prisoners allocated in the pavilions; in each three-storey box three rows of people were put. Aperiodic showers and wearing the same clothes for long

Život na Golom otoku obilježen je traumatičnim monotonim režimskim svakodnevnicama. Prilikom odlaska i dolaska na posao pratio ih je jednak ritual: četverored, pjesma i skandiranje. Radni dan je trajao od 8 do 12, a ponekad i više sati. Preseljenjem iz Stare žice u Veliku Žicu pokrenuta je privredna aktivnost na Golom otoku. Osim internacije Ibeovaca Goli otok postaje produktivni gospodarski sustav. Glavne grane proizvodnje sa čitavim nizom proizvodnih podstruktura činile su obrada drva, metala i kamena. Poznavanje zanata koristilo je s obzirom da je alternativa bila tucanje kamena. Uz težak svakodnevni fizički rad problem je stvarala oskudna prehrana i žeđ za teških ljetnih sparina. Nakon svakog radnog dana u paviljonima bi se simultano održavao politički čas koji je bio ključan u političkom preodgoju. Napuštanje Velike žice je bilo strogo zabranjeno osim u trenucima odlaska na rad koji su bili strogo planirani i praćeni. Nakon što bi spavanje počinjalo oko 22 sata, svi kažnjenici su morali biti u paviljonima iz kojih se ne bi smjeli udaljavati do buđenja. Čak i u slučajevima nužde, koristili su kiblu koja se donosila pred paviljon. Vrlo teški higijenski uvjeti pratili su kažnjenike i u paviljonima gdje ih je bilo smješteno i do 250 u boksovima na tri kata u tri reda. Neredovno tuširanje, ne mijenjanje radne odjeće dovelo je do velike epidemije pjegastog tifusa koja je odnijela brojne živote. Uz tifus pojavljivale su se i ostale bolesti pop

periods of time led to an epidemic of „Jail fever“ or epidemic typhus that took many lives. Other diseases included dysentery, hemeralopia, scorbut and other dermatological conditions as a result of vitamin B3 deficiency. Non-working days were a rare occurence and only three holidays were celebrated: New Year, First of May (International Workers’ Day) and the Republic Day. Prisoners do however remember periods of relaxation, laughter or at least temporary respite. Among the activities included were movie and theater projections, sketches and frequently music shows. At these moments the Island exuded a semblance of normal life.54

ut dizenterije, kokošjeg sljepila, skorbuta te drugih kožnih bolesti u nedostatku vitamina B3. Neradni dani su bili rijetkost, a slavila su se tri praznika: Nova godina, Prvi Maj i Dan Republike. Međutim između uobičajenog golootočkog režima logoraši pamte i trenutke razonode i smijeha ili bar predaha. Na Golom otoku prikazivani su filmovi, kazališne predstave, skečevi te je ponekad svirana i glazba. Trenuci kada je Goli otok odisao prividom normalnog života.54

FIGURE 22. BUILDING CALLED ‘‘HOTEL’, AUTHOR UNKNOWN

3.3.POLITICAL RE-EDUCATION-LABOUR AND PUNISHMENT ON GOLI OTOK /POLITIČKI PREODGOJ-RAD I KAŽNJAVANJE NA GOLOM OTOKU 3.3.1.LABOUR ON GOLI OTOK/RAD NA GOLOM OTOKU “Working is rearing, and we need rearing as a sick man needs the morning light, as a flower needs water, and as the starving need bread. For us, those numbers and charts are the poetry of creative work, a captivating experience of the rearing power of competition. As a man cannot live without water, air and bread, so we here on Goli otok cannot, and will not, live without work and competition. With our, and only our hands, we will turn this naked island into a blooming garden. When we do it, along with certain other tasks that our Party and comrade Tito should put in front of us, we will be able to prove through our work whose side we are on – our work will speak – only on Tito’s and on Tito’s forever. Let us enjoy the rearing and creative sense of competition and let us expose those hidden enemies who see boredom and stupidity in competition.”55 „Rad je vaspitanje, nama je vaspitanje potrebno kao bolesniku jutarnje svetlo, kao cveću voda, kao gladnim hleb. One cifre i grafikoni su za nas poezija stvaralačkog rada, zanosni doživljaj vaspitne snage takmičenja. Kao što čovek ne može da živi bez vode, vazduha i hleba, mi ovde na ovom Golom otoku, ne možemo, a i nećemo da živimo bez rada i takmičenja. Našim, i samo našim rukama pretvorićemo ogolelo ostrvo u mali cvatući vrt. Kad to uradimo, pored izvesnih drugih zadataka, pred koje nas naša Partija i drug Tito budu postavljali, mi ćemo uvek moći svojim delom da dokažemo na čijoj smo strani – dela će naša progovoriti – samo na Titovoj i večno na Titovoj. Uživajno u vaspitnom i stvaralačkom smislu takmičenja i raskrinkavajmo one skrivene neprijatelje koji u takmičenju gledaju dosadu i glupost.’’55 In order to further understand the infrastructure of Goli Otok, it is important to note that labour at the island had a dual purpose: firstly - political rehabilitation and secondly and more importantly – economical purpose. There is a stereotypical and unimaginative view that the labour done on the Island was purposeless and pointless, made up by the concentration camp’s management to break the inmates’ spirit and will. However, it was only seemingly so . Apart from serving a purpose of political rehabilitation, as well as being a tool for coercion and support for the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, labour played a big role in creating the complex economical system covered up as „Poduzeće Velebit“.56

Za bolje razumijevanje načina na koji Goli otok funkcionira, bitno je naglasiti to da je rad na Golom otoku imao dvojaku funkciju; funkciju političkog preodgoja, ali i drugu, jako bitnu ekonomsku funkciju. Postoji sterotipizirano mišljenje da je rad na Golom otoku bio besciljan i besmislen, smišljen od uprave logora kako bi razbio volju zatočenika putem besmislenoga rada. Međutim to je bio samo privid. Osim što je rad na Golom otoku bio usklađen s političkim preodgojem te je bio sredstvo prisile i glavna metoda dokazivanja podrške Komunističke partije Jugoslavije, igrao je veliku ulogu u stvaranju gospodarski kompleksnog sistema pod krinkom ‘’Poduzeće Velebit’’.56 Organizirani rad je počeo s dogradnjom prvog logora na

FIGURE 23. THE FIRST PORT ON GOLI OTOK, AUTHOR UNKNOWN

The organised labour started with an extension of the first concetration camp at the Bare Island. In July and August 1949., the inmates were engaged in road building, making crushed stone, building piers and afforestation of the once completely vegetation free zone. Skilled tradesmen such as carpenters, cooks, electricians, stonemasons and bakers were consistently in demand. A new cycle of manual labour began in spring 1950, along with the construction of the new concentration camp; the inmates were engaged in development of the new concentration camp’s infrastructure (Velika Žica), as well as construction of larger objects such as the first building – the stone building, a hotel, water tanks, docks etc. During the relocation of „Stara Žica“ to „Žica“ the labour at the Island went through a reorganisation, with a new fundament of economical and industrial; from that point onward the Island transformed into a productive and profitable economical system that dealt with more than just interment of pro-Soviet members, as aforementioned. As of fall of 1950 and by the end of the same year, „Stara Žica“ was adapted into a manufacturing facility with emphasis on three main industrial branches – wood-, metal- and stonework – including an array of manufacturing sub-branches. Workshops for wood handling manufactured furniture, one of the fundamental products. Additionally, various wooden ornaments and objects of everyday use such as chests, cigar cases, cigar holders etc. were produced. Mass production started in 1953 and continued up until the disbandment of the Prison in 1988. Furthermore, it is significant to mention the functioning of the great sawmill that was located at the southwest coast of Goli Otok, nearby the workshops. Timber was transported from Velebit, where a group of inmates were stationed and were involved in tree harvesting. Wood logs were transported near the coast and shipped to the dock. Harvested wood was of high quality and was at the time one of the most important exported natural resources in Yugoslavia. Considering the abundance of stone on the Island it was only logical for stonework to be the second most important industry. Mass production of terrace tiles, mostly ceramic and stone ones, began in 1953 – the tiles were used for covering of all public and private facilities in Yu-

na Golom otoku. U srpnju i kolovozu 1949. golootočani su bili angažirani u izgradnji puteva, izradi tucanika, izgradnje pristaništa i pošumljavanja otoka koji je u ljeto 1949. bio u potpunosti bez vegetacije. Uvijek su se tražila korisna zanimanja poput stolara, električara, kuhara, klesara, pekara, itd. U proljeće 1950. s početkom izgradnje novog logora započeo je novi ciklus fizičkih radova, gdje su kažnjenici posebno bili angažirani na izgradnji infrastrukture novog logora (Velika Žica), kao i većih objekata poput ‘’kamene zgrade’’, ‘’hotela’’, cisterni za vodu, pristaništa, itd. U periodu preseljenja iz ‘’Stare Žice’’ u ‘’Žicu’’ rad na Golom otoku dobio je organizirani oblik te su postavljeni temelji privrednoj aktivnosti logora na Golom otoku koji od tog trenutka nije samo mjesto internacije ibeovaca već produktivan i unosan gospodarski sustav. Stara je Žica od jeseni pa do kraja 1950. godine adaptirana u proizvodne pogone gdje su se izdvojile tri glavne grane proizvodnje; obrada drva, obrada metala i kamena s nizom proizvodnih podstruktura. Radionice za obradu drva proizvodile sunamještaj koji je bio jedan od glavnih proizvoda Golog otoka. Uz namještaj radili su se i ostali drveni ukrasi i uporabni predmeti poput kovčega, tabakera, muštikla, itd. Serijska proizvodnja počela je 1953. i trajala je sve do rasformiranja zatvora 1988. Uz obradu drva bitno je spomenuti funkcioniranje velike pilane koja se nalazila na jugozapadnoj obali Golog otoka, nedaleko od radionica. Drva su dostavljana s Velebita gdje je bila stacionirana skupina golootočkih kažnjenika zaduženih za sječu stabala. Trupci su spuštani do obale i prevožena brodom u pristanište. Ovo drvo visoke kvalitete bilo jejedna od glavnih izvoznih sirovina Jugoslavije u to vrijeme. Obrada je kamena bila zasigurno druga najvažnija proizvodnja s obzirom da ga je na Golom otoku bilo u izobilju. Od 1953. godine počela je serijska proizvodnja taraco pločica, odnosno kamenih/keramičkih pločica kojima su se popločavali svi javni i privatni objekti u Jugoslaviji. Golootočki je pogon niz godina bio jedini proizvođač taraco pločica u Jugoslaviji. Osim taraco pločica proizvodili su se i drugi kameni predmeti poput pepeljara, raznih ukrasa, žardinjera, itd. Egzistirala je i kiparska radionica gdje su talentirani golootočani izrađivali kamene biste jugoslavenskih rukovodioca kao i spomenike te nadgrobne ploče. Obra

FIGURE 24. WORKSHOPS, AUTHOR UNKNOWN

goslavia. For years the manufacturing facilities on Goli Otok were the single source of terrace tiles in Yugoslavia. Apart from these, other stone objects were manufactured including ashtrays, numerous ornaments, jardiniers and so on. At the same time existed a stonemasonry workshop, where talented inmates made stone busts dedicated to Yugoslavian leaders, in addition to making gravestones and monuments. Metal work comprised fine and rough processing and in that context it is of importance to mention a shipyard at the southwest coast of Goli Otok. Majority of repairs and remounting took place therein, simultaneously with small shipbuilding. Other diverse workshops existed at the Goli Otok – ones for tailoring, shoemaking, mechanic stalls – and were located in the vicinity of organisations for Prison management such as booking office, typist office and an accountant’s office, as well as other lower bureaucracy jobs. Noteworthy is the fact that the labour in all workshops and bureaucracy jobs alike were considered a privilege , so only ¼ to ⅕ of inmates had the luxury of participating. They did somewhat less-demanding physical work and had higher quality meals, shorter working hours, more cigarettes, option of singing during work and more general liberty in their work. On the other hand, the disadvantageous work in the stone pit / quarry consisted of mining a suitable rock deposits and breaking the removed rock down to smaller pieces using crushers to obtain the desired size. A portion of the manufactured crushed stone was used at the Island, whereas the other part was shipped away for selling. Particularly ostracized inmates used mallets, pickaxes, hammers and even other stones for stone breaking and had a daily norm of one cubic meter. Sand from seabeds was extracted at the Goli Otok and the nearby Rab Island for camp construction, but also for other manufacturing purposes. Sand extraction had its benefits during the summer, but it was a hardship during winter and fall months due to low temperatures and strong bora winds, and it was reserved for the ostracized inmates. One of the toughest aspects of the Goli Otok prison was the thirst. For this reason one of the privileged postions at the Island was being a waterboy.

da metala obuhvaćala je finu i grubu obradu te je u tom kontekstu važno mjesto brodogradilište na jugozapadnoj obali Golog otoka. Obavljao se remont, izgradnja manjih brodova kao i sve vrste popravaka. Osim tri velike radionice na Golom otoku su egzistirale i druge brojne zanatske radionice poput krojačke, obućarske, mehaničarske pored kojih su bili organizirani poslovi bitni za upravu logora poput blagajnika, daktilografa, knjigovođe te poslova u nižoj birokraciji. Bitno je naglasiti da su rad u svim radionicama kao i birokratski poslovi na Golom otoku smatrani privilegiranim te je otprilike od ¼ do ⅕ zatvorenika imalo tu ulogu. Zatvorenici na tim pozicijama obavljali su lakši fizički posao, a imali su ibolju hranu, slobodu u radu, kraći radni dan, više cigareta, mogućnost pjevanja na poslu, itd. Nimalo privilegirana, važna privredna grana Golog otoka bio je rad u kamenolomu, koji se sastojao od miniranja kamena u manje komade, usitnjavanja kamena u drobilici te transportiranje tucanika. Dio tucanika se koristio na Golom otoku, a dio odvozio brodovima za trgovinu. Kažnjenici naročito bojkotirani su kamen usitnjavali macolama, pijucima, čekićem pa čak i kamenom o kamen te su morali ispuniti dnevnu normu od 1m³. Na Golom otoku kao i na obližnjem otoku Rabu vađen je pijesak s morskog dna zbog izgradnje logora, ali i raznih proizvodnih procesa. Ljeti je taj posao imao svoje prednosti, ali u jesen i zimu pri niskim temperaturama ijakoj buri, vađenje pijeska postao je posao za bojkotirane. Jedan od najtežih aspekata života u logoru na Golom otoku bila je žeđ. Upravo zato, privilegirana pozicija bila je vodar. Svaki paviljon imao je dva vodara čiji je zadatak bio nošenje pitke vode iz cisterne u paviljone. Postojali su i vodari koji su tokom dana raznosili vodu po cijelom otoku za zaposlene zatvorenike. Mnogima je pozicija vodara predstavljala idealno radno mjesto jer su kriomice mogli piti vodu. Bolesni kažnjenici te posebice stariji, radili su lakše fizičke poslove poput pranja rublja, kuhanja, osoba koje gule krumpir, čiste barake, sjedeći tucaju kamen, itd. Kažnjenici su bili samo prisilni radnici ‘’Poduzeća Velebit’’ koji su za svoj rad dobivali tri slaba dnevna obroka

Every pavilion had two waterboys, whose assignment was to bring drinkable water from water tanks to the pavilions. In addition, there were waterboys who delivered water across the Island, to meet the needs of workers. Many found this position an ideal one, because they had an opportunity to surreptitiously drink the water. Unhealthy inmates, especially the older ones, were assigned with less-demanding jobs such as doing the laundry, cooking, potato peeling, camp cleaning, breaking stones while sitting etc. The inmates were just coerced workers of the „Poduzeće Velebit“, who only got three decent daily meals and scant supplies of water insufficient for survival, whereas at the same time the management and the income from the industry was exploited by the State Security Administration (UDBA). 57

i vodu skoro nedovoljnu za preživjeti dok je organizacijom kao i dohotkom golootočke privrede gospodarila Udba.57

FIGURE 25. SLOGAN’S REMAINS, AUTHOR UNKNOWN

3.3.2.PUNISHMENT ON GOLI OTOK/KAŽNJAVANJE NA GOLOM OTOKU Boycott was not only a type of punishment, but also the reflection of inmate’s hierarchical status and was delivered by the pavilion. It was characterized as being inhuman and mirrored the Goli Otok’s inborn sadism. The amount and level of violence broke the inmates both physically and mentally, simultaneously forcing them to confess secrets pertaining to pro-Soviet members on the run. Boycott manifested through minimized amounts of cigarettes and food in general, sleeping on the floor, harder labour, half the time provided for sleep; the inmates often had to hold their heads above the container in which they urinated. One could recognize such inmates by the different uniform they wore; the uniform was a signal for other inmates to freely batter them. The boycotted inmates weren’t allowed to talk to others and were to hold their heads bowed down. Two worst parts of the punishment were the hard labour and day-to-day physical and mental molestation in form of the espalier in which all inmates were involved (200 to 250 of them). Boycott lasted from 15 days to a couple of months, depending on the boycotter’s attitude – whether or not he confessed that he was or wasn’t a pro-Soviet member. Inmates showed their changed attitudes during the political classes and this was an important torturing tool after hard day’s work. In this fashion, confessing mirrored the court holding. At the pavilion, the inmate would have to introspectively present his pro-Soviet history and activities and due to the pressure many had to lie and make up stories. The variety of punishments at the Goli Otok functioned in order to politically reeducate the inmates – which was the basic function of the Goli Otok itself; punishments included the espalier as a way to welcome newcomers, classes on politics, attitude revisions, boycott etc. 58

Bojkot je kazna, ali i kažnjenički status, koju je izricao paviljon. Bojkot je u sjećanju ostao po nečovječnosti i karakterističnom golootočkom sadizmu. Količina i razina nasilja, psihički i fizički lomila je kažnjenike te ih prisiljavala na odavanje ibeovaca na slobodi. Bojkot se manifestirao kroz manje količine cigareta i hrane, spavanje na podu, teži fizički rad, pola predviđenog vremena za spavanje, često su morali držati glavu iznad kible (posuda za obavljanje nužde), itd. Znak prepoznavanja bila je drukčija odjeća koja je služila drugim kažnjenicima kao signal slobodnog premlaćivanja. Bojkotirani nisu smjeli ni s kim razgovarati te su morali držati pognutu glavu. Pored svega dva najteža dijela kazne bojkota su bili teški fizički rad i svakodnevno fizičko i psihičko maltretiranje u obliku paviljonskog stroja (špalir) u koji su bili uključeni kažnjenici tog paviljona (200-250 kažnjenika). Bojkot je mogao trajati 15 dana do nekoliko mjeseci ovisno o odluci bojkotiranog da promjeni stav, odnosno da iznese kažnjeničko priznanjeda je pristalica Rezolucije Informbiroa. Iznošenje stava obavljalo se za vrijeme političkog časa, koji je zasigurno bio vrsta psihičkog maltretiranja nakon fizički teškog dana. Iznošenje stava kao kolektivni ritual oponašao je suđenje. U paviljonu bi prozvani kažnjenik morao samokritički izložiti svoju ibeovsku povijest i djelatnost gdje su najčešće kažnjenici pod velikom prisilom lagali i izmišljali. Špalir kao princip dočekivanja novih kažnjenika, politički čas, revidiranje stava, bojkot kao i sve kazne vezane za sam bojkot bile su u svrsi političkog preodgoja kao temeljne funkcije Golog otoka.58

FIGURE 26. ILLUSTRATION ‘‘SUFFOCATION IN WATER’’, NIĐO ERCEG

3.3.3.RUNNING THE GAUNTLET/ŠPALIR 3.3.3.1. HISTORY OF RUNNING THE GAUNTLET/ POVIJEST ŠPALIRA In Croatian language the word for running the gauntlet is „špalir“ and it comes from a german word Spalier, referring to rows of soldiers at each side of the path an honored person walked as he or she was about to be honoured.59 Historically, the likes of gauntlet root back to ancient times, where running the gauntlet was refered to as Xylokopia. In Ancient Greece, this was a way of military punishment for soldiers who commited criminal matters. The convicted ones had to run through the gauntlet with their back bare, while they were insulted or physically molested. In the Roman army this method of punishment was reserved for soldiers who tried to escape the army as deserters. A similar way of punishing was depicted in Josta Ammana’s wood engravings in 16th century and Merian Matthause’s engravings in 1525. Running the gauntlet was employed throughout the following centuries by the Prussian, Netherlands and British army. It was also described in Tolstoy’s novel After the Ball, as well as in Dostoyevsky’s The House of the Dead. In his novel For Whom the Bell Tolls, Hemingway describes the use of espalier as a punishment method for nobles during the Spanish Civil War. The espalier was also a subject elaborated in movies – Stanley Kubrick depicts it accurately in his movie Barry Lyndon. In Western World running the gauntlet was forbidden as a method for punishment in 19th century. Today it solely exists as an initiation ritual in sports and similar communities. 60

‘‘Špalir, -ira njem. (Spalier) redovi (vojske) sa svake strane puta kojim prolazi osoba kojoj se odaje (vojnička) počast.’’ 59

Špalir za premlaćivanje je način tjelesne kazne nametnut vojnicima zbog više ili manje teških kaznenih djela u ratu. Osuđenici su morali trčati ili prolaziti kroz špalir s golim leđima dok su bili izvrgnuti izrugivanju i fizičkim maltretiranjima. Povijest špalira kao metode kažnjavanja potječe od antičkih vremena. Poznat kao Xylokopia u Staroj Grčkoj, korišten u svrhe vojnog kažnjavanja, usvaja se u Rimskoj vojsci uglavnom za vojnike koji su pokušali napustiti postrojbu kao vojni bjegunci. Sličan vid kazne prikazan je u 16. stoljeću u drvorezu Josta Ammana i bakrorezu Matthausa Meriana 1525. godine. Korišten kroz naredna stoljeća od strane pruske, engleske i nizozemske vojske. Opisan u Tolstojevoj pripovijetci Poslije bala kao i u Zapisima iz mrtvog doma pisca Dostojevskog. Hemingway u djelu „Kome zvono zvoni“ opisuje primjenjivanje kazne špalira nad gradskom aristokracijom u španjolskom građanskom ratu. Osim u književnosti špalir je bio i tema sedme umjetnosti te ga u filmu Barry Lyndon vjerno prikazuje Stanley Kubrick. Špalir kao metoda kažnjavanja u zapadnom svijetu zabranjena je u 19. stoljeću. Danas egzistira kao obred inicijacije u sportskim ili drugim kolektivima.60

3.3.3.2. RUNNING THE GAUNTLET ON GOLI OTOK/ ŠPALIR NA GOLOM OTOKU

Running the gauntlet was the punishing method of choice for newcoming inmates and it is considered to be introduced with the coming of so called Bosnians. Running the gauntlet had multiple other names such as „topli zec“,

Špalir kao metoda kažnjavana korištena je za dočekivanje novih kažnjenika na Goli otok te se smatra da je uvedena po dolasku takozvanih Bosanaca. Na Golom otoku špalir je bio poznat i pod nazivima topli zec, , šiba ili stroj te je

„šiba“ or „stroj“ and was recalled by the inmates as one of the most stressful events to be witnessed. Except for the physical molestation, the espalier caused a great deal of shame and had an effect on the mental state of the inmates. The gauntlet was established sometime during the middle of September 1949 and was the most fearsome and brutal during the greatest conflict between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. It used to span almost half a kilometer and included almost all the inmates residing at the Goli Otok at the time – depending on the period the number was as high as 3500 to 4400 inmates. It began immediately after landing from the ship and ended at the top of the camp. The inmates’ clothes were taken beforehand, so they would pass through the espalier completely naked – sometimes they had to take their clothes off only at the end of the espalier. The double convicted inmates had it worst, as they were supposed to pass through the espalier two times in a row – this was known as the „vrući stroj“ (literally „the hot machine“). The gauntlet was a rough primary trauma and a pointer towards the brutal life that awaited the inmates.61

među golootočanima ostao u sjećanju kao jedan od najpotresnijih događaja. Osim fizičkog maltretiranja špalir je izazivao veliki osjećaj srama te utjecao na psihičko stanje kažnjenika. Smatra se da je špalir na Golom otoku krenuo sredinom rujna 1949. godine te je u razdoblju najvećeg sukoba sa SSSR-om bio najbrutalniji. Špalir je znao biti dug i do pola kilometra te su bili prisutni gotovo svi kažnjenici na Golom otoku tj. od 3500 do 4400 kažnjenika, ovisno o razdoblju. Špalir je počinjao odmah nakon iskrcaja iz broda te je završavao na vrhu logora. Kažnjenicima se prije špalira znalo skidati odjeću te bi kroz špalir prolazili potpuno goli, dok su se nekada skidali po završetku špalira. Najgore su prolazili takozvani dvomotorci, dvostruki kažnjenici Golog otoka, koji su špalir morali proći dva puta-poznat kao ‘’vrući stroj’’. Špalir je bio teška početna trauma i nagovještaj brutalnog života koji će uslijediti.61

FIGURE 27. ILLUSTRATION ‘‘RUNNING THE GUANTLET’’, MIROSLAV ACIĆ

3.4.CAMPS ON GOLI OTOK/LOGORI(RADILIŠTA)NA GOLOM OTOKU Locations of the working camps at the Goli Otok were strategically chosen depending on the geographical position and accessibility. The first built camp „Stara Žica“ (Old Wire) was located at an embayment Mala Tetina, where the ship Punat built by the prisoners (but not the inmates at the Goli Otok) could dock. All other facilities and infrastructure were built by the inmates at the Goli Otok. Since the capacity of „Stara Žica“ became too small, a bigger camp was built at a nearby embayment Vela and was called „Žica“; after the finalisation of construction works, the inmates were transferred from „Stara Žica“ (Old Wire) to „Velika Žica“ (Big Wire). Working camp 101 – Petrova rupa was located at the bauxite hole that came to be during the interwar period, away from the looks of other inmates at Goli Otok, while the female camp was the only one at the other, less accessible side side of the Island, at the embayment Senjska. The inmates at these remote camps never came in contact and were for a long time unaware of each others’ existence. The final configuration of the camps was established in the period between summer 1950 and 1953. Apart from the four camps, other facilities were built and served as administration buldings for members of the State Security Administration and the police. Other facilities, intended for staff only, included football fields and tennis courts. New Hospital building was constructed in 1952, whereas there’s a probability that the library and a facility for visitors were built in 1953. Supposedly, during the encamping at the Goli Otok, 60 hectares of land were afforested along with the construction of most of the Island’s infrastructure and administrative facilities.62

Lokacije radilišta na Golom otoku strateški su izabrane u ovisnosti o geografskom položaju i pristupu. Prvi izgrađeni logor Stara Žica, smješten u uvali Mala Tetina u kojoj je bio moguć pristanak broda Punat, izgradili su zatvorenili, ali ne Golog otoka. Svi kasnije izgrađeni objekti i infrastruktura izgradili su Golootočani. Kapacitet Stare Žice brzo je postao nedovoljanpa se u sljedećoj uvali Vela draga formira veća Žica u kojoj su po završetku kažnjenici bili premješteni iz Stare Žice. Radilište 101-Petrova rupa smještena je u boksitnoj rupi nastaloj u međuratnom razdoblju daleko od očiju ostalih kažnjenika Golog otoka dok se ženski logor jedini nalazio na drugoj strani otoka, teže pristupačnoj u uvali Senjska. Kažnjenici ova tri logora nikada nisu došli u kontakt te jedno vrijeme nisu ni znali jedni za druge. U periodu od ljeta 1950. pa do 1953. godine logori na Golom otoku dobili su svoj konačan oblik. Osim četiri logora na otoku su se gradili i ostali objekti namijenjeni osoblju Udbe i milicije poput nogometnog igrališta, teniskog terena te kuglane. Godine 1952. izgrađena je nova zgrada bolnice, a vjerojatno već u 1953. biblioteka i zgrada za posjete. Smatra se da je u periodu političkog logora na Golom otoku pošumljeno 60h zemlje kao i većina infrastrukture te većih gospodarskih objekata.62

3.4.1.THE FIRST CAMP-OLD WIRE/PRVI LOGOR-STARA ŽICA The foundations of the first working camp were layed out with the arrival of inmates from Lepoglava, who are attributed to building the first eleven barracks. The number of barracks grew until the fall of 1950, when the new camp was constructed. The camp consisted of 15 barracks, with two separated from the others. These two were intended

Temelji prvog logora postavljeni su po dolasku zatvorenika iz Lepoglave koji su zaslužni za izgradnju prvih jedanaest drvenih baraka. Do jeseni 1950. godine, kada se formira novi logor, broj baraka je naknadno rastao. Na kraju je bilo petnaest baraka za kažnjenike od kojih su dvije bile izdvojene od drugih. . U njima su bili smješteni zatvorenici

CAMP OLD WIRE

/LOGOR STARA ŽICA

CAMP 101-PETAR’S HOLE

/RADILIŠTE 101-PETROVA RUPA

FIGURE 28. MAPS OF FORMER CAMPS

CAMP BIG WIRE

/LOGOR VELIKA ŽICA

CAMP V-WOMEN’S CAMP /RADILIŠTE V-ŽENSKI LOGOR

for inmates who were about to be liberated or were to go to work actions. Out of 15, only one barrack functioned as self-administration facility – the so called „Centar“ – while the others were assigned to inmates. The camp included a kitchen, a dispensary, a barrack for investigators and interrogators and a barrack for the police forces, who guarded the camp. The camp’s name was a reference to the three meter high wire fence that surrounded the camp along with concrete piles and watchtowers. The inmates’ barracks were physically separated from the ones belonging to the police and memebers of the State Security Administration, by means of wire fences. A port and a warehouse were built at the Velika Draga embayment , as well as the largest facility at the Island called „Kamena zgrada“. This facility served as an administration building for staff and interrogators during the first phase of camp construction. Illustrations by the painter and graphic designer Alfred Pal most accurately respresent the layout of the camp „Stara Žica“, since up till today the camp blueprints and photographs are unavailable. Camp „Stara Žica“ was enclosed in multiple layers of wire fence and five to eight watchtowers 50 meters apart. The dimensions of the enclosed area were approximately 150 by 60 to 80 meters. First three buildings at the tip of the camp functioned as medical dispanseries. Beneath these were wooden barracks in a row; one of the barracks was the „Centar“ and an atelier for inmates who were painters and sculptors. Three barracks in the right were assigned to inmates and resembled (in function and appearance) the ones constructed for accommodation of the army, in the projects for postwar Yugoslavia reconstruction. Area in between was reffered to as the „street“. Beneath the main entrance to „Stara Žica“ there were two barracks – so called working brigades – meant for inmates that were preparing for leaving the Island. At a certain point in time, these were additionally enclosed in wire fences. The camp also had associated facilities such as a facility that functioned as an outdoor toilette, a kitchen, a bakery and a laundrette. Area that was physically separated from camp grounds was intended for interrogators, police and camp’s administration. Following the construction of the „Kamena zgrada“, whole camp’s administration moved to the new

zatvorenici pripremani za odlazak na slobodu, odnosno radnu akciju. Jedna baraka funkcionirala je kao logorska kažnjenička samouprava tzv. ‘’Centar’’, dok su ostale bile namijenjene kažnjenicima. U Staroj Žici postojala je kuhinja, ambulanta (pred kraj broj je narastao na tri barake), baraka za smještaj isljednika te baraka za smještaj milicije koja je čuvala logor. Logor je dobio ime Žica zbog tri metra visoke žice koja je okruživala logor zajedno s betonskim stupovima i stražarnicama. Naravno, kažnjeničke barake zajedno s ambulantom bile su fizički odvojene žicom od udbaških i milicijskih baraka. Na obalama uvale Velika Draga u podnožju logora izgrađeno je pristanište i skladišta, kao i najveći objekt prvog logora na Golom otoku tzv. ‘’Kamena zgrada’’, odnosno zgrada uprave gdje je boravila uprava i isljednici u prvoj fazi logora. Ilustracija golootočanina slikara i grafičkog dizajnera Alfreda Pala predstavlja najbolji prikaz ‘’Stare Žice’’ s obzirom da do danas ne postoje orginalne fotografije i nacrti logora. Stara Žica bila je ograđena s više redova bodljikave žice i 5-8 stražarnica na udaljenosti od oko 50 metara. Smatra se da su okvirne dimenzije ograđenog prostora bile 150 m dužine i 60-80 metara širine. Prve tri zgrade na vrhu logora imale su funkciju ambulante. Ispod ambulante nalazile su se drvene barake u nizu. Jedna je baraka predstavljala ‘’Centar’’ i atelje za kažnjene kipare i slikare. Tri barake s desne strane, koje izgledom i funkcionalnošću podsjećaju na one rađene za smještaj ratnih brigada na projektima poslijeratne izgradnje Jugoslavije, imale su funkciju kažnjeničkih baraka. Prostor između njih i ostalih kažnjeničkih baraka između golootočana zvao se ‘’ulica’’. Ispod glavnog ulaza u ‘’Staru Žicu’’ nalazile su se dvije barake za tzv. Radne brigade, kažnjenike koji su se pripremali na odlazak s Golog otoka. U jednom vremenskom periodu bile su posebno ograđene žicom u već ograđenom logoru. Logor je imao i prateće objekte poput prostora za poljski zahod, kuhinju i pekaru te praonicu. Prostor fizički odvojen od prostora logora bio je namijenjen isljednicima, miliciji i upravi logora. U jednom dijelu bili su smješteni isljednici i milicajci koji su čuvali logor. Nakon izgradnje tzv. ‘’Kamene zgrade’’ cijela se uprava logora preselila, a napuštene su se barake koristile kao skladišta i radionice. Po dolasku novih kažnjenika izgrađeno je pri-

FIGURE 29. ILLUSTRATION OF THE FIRST CAMP ‘‘STARA ŽICA’’ (OLD WIRE); ALFRED PAL

building and the abandoned barracks were used as warehouses and workshops. With the arrival of new inmates a new timber structured port was built and was used for ship docking, discharging cargo and debarkation. Because the persistent shortage of water was a constant problem at the Goli Otok, soon a first water tank was built for collecting and storing rainwater. During 1950s, as the conflict between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union grew, the number of arrested people rose accordingly. The capacity of „Stara Žica“ was soon enough insufficient and therefore, during the summer of 1950 began the construction of a bigger camp later named „Velika Žica“ or simply „Žica“. Construction of a facility called „Hotel“ in the vicinity of „Stara Žica“ took place simultaneously – it was a brick-walled building where interrogators moved to and had their offices. The administration of the camp also moved to „Hotel“ building, whereas the police in charge of camp security moved to „Kamena zgrada“. 63

stanište drvene konstrukcije na kojem su pristajali brodovi iskrcavajući teret ili ljude. S obzirom da je nedostatak vode na Golom otoku bio stalni problem uskoro je izgrađena i ‘’prva cisterna’’, veliki naplav za prikupljanje kišnice. Tijekom 1950. godine se sukob sa SSSR-om zaoštravao te je broj uhapšenih rastao. Kapacitet ‘’Stare Žice’’ postao je premal pa se tijekom ljeta (lipanj) 1950. godine započelo s izgradnjom većeg logora kasnije nazvanog ‘’Velika Žica’’ ili ‘’Žica’’. Paralelno s izgradnjom Velike Žice građen je u blizini Stare Žice objekt nazvan ‘’Hotel’’. Kamena zidana zgrada namijenjena za smještaj isljednika, kao i za njihove kancelarije. Nakon izgradnje Hotela u Kamenu zgradu uselili su se milicajci zaduženi za osiguranje logora, dok je uprava prešla u zgradu Hotela. Logor je dobio svoj konačan izgled tijekom perioda između ljeta 1950 do 1953. godine.63

3.4.2.THE BIG WIRE/VELIKA ŽICA As the number of convicts grew, and the Old Wire’s capacity was surpassed, the construction of a bigger camp started in the autumn of 1950, and it was called The Big Wire (or simply The Wire). The camp was surrounded with two layers of wire, bunkers and watchtowers. It consisted of 19 brick barracks, 17 of which served as accommodation for the convicts. The size of each pavilion was 10x15 meters and they had wooden gable roof covered with tiles. A single door and the window of the room’s senior were located on the main facade, while there were six smaller double casement windows without grids on the side of the pavilion oriented towards ‘’the street’’. The stalls inside the pavilions had three floors that measured 2,5 meters in height, and were made out of planed, reinforced wooden planks. The hospital was located in two pavilions that didn’t serve to accommodate prisoners. In the year 1952, it was moved to another location. The Small Wire was a space surrounded with wire that was above the bunkers with the convicts. After a typhoide brakeout in 1951, three barracks were constructed to serve as a quarantine. The

Kako je broj kažnjenika rastao, a kapacitet Stare Žice postao premalen, u jesen 1950. godine započeto je formiranje novog i većeg logora nazvanog Velika Žica ili Žica. Logor je bio ograđen s dva reda žice, bunkerima i promatračnicama. Sastojao se od 19 zidanih baraka od kojih je 17 bilo u funkciji smještaja za kažnjenike. Paviljoni su bili površine 10 x 15 metara s dvovodnim krovom drvene konstrukcije, natkrivenim crijepom. Na glavnom pročelju nalazila su se jednokrilna vrata te prozor od sobnog starješine, dok su s bočne strane, okrenute prema ‘’Ulici’’ imali šest manjih dvokrilnih prozora bez rešetaka. Boksevi unutar paviljona bili su podignuti na tri kata ukupne visine 2,5 metara načinjeni od blanjanih daski s pojačanom konstrukcijom. Dva paviljona iznad smještajnih kapaciteta služila su kao bolnica. Tijekom 1952. bolnica je premještena na drugu lokaciju. Iznad baraka za smještaj kažnjenika nalazio se prostor ograđen žicom, nazvan Mala Žica. Nakon epidemije tifusa 1951. godine izgrađene su tri barake u funkciji karantene. Prostor između paviljona nazvan je ‘’Ulica’’ i funkcionirao je kao prostor sastajanja kažnjenika dok su

FIGURE 30. CAMP ‘‘VELIKA ŽICA’’ (BIG WIRE); AUTHOR UNKNOWN

convicts could sometimes meet in the space between the pavilions, called ‘’the street’’, and they ate their breakfast, lunch and dinner in front of the pavilions, where occasional gauntlets happened as well. A ‘’serving room’’, a place for preparation and storage of rations and cutlery, was located behind every pavilion. The penitentiary’s self-administrative headquarters and the superintendent’s office were located beneath the first pavilion on the right, in the building called The Center. This building was used to manage convicts’ files, determine their number, for censorship of mail and other necessary administrative work. There was an open space below the pavilions, called ‘’the square’’, with a kitchen and a bakery. Inside The Big Wire, below the pavilion, the convicts that were a part of the art section could perform music and theater numbers, watch movies and give speeches on ‘’the stage’’. There was a barrack behind the stage in which they could prepare and rehearse their performances. There were two stone facilities, probably functioning as warehouses, located right on the shore of the Vela Draga bay. The dock was built right next to the ground floor longitudinal building which had many purposes over the years: floor tiles were manufactured there, groceries were stored, and pasta was made in it. Above that building was a road that led to the Big Wire’s entrance. The Big Wire’s administrative building was separated from the whole complex that was surrounded with wire. It was positioned west of the concentration camp, elevated on a hill so that the camp could be easily monitored. Beside the wire, the camp was also secured with watchtowers and concrete bunkers. 80 to 100 people were in charge of securing the camp, and not even the Yugoslav People’s Army officers could enter it. After the year 1956, some major changes happened regarding the Big Wire buildings’ functions. Concrete buildings were constructed to serve as a legal prison that was open until 1988. The pavilions that held Cominform members were torn down, with just foundations and retaining walls remaining to date. The two stone facilities mentioned above were kept intact, as well as the Big Wire’s administrative building.64

prostori ispred paviljona služili za doručak, ručak i večeru te povremene male špalire. Iza svakog paviljona dograđen je prostor pod nazivom ‘’porcijašnica’’ za spremanje i čuvanje porcija i pribora za jelo. Zgrada pod nazivom Centar nalazila se ispod prvog desnog paviljona te je bila u funkciji logorske kažnjeničke samouprave. U zgradi Centar vodila se kartoteka kažnjenika, utvrđivalo brojno stanje zatvorenika, cenzurirala pošta kao i ostala potrebna evidencija. U njoj je boravio nadzornik osiguranja za cijeli kompleks. Ispod paviljona širio se otvoreni prostor ‘’trg’’. Na samom trgu nalazila se kuhinja i pekara. Unutar Velike Žice podno paviljona nalazila se ‘’pozornica’’, mjesto izvođenja glazbenih i kazališnih točki, gledanja filmova te održavanja govora. Iza pozornice nalazila se baraka u službi pozornice gdje su kažnjenici umjetničke sekcije pripremali i uvježbavali svoje točke. Uz samu obalu u uvali Vela Draga nalazila su se dva gospodarska kamena objekta, najvjerojatnije skladišta. Uz podužnu prizemnu zgradu na obali izgrađeno je pristanište, a u zgradi se jedno vrijeme nalazio pogon za izradu podnih pločica, zatim skladište namirnica i pogon za izradu tjestenine. Povrh ove zgrade pruža se put, a desnim odvojkom silazi se do ulaska u Veliku Žicu. Upravna zgrada Velike Žice nalazila se potpuno izvan kompleksa i žicom opasanog područja, pozicionirana na zapadnoj strani od logora na uzvišenju s potpunim uvidom u logor. Osim žice logor su osiguravali sa stražarskih tornjeva i betonskih bunkera. Osamdeset do sto osoba josiguravalo je logor te je pristup bio strogo zabranjen čak i za najviše oficire Jugoslavenkse armije. Godine nakon 1956. donijele su znatnu promjenu u izgledu Velike Žice s obzirom na promjenu funkcije prostora. Izgrađeni su betonski kompleksi za smještaj zatvorenika legalnog zatvora koji je djelovao do 1988. godine. Paviljoni za Ibeovce u potpunosti su srušeni, a danas su ostali jedino vidljivi temelji i potporni zidovi paviljona. Dva su gospodarska objekta iz tog razdoblja ostala autentična, i kao i upravna zgrada izvan same Žice.64

FIGURE 31. PAVILION IN CAMP ‘‘VELIKA ŽICA’’ (BIG WIRE)

3.4.3.CAMP 101-PETAR’S HOLE/RADILIŠTE 101-PETROVA RUPA During the first half of 1950, a mysterious and never fully disclosed camp was built at the Goli Otok. It was called „Radilište 101“ because of the starting number of inmates, and amongst the inmates was known as „Manastir“ or „Petrova rupa“, named after the professor Petar Komnenić, the chairman of the Parliament of Montenegro adn one of the first inmates at this camp. A camp in a camp was a top secret kept from other inmates and today it is recalled only by its survivors. There are no archived documents on the camp, and neither the remains were found, so this represents a problem in determining its definite location. This camp was located at a site that was actually a hole made during the interwar period, as a consequence of bauxite exploitation. Since the ore was never found, a hole measuring 20 m in diameter and 7 to 8 meters deep was leftover up untill 1950, when the staff of State Security Administration decided to use it in order to build a new and most cruel camp. Nikola Golubović, a former inmate at „Radilište 101“, made a model of the camp based on his recollections. At an assembly of the former inmates in 1990 in Montenegro, Podgorica he presented his model and his work was verified by other inmates who were there at the time. „Petrova rupa“ was spherical in shape and was approximately 600 to 800 meters away from „Velika Žica“ and 500 to 600 meters apart from water tanks. According to the model it is evident that the structure can be divided into two parts, one outside and the other inside the hole. The structures around the hole consisted of a wall about 2 to 3 meters high, on which a commander patroled, then there was a barrack where the staff were accommodated , as well as a barrack where interrogators were situated. Beside the wall was a small reservoir with water that was delivered by inmates from „Velika Žica“ to satisfy the needs of inmates at „Rupa“. At the west side of the hole was a stairway that lead into the hole. Facilities inside the hole were designed solely for inmates. Wooden barrack for inmate accommodation was at the bottom of the hole and had two-storey boxes. The kitchen was located at

Tajanstveni i nikad u potpunosti otkriveni logor na Golom otoku izgrađen je u prvoj polovici 1950. godine. Dobio je naziv Radilište 101 zbog početnog broja zatvorenika, a među kažnjenicima bio je poznat kao i Manastir ili Petrova rupa po profesoru Petru Komneniću, predsjedniku republičke skupštine Crne Gore, koji je bio zatvoren među prvih sto kažnjenika. Logor u logoru bio je strogo čuvana tajna od ostalih golootočana, a danas je dokumentiran samo u sjećanjima preživjelih. Arhivske građe o logoru gotovo nema, pa čak ni fizičkih ostataka što predstavlja problem za točno utvrđivanje lokacije. Radilište 101 (R-101) nalazilo se u rupi nastaloj tokom međuratnog razdoblja kao posljedica potrage za boksitnom rudom. Kako ruda nije nađena, rupa promjera 20 metara i dubine 7-8 metara ostala je na Golom otoku sve do početka 1950. godine kada ju je Udba odlučila iskoristiti za izgradnju najokrutnijeg logora. Godine 1985. Nikola Golubović bivši kažnjenik Radilišta 101 izradio je prema sjećanju maketu te na skupu Udruženja logoraša Golog otoka Crne Gore 1990. u Titogradu prošao verifikaciju od ostalih logoraša Radilišta 101. Rupa je bila okruglastog oblika te se nalazila otprilike 600800 metara od Velike Žice i 500-600 metara od cisterne za vodu. Prema maketi vidljivo je da možemo podijeliti strukturu u dva dijela, jednu izvan, a drugu unutar rupe. Struktura na površini oko rupe sastojala se od izgrađenog zida visine 2-3 metra, na kojem je patrolirao komandir, baraka za smještaj osiguranja tj. komandira kao i baraka za smještaj isljednika. Uza zid na vrhu rupe bio je ugrađen mali rezervoar za vodu koju su donosili kažnjenici iz Velike Žice za potrebe kažnjenika Radilišta 101. U rupu se silazilo stepeništem na zapadnoj strani rupe. Objekti unutar rupe bili su namijenjeni samo za kažnjenike. Drvena baraka za smještaj kažnjenika nalazila se na dnu rupe u kojoj su bili drveni dvokatni boksovi na dva kata. Jugoistočno od barake za smještaj kažnjenika nalazila se kuhinja. Puteljak između barake za kažnjenike i kuhinje koristili su za organiziranje špalira. Prema svjedočanstvima kažnjenika Radilište 101 u rupi

the southeast of the inmates’ barrack. Path between the inmates’ barrack and the kitchen was used to establish running the gauntlet. According to the testimonies of „Radilište 101“ inmates, the inside part of the hole was active in the period between July 1950 to 1952 and was moved to the surface from then onward and untill its shutdown in 1954. The new camp was in the close vicinity to the hole (somewhat about 10 meters) and consisted of a wooden barrack measuring 20 by 6 meters, a dispensary measuring 10 by 5 meters and a kitchen measuring 5 by 2 meters. Two rows of wire fence reaching up to 2 meters in height and a wall of similar height enclosed the area of the new camp, that measured 70 by 30 meters.65

bilo je aktivno od srpnja 1950. do 1952. međutim nakon 1952. preseljeno je na površinu te je egzistiralo sve do ožujka 1954. Novi logor Radilišta 101 bio je u neposrednoj blizini rupe (10-ak metara) te se sastojao od drvene barake dimenzija 20 x 6 metara, ambulante dimenzija 10 x 5 metara i kuhinje 5 x 2 metra. Dvoredna bodljikava žica visine 2 metra i zid slične visine ograđivali su prostor novog logora koji je iznosio 70 x 30 metara.65

FIGURE 32. ILLUSTRATION OF THE CAMP ‘‘PETROVA RUPA’’ (PETER’S HOLE); ALFRED PAL

3.4.4.THE FEMALE CAMP-’’RADILIŠTE V/RADILIŠTE V-ŽENSKI LOGOR The female camp (named also „Radilište V) was the only female working camp at the Goli Otok that existed between 1950 and 1951. Afterwards, the female inmates were transported to another nearby prison at the Island of Sveti Grgur, where the climate and geographical conditions were somewhat less harsh. According to the recollections of Eva Grlić, female inmates were retransported for only a short time to Goli Otok, during the construction of various stone buildings. „Radilište V“ was the only camp located at the east side of the Island, at the embayment Senjska, oriented towards Velebit. This was definetely a far more crueler position in contrast to the southeast side, where most infrastructure development took place.66 According to Dragutin Vajdić, only a few inmates knew about the female camp and those were the ones who were in charge of water transport to this part of Island – and mr Vajdić was one of them. Due to strong bora winds, the boat „Izvor“ that carried the water tanks wasn’t able to dock at the eastern part of the Island often, therefore the men were responsible for delivering water supplies from their water tank using copper cauldrons that they carried on their back to the top of the Goli Otok. Here they left the cauldrons without any contact with female inmates. Afterwards, the female inmates accompanied by the guards came and took the cauldrons, further carrying them across a very rocky and steep terrain towards their camp.67 Owing to testimonials of Eva Grlić and Vera Winter, the former female inmates at „Radilište V“, we can conclude that the female camo was organised in a similar fashion to male camps. There the camp had its main administration, as well as a notional but far more important, lead by chosen and suitable inmates. Running the gauntlet was a common occurence, not only when welcoming newcomers but often after dinners and due to sinning or some figment. Running the gauntlet was used far more often in the beginning than at the shutdown of the camp. Labour included working in a stone pit/quarry, carrying rocks and sand to given destinations, unloading cargo,

Ženski logor ili Radilište V je jedino žensko radilište na Golom otoku koje je egzistiralo 1950. i 1951. godine nakon čega su zatvorenice premještene u zatvor na otoku Sv. Grgur, nedaleko od Golog otoka, gdje su ipak geografski i klimatski uvjeti bili nešto lakši. Prema sjećanju Eve Grlić, pretpostavlja se da su žene u trenutku izgradnje čvrstih kamenih objekata na kraće vrijeme vraćene na Goli otok. Radilište V je jedino radilište na Golom otoku koje se geografski nalazilo na istočnom dijelu otoka u uvali Senjska okrenutoj prema Velebitu, pa možemo govoriti omnogo okrutnijem položaju nego što je bila jugozapadna strana otoka na kojoj se razvila većina infrastrukture.66 Prema sjećanju golootočanina Dragutina Vajdića doznajemo da su za ženski logor na Golom saznala nekolicina golootočana zaduženih za raznošenje vode po otoku, za što je jedno vrijeme bio zadužen i sam Vajdić. Zbog bure, brod Izvor s cisternama za vodu često nije imao mogućnost da uplovi do ženskog logora te su muškarci bili zaduženi da iz svojih bazena za prikupljanje kišnice u velikim bakrenim kazanima preko leđa odnose vodu do vrha Golog otoka, gdje su ih ostavljali i odlazili bez ikakvog kontakta sa zatvorenicama. Naknadno su u pratnji milicionera pristizale žene te preko izrazito kamenitog i strmog terena prenosile vodu do svog logora.67 Prema navođenju Eve Grlić i Vere Winter; bivših zatvorenica Radilišta V, možemo uviditi da je ženski logor bio organiziran slično kao i ostali muški logori na Golom otoku. Postojala je glavna uprava logora kao i mnogo bitnija fiktivna, koju su predvodile podobne zatvorenice. Špalir je bio česta pojava, ne samo pri dočekivanju novih zatvorenica, nego često i poslije večera zbog nekog grijeha ili pak izmišljotine. Špalir je u ženskog logoru češće primjenjivan na samom početku, pri osnivanju, nego kasnije. Obavljali su se poslovi od rada u kamenolomu te odnošenja kamena i pijeska na zadane lokacije, istovara tereta, miješanja betona, žbuke, pletenja, izrađivanja rukotvorina, čuvanja, čišćenja i održavanje čamaca, nezavisno od vremenskih prilika.68

mixing concrete and mortar, knitting, making handicrafts, guarding, cleaning and maintaining the boats â&#x20AC;&#x201C; all labour was conducted without regards to weather conditions.68

FIGURE 33. FEMALE CAMP

3.5.CAMP ORGANIZATION ON GOLI OTOK/ORGANIZACIJA LOGORA NA GOLOM OTOKU

The penitentiary’s fictitious self-administration began its formation in the end of August of 1949, when so-called Bosnians (they were in fact assassins) came to Goli otok. It’s worth mentioning that neither members of UDBA nor members of Yugoslav police were actually present in the buildings where prisoners were kept. They didn’t perform any kind of physical punishment themselves. The closest authorities were the guards that monitored the wire surrounding the prison camp. The convicts were the only people inside the area protected with wire, which meant that they organised their lives in a specific manner. A so-called Center was as the top of a rigid hierarchy pyramid, in charge of many things concerning the organisation of life in the camp. The Center was a link between the convicts inside the camp and real camp authorities (UDBA) that were located outside of it. Those in charge of managing the penitentiary had some privileges: they didn’t have to perform manual labor, other convicts didn’t punish them physically nor psychologically, they could enjoy new clothes from time to time, they could eat, drink and move freely. The Center building was located on the square, below the first pavilion, and it remained the same to date. It’s shape and architectural construction differ from other facilities inside The Big Wire, mostly due to the three pillars on the main porch, although the porch doesn’t have its authentic appearance anymore. The second level of the camp’s self-administration were those in the ‘’barrack management’’ or in the ‘’pavilion headquarters’’. There was one of those assigned to each pavilion. ‘’Pavilion headquarters’’ were led by ‘’room supervisor’’, or ‘’room seniors’’, to translate it more closely to camp’s slang. They were crucial to everyday functioning of convicts: they were in charge of organising workgroups, distributing food and beverages, dividing the cigarettes, and correcting of undesirable behavior. The room supervisor was connected to UDBA that made the decisions about the treatment of convicts, and then they had to implement it.

Krajem srpnja 1949 godine s dolaskom takozvanih Bosanaca na Golom otoku počinje se uspostavljati sistem kažnjeničke (fiktivne) logorske samouprave. Bitno je naznačiti da niti logorska Udba, niti milicija nisu bili fizički prisutni unutar ograđenog prostora u kojem su boravili kažnjenici, niti su osobno provodili fizičko nasilje. Najbliži službeni organ bio je u formi stražara oko žice. Kažnjenici su bili jedina skupina ljudi koja je boravila unutar žice pa je stvorila posebnu organizaciju života unutar logora. Unutar žice postojala je stroga hijerarhija funkcija pa je tako na vrhu piramide, zaslužen za rukovođenje svih aspekata logorskog života bio tzv. Centar. Centar je bio glavna poveznica između stvarne logorske uprave (Udbe) koja se nalazila izvan logora i ostatka logora. Rukovodeća tijela logorske samouprave bila su privilegirana; nisu morali obavljati teške fizičke poslove, nisu bili psihički i fizički maltretirani od strane ostalih logoraša, uživali su u novijoj odjeći, kao i u hrani i piću te su imali slobodu kretanja. Zgrada Centra, i danas očuvana, nalazila se na trgu odmah ispod prvog paviljona. Arhitektonski i oblikovno se razlikuje od ostalih objekata unutar Velike Žice te je i danas prepoznatljiva zbog prednja tri stupa na prednjem trijemu, iako nije ostala u svom autentičnom obliku do danas. Druga razina logorske samouprave bila su ‘’baračna rukovodstva’’ ili ‘’paviljonski štabovi’’ kojih je bilo onoliko koliko je bilo i paviljona. Na čelu ‘’paviljonskog štaba’’ nalazio se, u logoraškom žargonu ‘’sobni starješina’’. Sobni starješine igrali su važnu ulogu u svakodnevnom životu zatvorenika jer su se brinuli o organizaciji radnih grupa, distribuciji hrane i pića, podijeli cigareta te samom političkom preodgoju kažnjenika. Sobni starješina bio je u kontaktu s Udbom koja je određivala tretmane prema kažnjenicima, a oni su ih provodili u djelo. Prema maketi paviljona napravljenoj po sjećanju zatvorenika vidljivo je iz arhitektonske organizacije prostora da su sobne starješine imali privilegiran položaj unutar paviljona jer su posjedovali vlastitu sobicu unutar samog paviljona. U privatnoj sobi nalazio se krevet te police s hranom i cigaretama.

A physical model of the architectural organisation of the pavilion, made from convicts’ memories, shows clearly how the room seniors had privileges: they had private little rooms with beds, shelves, food and cigarettes. Besides the room supervisors, pavilion headquarters also had educational and cultural assistants as well as project supervisors. The third level of penitentiary’s self-administration consisted of many jobs performed by convicts, important for day-to-day functioning of the camp. Depending on UDBA’s decisions, the convicts could become convict waiters, convict barbers, cooks, water suppliers, convict accountants, electricians, gardeners and everything else that could ensure the normal functioning of a prison camp.69

Funkcije kažnjenika Centra preslikavale su se na paviljonska rukovodstva pa su osim sobnog starješine postojali i kulturno prosvjetni referenti i rukovodioci radova. Osim rukovoditeljskih funkcija logora postojao je i niz poslova koje su obavljali kažnjenici, a bili su izuzetno važni za samo funkcioniranje logora, kreirajući treću razinu logorske kažnjeničke samouprave. Kažnjenici su dobivali poslove zavisno o Udbinim odlukama te su tako postojali konobari-kažnjenici, brijači-kažnjenici, kuhari, tzv. vodari, računovođe-kažnjenici, električari, vrtlari i sve funkcije koje su bile potrebne za ‘’normalno’’ funkcioniranje logora.69

3.6.INFLUENCE OF NAZI CAMPS ON ORGANIZATION OF CAMPS ON GOLI OTOK/UTJECAJ NACISTIČKIH LOGORA NA ORGANIZACIJU LOGORA NA GOLOM OTOKU When comparing former prisons of Kingdom of Yugoslavia with Nazi, fascist and Soviet prisons, the main resemblance can be found with German Nazi camps. Although they were a lot bigger and more complex than the one on Goli otok, the structure of camp’s organisation is very similar. As well as the Nazi camps, Goli otok also had two main levels of authorities. The Nazi camps had SS (Schutzstaffel) as actual authorities, and then the fictitious prison authorities. The camp was led by a commander (Lagerkommandant) with the authorities of a superintendent in Goli otok camp. In order to minimize the number of SS officers, many convicts had different functioning positions. A hierarchy of fictitious prison authorities was built by those suitable convicts, and was led by ‘’camp’s senior’’ (Lageraltester), similar to ‘’the Center’’ in Goli otok camp. They had similar duties: implementing orders and decisions from the real authorities and organising the rest of camp’s self-administrative functioning. The lowest rank of Nazi prison self-administration were ‘’unit seniors’’ (Blokaltester) that had to implement decisions made by higher ranked members of self-administration. On Goli otok those were room seniors. Workgroups of Goli otok were organised in the similar way to those in Nazi camps: a foreman (Vorarbeiter) was in charge, and Kapo or Oberkapo (Funktionshäftling) was right below him. You could compare Nazi foreman (Vorarbeiter) and Kapo to a ‘’commander of work force’’ on Goli otok: they administered manufacturing processes.70 Both camps had some suitability criteria: in Nazi prisons that was your mother tongue, race and ethnicity; Goli otok favored repentant members of UDBA and members of the defeated collaborationist armies. These suitable convicts had some privileges in both camps: better clothes, better food, no manual labor, and private space. Similarities between Goli otok and other Nazi prison camps can be found in spatial organization as well. Nazi camps were also surrounded with two layers of wire; the real authorities were outside that enclosed area; prisoners

Uspoređujući nacističke, talijanske, sovjetske, ustaške i bivše zatvore kraljevine Jugoslavije vidljiva je najveća sličnost s njemačkim nacističkim logorima. Iako su nacistički logori bili organiziraniji i kompleksniji od samog Golog otoka, što je logično u odnosu na veličinu nacističkih logora, vidljiva je slična struktura organizacije upravljanja logorom te je moguće povući međusobne paralele. Kao što smo spomenuli logor na Golom otoku bio je organiziran s dvojnom upravom jednako kao i nacistički logori. U nacističkim logorima postojala je stvarna uprava u rukama SS-a (Schutzstaffel) i ona fiktivna logoraška. Komandant logora (Lagerkommandant) nalazio se na čelu te je odgovarao poziciji upravnika logora na Golom otoku. Logorašima su dodijelili obavljanje niza dužnosti potrebnih za dnevno funkcioniranje logora kako bi se smanjio broj SS osoblja. Stvorena je logoraška hijerarhija sastavljena od podobnih zatvorenika koji su činili fiktivnu upravu logora. Na čelu fiktivne uprave nalazio se ‘’starješina logora’’ (Lageraltester) koji se može usporediti sa ‘’šefom Centra’’ na Golom otoku. Imali su slična zaduženja; provođenje naredbi stvarne uprave te organizaciju ostalih organa u lancu logorske samouprave. U samoupravnom ustroju nacističkih logora na nižem mjestu nalazili su se tzv. blokovski starješine (Blokaltester) koji su bili zaduženi za provođenje zapovijedi od više logorske samouprave. Paralelu s blokovskim starješinama čine ‘’sobne starješine’’ na Golom otoku. Radne čete na Golom otoku bile su slično organizirane kao one u nacističkim logorima na čijem je čelu bio predradnik (Vorarbeiter), te uz njega Kapo ili Oberkapo (Funktionshäftling). Uloga ‘’komandanta radnog stroja’’ na Golom bila je gotovo jednaka ulogama predradnika (Vorarbeiter) i Kapoa; administrativni poslovi vezani za privredne procese kao i njihovo provođenje. 70 Oba su logora funkcionirala po načelima podobnosti; dok su u nacističkim logorima bili značajni nacionalnost, rasa i jezik, na Golom su otoku privilegije dobijali udbaški pokajnici te pripadnici poraženih kolaborantskih formacija. Sličnost je vidljiva i u tome da su podobni logoraši uživali bolji život od ostalih logoraša; bolja odjeća, odvojenost od

were located in wooden or brick pavilions (on Goli otok, wooden or stone pavilions). Architectural structure of the pavilions is very similar: ground floors with wooden gable roofs. Each of the pavilions could accommodate somewhere between 250 and 400 prisoners which slept on three-floor wooden planks, often having to share one floor with two to four people. The same accommodating situation could be found on Goli otok. One other similarity was the open space between the pavilions: in Nazi camps it was called Appelplatz, and on Goli otok it was called ‘’the square’’. They would count prisoners in those open spaces, but in the Big Wire it was also a place where prisoners could perform theater acts, give speeches or play movies.71

Osim po upravnoj organizaciji može se povući paralela i po prostornoj organizaciji samog logora. Nacistički logori, kao i logori na Golom otoku, bili su potpuno okruženi duplom žicom. Uprava logora uvijek je bila prostorno odvojena te se nalazila izvan žicom ograđenoga područja. Zatvorenici su bili smješteni u drvenim ili zidanim paviljonima, u slučaju Golog otoka drvenim ili kamenim. Paviljoni su arhitektonski vrlo slični, prizemnice s dvovodnim drvenim krovom. Svaki od njih bio je namijenjen za smještaj između 250 do 400 zatvorenika. Zatvorenici su spavali na drvenim ležajevima na tri kata, a često je od tri do pet osoba dijelilo jednu razinu. Isti način smještaja zatvorenika provodio se na Golom otoku. Sličnost je vidljiva i u stvaranju širih otvorenih prostora, u nacističkim logorima poznatih kao Appelplatz na kojem su se prebrojavali zatvorenici. Na Golom otoku u Velikoj Žici imao je sličnu formu prostor nazvan ‘’trg’’. Trg se u Velikoj Žici koristio također kao prostor prebrojavanja zatvorenika, ali i kao prostor za održavanje političkih govora, predstava i filmova.71

FIGURE 34. DETAIL ON GOLI OTOK, MIA-MARTINA HREN

4.THE REFERENCES/REFERENTNI PRIMJERI 4.1.GORDON MATTA-CLARK/GORDON MATTA-CLARK 4.2.MONUMENT TO THE RESISTANCE IN CUNEO, 1962, ALDO ROSSI /SPOMENIK OTPORU U CUNEO-U, 1962, ALDO ROSSI 4.3.MEMORIAL BUILDING/MEMORIJALNI OBJEKT

4.THE REFERENCE/REFERENTNI PRIMJERI 4.1.GORDON MATTA-CLARK/GORDON MATTA-CLARK Gordon Matta-Clark was an American artist known for his site-specific artworks that he made in the 1970s. He studied architecture but he did not practice conventional architecture, instead he became extremely interesting and atypical artist. He developed and worked on what he referred to as ‘’Anarchitecture’’. The idea for the name was a conflation of the words anarchy and architecture - to suggest an interest in voids, gaps and left-over spaces. These were temporary works created by sawing and carving selection out of building, most of which were scheduled to be destroyed. Beside untypically made ‘’building cuts’’ he made performances, recycling pieces, space and texture works. Matta-Clark used a number of media to document his work, including film, video and photography. 72 His first large-scale project has been defined as Splitting in 1974. Matta-Clark sawed two parallel slices through a nondescript wood-frame house in Englewood, New Jersey, and removed the material between the two cuts. In addition, he cut out the corners of the house’s roof. Beside Splitting he made a number of projects such as Bingo (1974), Day’s End (1975), Window Blowout (1976), Circus or The Caribbean Orange (1978) etc. 73 Similarity is visible in space intervention used on location of Memorial center Velika Žica (Big Wire). Intervention in the space refers to the objects built in the period of legal prison after 1956, which block the view with its position and also the insight into the camp’s previous state. The first venture that allowed the visitor easier visualization of the camp and better walking lines and perspectives, was the cutting of prison concrete objects only in the necessary proportion. The view on the pavilions, which were the most significant parts of the camp, was opened.

Gordon Matta-Clark je bio američki umjetnik koji je djelovao 1970-ih poznat po svojim specifičnim djelima na samoj lokaciji. Studirao je arhitekturu međutim nikad je nije prakticirao u njenom konvencionalnom obliku već je umjesto toga postao iznimno interesantni i atipični umjetnik.Razvio je i kasnije radio na tom što on naziva ‘’Anarchitecture’’. Ideja za naziv došla je iz stapanja riječi anarhija i arhitektura-da bi naglasio i predložio zanimanje za praznine, pukotine i ostatke prostora. Bili su to privremeni radovi nastali pilanjem i rezbarenjem dijelova zgrade, koje su bile u planu za rušenje. Osim netipičnih ‘’rezova na zgradi’’ radio je performanse, reciklirana dijela te prostorne i tekstilne radove. Matta-Clark je koristio brojne medije za dokumentaciju svog rada poput filma, videa i fotografija. 72 Njegov prvi veliki projekt je takozvani Splitting iz 1974. Kada je ispilao dva paralelna proreza kroz drvenu konstrukciju kuće te odstranio sav materijal između ta dva reza u Englewood-u u New Jersey-u. Dodatno je odrezao kuteve krova. Osim Splitting-a radio je brojne projekte poput Bingo (1974), Day’s End (1975), Window Blowout (1976), Circus or The Caribbean Orange (1978) itd. 73 Sličnost je vidljiva u prostornoj intervenciji na lokaciji Memorijalnog centra Velika Žica. Intervencija u prostoru se odnosi na objekte izgrađene u razdoblju legalnog zatvora iza 1956. godine, koji svojim položajem zaklanjaju pogled i uvid u prijašnje stanje logora. Rezanje zatvorskih betonskih objekata u samo onom omjeru u kojem je neophodno, prvi je poduhvat koji dozvoljava posjetitelju lakše vizualiziranje logora te bolje hodne linije i vizure. Otvorio se pogled na paviljone koji su bili najznačajniji dio logora.

FIGURE 35. ANARCHITECTURE_GORDON MATTA-CLARK

4.2.MONUMENT TO THE RESISTANCE IN CUNEO, 1962, ALDO ROSSI / SPOMENIK OTPORU U CUNEO-U, 1962, ALDO ROSSI Aldo Rossi was an Italian architect and theoretician who advocated the use of a limited range of building types and concern for the context in which a building is constructed. This way of thinking is called neorationalism, since it updates the ideas of the Italian rationalist architects of 20s and 30s. The complex nature of Rossi’s ideas meant that throughout the 1960s and ‘70s he was more a theoretician and teacher than an architect of built works.74 This selected project is also an unbuilt competition called Monument to the Resistance in Cuneo, 1962. He proposed a cube that can be entered by means of a pyramidal staircase that leads to an interior platform. A slit is cut in the wall opposite the staircase, to allow the viewer inside the cube a view of a ridgetop on which members of resistance fought the Germans. The semicircle of seats are focused on monument. The slit in the wall is angled toward them, so that a few people, sitting on the far right seats, might be able watch a viewer inside the cube look across the landscape at the site. With this gesture Rosii wanted to aware the viewers on both side that the cube was more than a pure form, that it is also a kind of camera obscura that focuses our attention a site where heroic deeds took place. The audience in the seats contemplates a device for contemplation. Climbing up the monumental staircase, passing through the monument, architect formed the path and in the same time he indicated and defined a precise framework that frame specific views. He made an architecture where through the passing, stay and visit of the artifact itself, visitor can get a completely new experience of monument, space and the city.75 Monumental entrance of this from outside very simple cube building together with elegant and simple slit on the opposite wall give a completely new dimension of space. Basic forms in very simple space gave a monumentality that this space deserves. Triggered by the simplicity and strength of this object I tried to implicate the same basic ideas to monumental building that is placed on also very symbolic and historically marked site.

Aldo Rossi je bio talijanski arhitekt i teoretičar koji se zalagao za korištenje ograničenog raspona tipologije te je vodio izrazitu brigu o kontekstu u kojem je objekt izgrađen. Ovaj način razmišljanja nazvan je neoracionalizam s obzirom da koristi ideje talijanskih racionalista u razdoblju 1920-ih i 30-ih. Kompleksna priroda Rossijevih ideja učinila je da tokom 60-ih i 70-ih godina bude vise teoretičar i učitelj nego arhitekt izgrađenih objekata.74 Izabrani projekt je također neizgrađeni natječaj pod nazivom Spomenik otporu u Cuneo-u, 1962. Predložio je kocku u koji je moguće ući pomoću piramidalnih stepenica koje vode na unutarnju platfor-mu. Procjep je izrezan na nasuprotnom zidu da bi dozvolio posjetiteljima unutar kocke pogled na vrh grebena na kojem su se članovi otpora borili protiv Nijemaca. Polukružna sjedala izvan objekta su fokusirana na spomenik dok je procjep nagnut prema njima tako da par ljudi koji sjede na desnoj strani gledališta mogu gledati gledatelje unutar kocke kako gledaju preko pejzaža na povijesnu lokaciju. S ovom gestom Rossi je želio osvijestiti posjetitelje na obje strane, da je kocka više od čiste forme, ali i da je u isto vrijeme vrsta camere obscure koja usredotočuje našu pozornost na mjesto gdje se herojsko djela dogodio. Gledatelji u vanjskom gledalištu su uređaj za kontemplaciju. Penjući se monumentalnim stepenicama, prolazeći kroz spomenik, arhitekt je oformio put i u isto vrijeme naznačio i definirao specifični okvir koji uokviruje posebne vizure. Napravio je arhitekturu gdje kroz prolaza, ostanak i posjet posjetitelj može dobiti potpuno novi doživljaj spomenika, prostora i grada.75 Monumentalni ulaz ove, izvana potpuno jednostavne kocke zajedno s elegantnim i jednostavnim procjepom na suprotnom zidu od ulaza daje potpuno novu dimenziju prostora. Osnovne forme u vrlo jednostavnom prostoru proizvele su monumentalnost koju ovaj prostor i zaslužuje. Potaknuta jednostavnošću i snagom ovog objekta pokušala sam implicirati istu osnovnu ideju monumentalnog objekta koji je pozicioniran na također vrlo simboličnom i povijesno obilježenom mjestu.

FIGURE 36. MONUMENT TO THE RESISTANCE IN CUNEO, 1962, ALDO ROSSI

4.3.ITALIAN CONCENTRATION CAMP RISIERA DI SAN SABBA/TALIJANSKI KONCENTRACIJSKI LOGOR RISIERA DI SAN SABBA The large complex of buildings called ‘’Risiera di San Sabba’’ is a former rice-husking facility that was built in 1913. on outskirts of Trieste. After September 1943. it was used by the Nazis as a temporary prison camp. After using the existing facility from January to March 1944, the Germans converted it into a crematorium capable of incinerating a large number of bodies.76 In 1965. ‘’Risiera di San Sabba’’ got a status of National Monument and Trieste City Council in 1966 organised competition to convert the Risiera into a museum (opened in 1975). Romano Boico was an architect who won the competition who was lead with idea of removing and restoring rather than adding. After removing the ruined parts of building he demarcated the context with 11-meter high concrete walls arranged so as to form a disquieting entrance on the same spot as the existing entrance. The walled courtyard is intended as an open-air non-denominational basilica. The building where prisoners were kept was completely emptied and the load-bearing wooden structures pared down as much as seemed necessary. The seventeen cells and the death cell are unchanged. On the level with the courtyard, in the central building is the Museum of the Resistance, minimal and alive.77 Architect’s system of removing and restoring, and adding only in small portions was the main thing that I tried to implement in the whole project of Memorial Center Goli otok. Leaving all surrounding environment as well as historical facilities in its original form with removing parts only in the necessary proportion to get better walking lines and perspectives.

Veliki kompleks zgrada nazvan ‘’ Risiera di San Sabba’’ je bivša tvornica ljuštenja riže koja je izgrađena 1913 u predgrađu Trsta. Nakon Rujna 1943. Korištena je kao privremeni kamp od strane Nacista. Nakon korištenja postojeće zgrade od Siječnja do Ožujka 1944, Nijemci su pretvorili dotadašnji kamp u krematorij velikog kapaciteta. 76 ‘’Risiera di San Sabba’’ je 1965. Godine dobila status Nacijonalnog spomenika te je Gradsko vijeće Trst 1966. organiziralo natječaj za adaptaciju zgrade u muzej (otvoren 1975.). Romano Boico je arhitekt koji je pobijedio na natječaju vođen idejom uklanjanja i obnavljanja umjesto dodavanja. Nakon uklanjanja uništenih dijelova zgrade označio je dodatke sa 11 metara visokim betonskim zidovima razmještenim tako da tvore uznemirujući ulaz na istom mjestu kao i postojeći prijašnji ulaza. Ograđeno unutarnje dvorište zamišljeno je kao otvorena ne-religijska bazilika. Zgrada u kojoj su držani zatvorenici potpuno je ispražnjena dok je nosiva drvena konstrukcija svedena na neophodno. Sedamnaest čelija zajedno sa čelijom smrti su nepromijenjene. Na razini dvorišta u središnjoj zgradi smješten je Muzej otpora, minimalan, ali živ. 77 Sistem koji je arhitekt koristio, sistem uklanjanja i obnavljanja te dodavanja u samo malim količinama bila je glavna stvar koji sam pokušava ispuniti na cijelom projektu Memorijalnog centra Goli otok. Ostavljajući okruženje kao i povijesne objekte u originalnoj formi s odstranjivanjem dijelova u samo potrebnim razmjerima za dobivanje boljih hodnih linija i vizura.

FIGURE 37. NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMP RISIERA DI SAN SABBA, TRIESTE

FIGURE 38. DETAIL ON GOLI OTOK, MIA-MARTINA HREN

5.MEMORIAL CENTER GOLI OTOK/MEMORIJALNI CENTAR GOLI OTOK 5.1.MEMORIAL CENTRE VELIKA ŽICA/MEMORIJALNI CENTAR VELIKA ŽICA

5.2.MUSEUM AS A PART OF MEMORIAL CENTRE VELIKA ŽICA/ MUZEJ KAO DIO MEMORIJALNOG CENTRA VELIKA ŽICA

5.3.MEMORIAL BUILDING/MEMORIJALNI OBJEKT

5.MEMORIAL CENTER GOLI OTOK/MEMORIJALNI CENTAR GOLI OTOK

The mail idea of the project Memorial center Goli otok was to fairly emphasize and give back the real significance to the island that was a place of isolation, hard physical labor, poor living conditions, thirst, hunger, epidemics, physical and psychological mistreatment followed up by the complete absence of human rights. In order to design a space that speaks about repression, teaches us how to properly seal with the past and how to create a space where memory becomes memorial. Expect designing memorial interventions on the island, it is very important to provide a sustainable component of the whole area. When talking about Goli otok we should not thing about memorial center in terms of traditional context but more broadly. It was of great importance to think about developing features that will contribute to the further development and maintenance of the island, which Goli otok certainly deserves so that memorial center does not remain abandoned and forgotten by the people. Considering the fact that during the summer time Goli otok in current state is visited by the 50 000 tourists, this island as a memorial center except memorial places must afford to the visitors other designed contests. Required accommodations were designed as a part of buildings that were built after 1956. Those objects do not have any cultural or historical value. The bay Tetina where the ships can sail into will have the same function in the future, and buildings nearby the cove that have historical and cultural value with a proper restauration, will be used as a space for workshops, lectures, exhibition areas or spaces for artist. Taking into the consideration the fact that this island with its cultural

Glavna ideja projekta Memorijalni centar Goli otok bila je prikladno naglasiti i dati izgubljeni značaj otoku koji je bio mjesto potpune izolacije, teškog fizičkog rada, loših životnih uvjeta, žeđi, gladi, epidemija, fizičkog i psihičkog maltretiranja uz potpuni izostanak ljudskih prava. Osmisliti prostor koji progovara o represiji, uči nas pravilno nositi se s prošlošću te razviti prostor gdje sjećanje postaje spomen. Osim samog osmišljavanja memorijalnih intervencija na otoku, bitno je dati održivu komponentu cjelokupnom prostoru. Kada govorimo o Golom otoku kao memorijalnom centru ne razmišljamo u okvirima tradicionalnog konteksta već mnogo šire. Da ne bi memorijalni prostor i dalje ostao napušten i zaboravljen bilo je neophodno razmišljati o razvijanju funkcija koje će doprinijeti daljnjem razvoju i održavanju otoka, koji je to zasigurno zaslužio. Uzimajući u obzir činjenicu da tokom ljetne sezone Goli otok u trenutnom stanju posjeti i do 50 000 turista, Goli otok kao memorijalni centar osim memorijalno obilježenih prostora mora omogućiti i ostale osmišljene sadržaje. Potrebni smještajni kapaciteti su osmišljeni u sklopu objekata koji su izgrađeni nakon 1956. I ne posjeduju nikakvu kulturnu niti povijesnu vrijednost. Uvala Tetina u kojoj je moguć pristanak brodova i u budućnosti bi imao istu funkciju, a objekti u blizini uvale koji imaju povijesnu i kulturnu vrijednost uz propisnu restauraciju iskoristit će se kao prostori za održavanje radionica, predavanja, izložbenih prostora, prostora za umjetnike itd. S obzirom da otok svojim povijesnim i kulturnim bogatstvom nudi mogućnost istraživanja i

heritage offers the variety of possibilities as well as liability to speak about various topics and covers a lot of professions. It also gives opportunity for maintenance of architectural and urban workshops, as well as workshops that are aimed toward preserving the cultural heritage (stonewalls, old stone buildings etc.) and workshops that have political, sociological and historical character. Beside already mentioned workshops the aim is to revive the trades that were active during the political camp on Goli otok. There dominates mostly workshop of wood or stone, then workshops that engage with the metal. In the former workshops buildings would be renewed spaces with the same function that would allow the maintained this type of trade. The very broad and interesting space along the coast where was located shipbuilding industry in recent years demands restauration according to laws of the profession. All areas of former camps, as well as stonepits are planned to represent memorial marked spaces with minimal urban and architectural interventions. This work presents two important points of this island; the space of Velika Žica (Big Wire) and elevated area on the imaginary border between mail and female camps.

progovaranja o različitim temama i pokriva različite struke, radionice mogu biti političkog ili povijesnog karaktera, arhitektonskog i urbanističkog kao i radionica koje su usmjerene na očuvanje kulturne baštine (suhozida, starih kamenih zdanja). Osim spomenutih radionica cilj je oživiti zanate koji su korišteni za vrijeme političkog logora na Golom otoku. Gdje naviše dominira radionica drveta i kamena a zatim metala. U objektima bivših radionica nalazili bi se renovirani prostori s istom funkcijom koji bi omogućili održavanje takvog tipa zanata. Vrlo prostran i zanimljiv prostor uz obalu u kojem se smjestila brodogradnja u prethodnim godinama, potrebno je restaurirati po zakonima struke. Svi prostori nekadašnjih logora, kao i prostori kamenoloma planirani su da predstavljaju memorijalno obilježene prostore s minimalnim urbanističko-arhitektonskim intervencijama. U ovom radu detaljnije su prikazane dvije točke na otoku vrijedne memorijalizacije, prostor Velike Žice i uzvišeni prostor na zamišljenoj granici između ženskog i muškog logora.

MAP OF POLITICAL CAMP 1949-1956 87

LANDSCAPE INTERVENTION MADE OF STONE

AFFORESTED PARTS OF ISLAND

STONEPIT

PARK AREA

AREAS FOR COLLECTING WATER

GRAVEYARD

EX-CAPMS (1949.-1956.)

CAMP OLD WIRE /LOGOR STARA ŽICA

CAMP BIGWIRE /LOGOR VELIKA ŽICA

CAMP V-WOMEN’S CAMP/RADILIŠTE V-ŽENSKI LOGOR

CAMP 101-PETAR’S HOLE/RADILIŠTE 101-PETROVA RUPA

MAP OF FUNCTIONS OF POLITICAL CAMP 1949-1956 89

ECONOMY

DOCK

AGRICULTURE

STONEPIT

PARK AREA

AREAS FOR COLLECTING WATER

GRAVEYARD

CATTLE BREEDING

PARK AREA

PATH AROUND ISLAND

EX-CAPMS (1949.-1956.)

MAP OF NEW FUNCTIONS OF MEMORIAL CENTER GOLI OTOK 91

WORKSHOP SPACE

DOCK

EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL FACILITIES

MEMORIAL CENTER

ACCOMMODATION FACILITIES

RESTORATION OF CURRENT SITUATION

RE-USE OF SPACES FOR COLLECTING WATER

MEMORIAL

PATH AROUND ISLAND

5.1.THE BIG WIRE MEMORIAL CENTRE /MEMORIJALNI CENTAR VELIKA ŽICA The Big Wire camp, located in a valley with access to the Vela Draga Bay, was the second, but also the largest camp built on Goli Otok. Construction began with the increase of prisoners, already in 1950, and gained its final form by the end of 1951. The original camp with 19 stone pavilions and the so called square at its foot was ruined in the years after 1968. Today, the concrete prison objects do not represent a clear image of its previous state. Apart from the administrative building and the two storage objects, nothing in the valley was preserved in its original form and the pavilions were completely demolished. The only visible objects are the plateaus and the foundation walls that awaken memories of the previous state. Today, the area of the Big Wire is not only interesting due to the topography of the camp’s location but also due to the historical weight it carries. Cultural and memorial value of the Wire eradiate out of every hand-carved rock and that is why it was imagined and designed as a memorial centre where it evokes emotions and memories in visitors and tries to reconstruct the past, while they walk through different spatial structures and interventions. The Big Wire memorial centre project was primarily imagined in order not to disrupt all the objects that have cultural and historical value and to preserve the raw nature that surrounds the camp in its original form with minimal intervention. The first intervention in the space refers to the objects built in the period of legal prison after 1956, which block the view with its position and also the insight into the camp’s previous state. The first venture that allowed the visitor easier visualization of the camp and better walking lines and perspectives, was the cutting of prison concrete objects only in the necessary proportion. The view on the pavilions, which were the most significant parts of the camp, was opened. 10x15x2.5 in dimension, located on a cascading terrain surrounded by barren rocks and wire, they were the home of up to

Logor Velika Žica smješten u kotlini sa izlazom u uvalu Vela Draga bio je drugi, ali najveći izgrađeni logor na Golom otoku. Izgradnja je započela sa naglim povećanjem zatvorenika već 1950. godine, a svoj konačan izgled poprimio je do kraja 1951.godine. Originalni izgled logora sa 19 kamenih paviljona i takozvanim trgom u podnožju narušen je u godinama nakon 1968. Danas betonski zatvorski objekti ne dozvoljavaju jasnu sliku prijašnjeg stanja. Osim upravne zgrade i dva gospodarska objekta u uvali ništa nije ostalo u izvornoj formi dok su paviljoni u potpunosti srušeni. Vidljivi su samo platoi i temeljni zidovi koji bude sjećanje na prijašnje stanje. Danas prostor Velike Žice nije samo zanimljiv zbog topografije u kojoj se logor smjestio već zbog povijesne jačine koju nosi. Kulturna i memorijalna vrijednost Žice zrači iz svakog ručno isklesanog kamena i iz tog razloga je zamišljena i projektiranja kao prostor memorijalnog centra u kojem je posjetitelj izazvan da prolazeći kroz različite prostorne strukture i intervencije u prostoru evocira osjećaje, sjećanja i pokuša rekonstruirati prošlost. Projekt memorijalnog centra Velika Žica osmišljen je prvenstveno da svi objekti koji imaju kulturnu i povijesnu vrijednost ne budu narušeni te da surova priroda koja okružuje logor ostane u svom izvornom obliku sa minimalnim intervencijama. Prva intervencija u prostoru odnosi se na objekte izgrađene u razdoblju legalnog zatvora iza 1956. godine, koji svojim položajem zaklanjaju pogled i uvid u prijašnje stanje logora. Rezanje zatvorskih betonskih objekata u samo onom omjeru u kojem je neophodno, prvi je poduhvat koji dozvoljava posjetitelju lakše vizualiziranje logora te bolje hodne linije i vizure. Otvorio se pogled na paviljone koji su bili najznačajniji dio logora. Dimenzija 10 x15 x 2.5 metra, smještenih na kaskadnom terenu okruženi golim kamenjarom i žicom bili su dom i do 4000 ljudi u vrlo lošim životnim uvjetima. Ocrtavajući tlocrtno paviljone staklenim platnom u visini od 2.5

4000 people in very poor living conditions. Outlining the layout of the pavilions with a glass canvas 2.5 meter high, the space of memorial significance was marked. The glass, completely transparent, allowed for everything to remain untouched and visible, but at the same time gave a very clear indication of the previous state. Glass was selected as the material because it is transparent and open, everything that Goli Otok was not at the time when it was a political camp. The last intervention in the area of the Big Wire is marking a great event that stayed deeply rooted in the memory of every person that lived on Goli Otok, the so called running the gauntlet (Croatian špalir), a form of corporal punishment. Using the terrain’s natural slope, a 2-meter high stone trench was carved, 100 meters long with different widths. At some places, sudden narrow passages evoke the sense of discomfort in the visitor, symbolizing the discomfort that every inhabitant of Goli Otok experienced when arriving at the island. Running the gauntlet gradually continues onto the existing path that leads to the memorial object in the middle of the path to the women’s prison, in the opposite bay of Senjska. A platform was envisaged at the gauntlet’s exit, which allows a clear view of the pavilion area from above.

metra obilježio se memorijalno značajan prostor. Staklo kao materijal, potpuno transparentan, u isto vrijeme je dozvolio da sve ostane netaknuto i vidljivo, a s druge strane vrlo jasno dao naznaku prijašnjeg stanja. Staklo kao materijal je izabran jer je transparentan i otvoren, sve ono što Goli Otok nije bio u vrijeme političkog logora. Zadnja intervencija u prostoru Velike Žice je obilježavanje važnog događaja koji je ostao duboko usađen u sjećanju svakog Golootočanina, tzv. špalir. Iskorištavanjem prirodnog nagiba terena urezan je kameni rov visine preko 2 metra ukupne duzine 100 metara uz različite širine. Ponegdje naglo uski prolazi evociraju osjećaj nelagode prolazniku, simbolizirajući nelagodu koju je proživljavao svaki Golootočanin pri dolasku na otok. Špalir postepeno prelazi u već postojeću stazu koja vodi do memorijalnog objekta na sredini puta do ženskog zatvora, u nasuprotnoj uvali Senjska. Nakon izlaska iz špalira zamišljena je platforma koja s visine omogućuje jasan pogled na prostor paviljona.

TODAY’S SITUATION OF VELIKA ŽICA (BIG WIRE)_M 1:1000 ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING

PRISON BUILDING

BUILDING ‘’CENTER’’

PRISON BUILDINGS

The building was constructed in the 1950., at the same time as the other parts of the camp Velika Žica (The Big Wire). The camp authorities were situated in the building, hence the building was positioned outside the enclosed, fenced area of the camp. Bearing structure is made out of stone.

This building was built after 1968., when the Goli Otok was used as a legal prison (between 1956. and 1988.) The function is unknown. Bearing structure is made out of concrete.

The building was constructed in the 1950. It was placed in the fenced area of the camp and it had very important function during the period of political camp. In this building the camp’s administration was situated, that was operated by eligible prisoners. They worked on informations of prisoners, censoring mail, counting prisoners etc. The building exists today, but not completely in its original form.

Buildings were constructed sometime in the period after 1968. and they wer in the service of the legal prison tha existed on Goli otok between 1956. an 1988. Buildings are typical corrido typology made out of concrete.

ELECTRIC STATION

ECONOMIC FACILITIES

The building was constructed after the political camp, in the period between 1956. and 1968. It is made out of concrete and it had the function of an electric station. Today the building is partly demolished.

The buildings were constructed in the 1950., at the same time as the other parts of the camp Velika Žica (The Big Wire). They used them as storerooms and for a while they included the plant for making terrazzo. Today they are in a bad condition but their original form remained the same.

PATHWAY TO THE CATTLE BREEDING PART

WATER WELL

PLAYGROUND

It was used in the period of the political camp as a water supply and in the same time it formed a center of so-called square at the base of the camp Velika Žica (The Big Wire).

The space was used as playground after 1946.

es re at nd or

CINEMA

PAVILIONS

The prison cinema was constructed after 1968. on the foundations of the old pavilions.

The pavilions were destroyed after 1968. and today the only visible parts are plateaus and foundation walls of 12 pavilions that were built in the period from 1950. to 1951. Each stone pavilion was 10m x 15m x 2.5m with gabled wooden roof. One pavilion would receive 250 people during the night.

PRISON BUILDING The building was constructed sometimes in the period after 1968. and it was in the service of the legal prison that existed on Goli otok in the period between 1956. and 1988. The building is made out of concrete.

PATHWAY TO WOMEN'S CAMP

FACILITIES IN THE SERVICE OF THE CAMP

TODAY’S SITUATION OF VELIKA ŽICA (BIG WIRE)_M 1:1000

B+GF+1

+0.00

GF+1

+6.63 GF+1 GF+1 GF

+4.08 GF

+8.82 +4.76 +6.63

+6.63

GF GF+1

+8.82

+10.69

GF GF

GF+1

GF +13.00

+16.40

+17.57

+19.60

+21.72

+23.59

+25.66

+26.48

+27.70

SECTION OF TODAY’S SITUATION OF VELIKA ŽICA (BIG WIRE)_M 1:1000

ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING

STORAGE BUILDING

WATER WELL

PRISON BUILDING

This small building was build at the entrance of the camp Velika Žica (The Big Wire) in the 1950. and it was used as a storage room. On the opposite side of the small storage building there was another building that probably had monitoring function.

It was used in the period of the political camp as a water supply and in the same time it formed a center of so-called square at the base of the camp Velika Žica (The Big Wire).

This building was built after 1968., when the Goli Otok was used as a legal prison (between 1956. and 1988.) The function is unknown. Building is typical corridor typology made out of concrete.

CINEMA

PAVILIONS

The prison cinema was constructed after 1968. on the foundations of the old pavilions.

100

NEW SITUATION OF MEMORIAL CENTER VELIKA ŽICA (BIG WIRE)_M 1:1000 MUSEUM

CUT BUILDINGS

The first intervention in the space refers to the objects built in the period of legal prison after 1956, which block the view with its position and also the insight into the camp’s previous state. The first venture that allowed the visitor easier visualization of the camp and better walking lines and perspectives, was the cutting of prison concrete objects only in the necessary proportion. The view on the pavilions, which were the most significant parts of the camp, was opened.

101

CINEMA

VIEWPOINT

PAVILIONS

The last intervention in the area of the Great Wire is marking a great event that stayed deeply rooted in the memory of every person that lived on Goli Otok, the so called running the gauntlet (Croatian špalir), a form of corporal punishment. Using the terrain’s natural slope, a 2-meter high stone trench was carved, 100 meters long with diﬀerent widths. At some places, sudden narrow passages evoke the sense of discomfort in the visitor, symbolizing the discomfort that every inhabitant of Goli Otok experienced when arriving at the island. Running the gauntlet gradually continues onto the existing path that leads to the memorial object in the middle of the path to the women’s prison, in the opposite bay of Senjska.

A platform was envisaged at the gauntlet’s exit, which allows a clear view of the pavilion area from above.

Outlining the layout of the pavilions with a glass canvas 2.5 meter high, the space of memorial signiﬁcance was marked. The glass, completely transparent, allowed for everything to remain untouched and visible, but at the same time gave a very clear indication of the previous state. Glass was selected as the material because it is transparent and open, everything that Goli Otok was not at the time when it was a political camp.

102

PATHWAY TO WOMEN'S CAMP

NEW SITUATION OF MEMORIAL CENTER VELIKA Å½ICA (BIG WIRE)_M 1:1000

B+GF+1

+4.88

GF GF+1 GF

+0.00

+6.63 +8.82

+4.08 GF

+4.76 +6.63

+6.63 GF

GF+1 +8.82 GF+1 +10.69

103

GF GF

GF+1

+10.69

GF GF +13.00

+16.40

+17.57

+19.60

+21.72

+23.59

+39.06

104

+25.66

+26.48

+27.70

SECTION THROUHT MEMORIAL CENTER VELIKA ŽICA (BIG WIRE)_M 1:1000

MUSEUM

CUT BUILDINGS to the objects built in the period of legal

Wire Memorial Centre, is located in the The one-storey object, 40mx12m in dimension, located on a narrow terrain a

the camp’s previous state. The ﬁrst venture that allowed the visitor easier

stone facade which today has signiﬁcant value. on the pavilions, which were the most signiﬁcant parts of the camp, was opened.

105

‘’ŠPALIR’’

PAVILIONS

Great Wire is marking a great event that stayed deeply rooted in the memory of every person that lived on Goli Otok, the so called running the gauntlet

. Outlining the layout of the pavilions with a glass canvas 2.5 meter high, the space of memorial signiﬁcance was marked. The glass, completely transparent, allowed for everything to remain untouched and visible, but at the same

punishment. Using the terrain’s natural slope, a 2-meter high stone trench was carved, 100 meters long with diﬀerent widths. At some places, sudden narrow passages evoke the sense of discomfort in the visitor, symbolizing the discomfort that every inhabitant of Goli Otok experienced when arriving at the island. Running the gauntlet gradually

previous state. Glass was selected as the material because it is transparent and open, everything that Goli Otok was not

leads to the memorial object in the middle of the path to the women’s prison, in the opposite bay of Senjska.

106

107 FIGURE 39.3D RENDERING OF ‘‘ŠPALIR’’, MIA-MARTINA HREN

108

109 FIGURE40 .3D RENDERING OF ‘‘ŠPALIR’’, MIA-MARTINA HREN

110

5.2.MUSEUM AS A PART OF MEMORIAL CENTRE VELIKA ŽICA/MUZEJ KAO DIO MEMORIJALNOG CENTRA VELIKA ŽICA

The museum, an expositional and educational contribution to the Great Wire Memorial Centre, is located in the camp’s former administrative building. The one-storey object, 40mx12m in dimension, located on a narrow terrain a little higher in relation to the rest of the camp, demands attention with its rich stone facade which today has significant value. The project task, which included preserving the outer layer of the building, allowed the manipulation and reorganization of the interior which resulted in an interesting solution. Airspace was placed in the south part of the building, and it runs through the entire height of the object, opening a view to the basement space that formerly functioned as a dungeon. At the same time, while climbing, the visitor’s view is directed and framed towards the Great Wire. At the north side of the museum there is a permanent exhibition space while the same area on the upper floor was imagined as a space for temporary exhibitions. Thinking about the sustainable factor of the museum, the entire object is multifunctional due to the new concrete skeleton construction which has also strengthened the existing stone walls and allowed a complete freedom of the interior.

Muzej kao izložbeni i edukativni doprinos memorijalnom centru Velika Žica smjestio se u bivšoj upravnoj zgradi logora. Jednokatni objekt dimenzija 40 m x 12 m smješten na kosom terenu pomalo uzvišen u odnosu na ostatak logora plijeni pažnju svojom bogatom kamenom fasadom koja danas ima značajnu vrijednost. Projektni zadatak koji je uključivao očuvanje vanjske omotnice zgrade dozvolio je unutrašnju manipulaciju i reorganizaciju prostora što je rezultiralo interesantnim rješenjem. U južnom dijelu zgrade smjestio se zračni prostor koji prolazi cijelom visinom objekta i otvara pogled na podrumski prostor korišten u funkciji tamnica. U isto vrijeme dok se posjetitelj penje pogledi su mu usmjereni i uokvireni prema Velikoj Žici. Na sjevernoj strani muzeja smješten je stalni izložbeni prostor dok je na katu na istoj poziciji zamišljen prostor za privremene izložbe. Razmišljajući o održivom faktoru muzeja, kompletan objekt je multifunkcionalan zbog nove betonske skeletne konstrukcije, koja je ujedno osnažila postojeće kamene zidove, ali i pružila potpunu slobodu unutarnjeg prostora.

111

SITUATION OF MUSEUM_M 1:500

+15.85

+7.94

+4.88

+6.58

B+GF+1

+5.73

+0.00 GF

GF+1

-1.80

GF GF+1 +4.08 -3.52 GF

112

BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN_M 1:250

3 1 -3,05

1.VERTICAL COMMUNICATIONS 2.OFFICE 3.FILE STORAGE 4.ARCHIVE STORAGE 5.MATERIAL STORAGE 6.MUSEUM OBJECTS STORAGE 7.DUNGEONâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S REMAINS 113

GROUND FLOOR_M 1:250

3 0,00

-3,23

1 -1,36

-2,21

1.ENTRANCE 2.INFORMATION DESK 3.VERTICAL COMMUNICATIONS 4.TOILETS 5.PERMANENT EXHIBITION SPACE 6.RAMP AROUND AIR SPACE 114

1.VERTICAL COMMUNICATIONS 2.OFFICE 3.FILE STORAGE 4.ARCHIVE STORAGE 5.MATERIAL STORAGE 6.MUSEUM OBJECTS STORAGE 7.DUNGEONâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S REMAINS

3 1 -3,05

FIRST FLOOR_M 1:250

SECTION 1-1_M 1:2 115

SECTION 2-2_M 1:250

250 116

AXONOMERTY OF MUSEUM

117

NEW ROOF CLADDING

WOODEN TRUSS

VERTICAL COMMUNICATIONS

TEMPORARY EXHIBITION SPACE-MULTIFUNCTIONAL SPACE

RAMP AROUND AIR SPACE

PERMANENT EXHIBITION SPACE

ARCHIVE , FILE, MATERIAL, MUSEUM OBJECTSTORAGE

DUNGEONâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S REMAINS

118

119 FIGURE 41. 3D RENDERING OF MUSEUMâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S INTERIOR, MIA-MARTINA HREN

120

5.3.MEMORIAL BUILDING /MEMORIJALNI OBJEKT A place where one world meets the other. A place where men’s and women’s camp meet. A place of necessity. Located at 79 meters above sea level on the path between the men’s Velika Žica (Big Wire) camp and women’s camp, it represented the only source of potable water for the female prisoners. The weather conditions did not allow the boat with water to sail into the women’s camp. The memorial object that dives out of water, 10m x 2,5m x 15m in dimension, coated with dark terrazzo panels is a vertical composition that stands out from its surroundings, calling to be visited. Neither the dimensions nor the object’s material were selected randomly – they all carry great symbolic value. The pavilions of the Velika Žica (Breat Wire) were of the same dimensions, but placed horizontally and housed over 250 people. Using the same dimensions, the visitor can understand the state in which the prisoner was with 249 more people. The object’s interior is simple and, on the one hand, also brutal and honest. Two opposite spiral staircases symbolize the arduous path. The path that both male and female prisoners had to cross in severe weather conditions and harsh terrain. One spiral staircase symbolizes the path the men had to cross to bring water, and the other symbolizes the women’s path. The highest platform of the object symbolizes the peak where the object itself is located. A meeting place. With an open view of both the men’s and women’s camp, the visitors have the possibility to feel the harsh world where the prisoners, men and women, existed surrounded with rock.

Mjesto susreta jednog svijeta sa drugim. Mjesto dodira muškog i ženskog logora. Mjesto nužnosti. Smješteno na nadmorskoj visini od 79 metra na putu između muškog logora Velike Žice i ženskog logora, predstavljalo je zatvorenicama jedini dodir s pitkom vodom. Vremenski uvjeti nisu dozvoljavali da brod s vodom uplovi u ženski logor. Memorijalni objekt koji izranja iz vode dimenzija 10x 2,5 x 15m obložen u tamne terrazzo ploče, vertikalna je kompozicija koja odudara od okoline pozivajući da se posjeti. Niti dimenzije niti materijal objekta nisu odabrani slučajno, svi nose veliku simboličnu vrijednost. Iste dimenzije, ali u horizontalnom položaju imali su paviljoni Velike Žice u koje je znalo biti smješteno i preko 250 ljudi. Uzimajući iste dimenzije posjetitelju je moguće razumjeti stanje u kojem se nalazio zatvorenik sa još 249 ljudi. Unutrašnjost objekta je jednostavna i moglo bi se reći u jednu ruku brutalna i iskrena. Dva nasuprotna spiralna stepeništa simboliziraju mukotrpni put. Put kojeg su po teškim vremenskim uvjetima i surovom terenu prolazili zatvorenici i zatvorenice. Jedne spiralne stepenice simboliziraju put kojeg su muškarci prolazili da bi donijeli vodu, dok druge simboliziraju ženski put do vode. Najviša platforma objekta simbolizira vrh na kojem je i smješten objekt. Mjesto susreta. S otvorenim pogledom, u isto vrijeme na muški i ženski logor, posjetitelji su u mogućnosti da osjete surovost svijeta u kojem su egzistirali zatvorenici i zatvorenice opkoljeni kamenom.

121

SITUATION

COMPLEX OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES FROM THE PERIOD AFTER 1956.

MEMORIAL BUILDING VELIKA ŽICA (BIG WIRE)

WOMEN’S CAMP

STONE INTERVENTION IN LANDSCAPE (1949-1956)

CATTLE BREEDING PART

122

SITUATION_1:1500

123

FLOOR PLAN_1:50

124

SECTION 1-1_1:100

125

SECTION 2-2_1:100

126

SECTION 3-3_1:100

127

SECTION 4-4_1:100

128

NORTH -WEST ELEVATION_1:100

129

NORTH -EAST ELEVATION_1:100

130

SOUTH-EAST ELEVATION_1:100

131

SOUTH-WEST ELEVATION_1:100

132

133 FIGURE 42. 3D RENDERING OF MEMORIAL BUILDING, MIA-MARTINA HREN

134

135 FIGURE 43. 3D RENDERING OF MEMORIAL BUILDING, MIA-MARTINA HREN

136

137 FIGURE 44. 3D RENDERING OF MEMORIAL BUILDING, MIA-MARTINA HREN

138

139

6.FOOTNOTES, REFERENCES AND FIGURES /FUSNOTE, LITERATURA I SLIKE

140

FOOTNOTES Vlg. o.A.,radio.hrt.hr/radio-zadar/clanak/video-goli-otok-hrvatski-alcatraz/99865/lg, 15.02.2016. Vlg. Previšić, 2014,132. 3 Vlg.o.A.,www.jutarnji.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/udbin-popis-objavili-imena-16.101-zatocenika-golog-otoka/847201/, 15.02.2016. 4 Tanović, 2015, 37. 5 Vlg. Lidija Butković Mićin,http://www.zarez.hr/clanci/arhitektura-sjecanja, 20.01.2016. 6 Vlg. Nora, 1989,135-140. 7 Vlg. Erll, Nunning, 2010, 77-127. 8 Maurice Halbwachs was a French philosopher and sociologist known for developing the concept of collective memory Vlg. Olick, 2007,7-8 9 Jan Assmann is a German Egyptologist. He workes very close with his wife Aleida Assmann, who also studied Egyptology and English literature. Together they have very much influenced and formed the discourse about the existence of a collective memory-a cultural memory. 10 Vlg. Winter, 1999, 71-77. 11 Vlg. Tanović, 2015, 16-18. 12 Vlg, Tanović, 2015, 126-177. 13 Adorno,1977,177-195. 14 Young,2003, 245. 15 Vlg. Riegel,1982,21. 16 Kunstwollen or ‘’artistic will’’ according to Riegel 17 Vlg.Tanović, 2015, 33. 18 Vlg. Janson, 1976, 1. 19 Vlg. Doss, 2010, 37-48. 20 Doss, 2010, 39. 21 Vlg. Doss, 2010, 37-48. 22 Vlg. Prasad Rai, 2011, 11. 23 Vlg. Bogdan Bogdanović i njegova filozofija razaranja, www.jergovic.com/ajfelov-most/bogdan-bogdanovic-i-njegova-filozofija-razaranja, 25.01.2017. 24 Vlg. Prasad Rai, 2011, 12-13. 25 Vlg. Slomljeni pejzaž-Spomen obilježje Gordanu Ledereru,pogledaj.to/arhitektura/slomljeni-pejzaz-spomen-obiljezje-gordanu-ledereru, 25.01.2017. 26 Vlg. Nebojša Antešević, www.superprostor.com/prostor-konacnosti-izmedu-mesta-i-nadmesta-bezanijska-kosa-trg-ispracaja/7943, 20.01.2016. 27 Vlg. Tanović, 2015, 126-129. 28 Vlg. Tanović, 2015, 131-137. 29 Vlg.Pašić, 2011,80-81. 1 2

141

Vlg. Tanović, 2015, 160-177. Vlg.63 Jahren danach von Jochen Gerz, www.gat.st/news/63-jahre-danach-von-jochen-gerz, 07. 01.2017. 32 Vlg. Barsalou,Baxter, 2007, 1-2. 33 Young,2003, 150. 34 Vlg. Barsalou,Baxter, 2007, 4. 35 Vlg. o.A.,dnevnik.hr/putovanja/otok-sveti-grgur-hrvatski-otok-na-kojem-je-desetljecima-bio-zatvor-za-zene---296461, 18.12.2016. 36 Vlg. Cvijetanović Starac, 2011, 5-7. 37 Vlg. Cvijetanović Starac, 2011, 8. 38 Vlg. Goli otok, nekadašnji Alkatraz, smart-travel.hr/goli-otok-nekadasnji-alcatraz-na-jadranu,18.12.2016. 39 Vlg.Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, mapire.eu/de, 20.12.2016. 40 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 94. 41 Vlg. Giulia Rocco,storybuilder.jumpstart.ge/ka/goli-otok-zaborava, 20.12.2016. 42 The State Security Servic, more commonly known by its original name as the State Security Administration (UDBA or UDSA), was the secret police of Yugoslavia. Best known at all times simply by the acronym UDBA,] in its latter decades it was composed of six semi-independent secret police organizations, one for each of the six Yugoslav federal republics, coordinated by the central federal office. 43 Vlg. Previšić, 2014,132. 44 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 94-95. 45 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 255. 46 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 115-116. 47 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 115-127. 48 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 115-127. 49 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 118-127,132. 50 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 213. 51 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 93-102. 52 Previšić, 2014, 152. 53 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 148-158. 54 Previšić, 2014, 106-207. 55 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 167-227. 56 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 167-227. 57 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 185-189. 58 Klaić,1983,1302. 59 Vlg,o.A.,www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/run-the-gauntlet,27.12.2016. 60 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 102-106. 61Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 109-129. 62 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 109-129. 63 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 109-129. 64 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 115-129. 30 31

142

Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 253-264. 66 Vlg. Grlić, 2001,189-218. 67 Vlg. Tasić,1990, 60. 68 Vlg. Grlić, 2001,189-218. 69 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 134. 70 Vlg. Previšić, 2014, 140. 71 Vlg.o.A.,www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks3/the-camps/how-were-the-camps-run/architecture-buildings-and-sub-sections/#.WG-elfnhDIU, 07.01.2017. 65

Vlg.o.A.,https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/artist/gordon-matta-clark, 01.03.2017.

Vlg.JamesAttlee,http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/07/towards-anarchitecture-gordon-matta-clark-and-le-corbusier, 01.03.2017. 73

Vlg.John Zukowsky,https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aldo-Rossi, 01.03.2017.

Vlg.o.A.,http://architecturalogy.com/aldo-rossi-monument-for-the-resistance-for-cuneo/, 02.03.2017.

Vlg.o.A.,www.HolocaustResearchProject.org, 03.03.2017.

Vlg.o.A.,http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/risiera-di-san-sabba, 03.03.2017.

143

REFERENCES Martin Previšić: Povijest informbiroovskog logora na Golom otoku 1949.-1956.,Doctorate, Zagreb 2014 Sabina Tanović: Memory in Architectur: Contemporary memorial projects and their predecessors, Delf, 2015 Klaić, Bratoljub: Veliki rječnik stranih riječi, Zagreb 1983 Tasić, David: Leševi s Golog, Ljubljana 1990 Grlić, Eva: Sjećanja, Zagreb 2001 Doss, Erika: Memorial Mania, America 2010 Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nünning, in collaboration with Sara B. Young: Cultural Memory Studies: An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook , Berlin/New York 2008 Pierre, Nora: Između sjećanja i povijesti, Zagreb 2007 Pašić, Amir: Historija arhitekture: Arhitektura poslije 1850 godine Prasad Rai, Yam: A report on Memorial Architecture, Tribhuvan 2011 o.A., (o.J): radio.hrt.hr/radio-zadar/clanak/video-goli-otok-hrvatski-alcatraz/99865/lg, in: radio.hrt.hr o.A.,(08.01.2014.): Udbin popis objavili imena 16101 zatočenika Golog otoka, www.jutarnji.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/udbin-popis-objavili-imena-16.101-zatocenika-golog-otoka/847201 in: www.jutarnji.hr/ (15.02.2016) Lidija Butković Mićin, (24.09.2013): Arhitektura sjećanja, http://www.zarez.hr/clanci/arhitektura-sjecanja,in: www.zarez.hr/ (20.01.2016.) o.A., (12.09.2015.)Bogdan Bogdanović i njegova filozofija razaranja, www.jergovic.com/ajfelov-most/bogdan-bogdanovic-i-njegova-filozofija-razaranja, in: www.jergovic.com (25.01.2017.) o.A., (10.03.2016) Slomljeni pejzaž-Spomen obilježje Gordanu Ledereru,pogledaj.to/arhitektura/slomljeni-pejzaz-spomen-obiljezje-gordanu-ledereru, in: pogledaj.to (25.01.2017.) Nebojša Antešević,(23.10.2013,) www.superprostor.com/prostor-konacnosti-izmedu-mesta-i-nadmesta-bezanijska-kosa-trg-ispracaja/7943, in: www.superprostor.com (20.01.2016.) o.A., (17.07.2014), Jahren danach von Jochen Gerz, www.gat.st/news/63-jahre-danach-von-jochen-gerz, in: www.gat.st (07. 01.2017.) Barbara Štrbac ,(28.07.2013.)dnevnik.hr/putovanja/otok-sveti-grgur-hrvatski-otok-na-kojem-je-desetljecima-bio-zatvor-za-zene---296461.html, in: dnevnik.hr (18.12.2016) o.A., (03.07.2015.)Goli otok, nekadašnji Alkatraz, smart-travel.hr/goli-otok-nekadasnji-alcatraz-na-jadranu,in: smart-travel.hr (18.12.2016.) Giulia Rocco,(o.J.)storybuilder.jumpstart.ge/ka/goli-otok-zaborava, in: storybuilder.jumpstart.ge (20.12.2016) o.A.,(o.J.)ww.phrases.org.uk/meanings/run-the-gauntlet,in: ww.phrases.org.uk (27.12.2016.) o.A.,(o.J)www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks3/the-camps/how-were-the-camps-run/architecture-buildings-and-sub-sections/#. WG-elfnhDIU,in: www.theholocaustexplained.org (01.03.2017.) o.A,(o.J.)https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/artist/gordon-matta-clark, in: www.guggenheim.org (01.03.2017.) JamesAttlee,(2017)http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/07/towards-anarchitecture-gordon-matta-clark-and-le-corbusier, in: www.tate.org.uk (01.03.2017) John Zukowsky, (10.03.2016.) https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aldo-Rossi, in: www.britannica.com (01.03.2017) o.A,(o.J.)http://architecturalogy.com/aldo-rossi-monument-for-the-resistance-for-cuneo/, in: architecturalogy.com (02.03.2017.) o.A,(o.J.)http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/risiera-di-san-sabba, in: www.atlasobscura.com (03.03.2017.)

144

FIGURES FIGURE1. THE DETAIL OF GOLI OTOK BY MARCO MENSA https://storybuilder.jumpstart.ge/ka/goli-otok-zaborava FIGURE 2. THE MONUMENT AGAINST FASCISM, JOCHEN GERZ AND ESTHER SHALEV-GERZ, HAMBURG, 1986 https://www.studyblue.com/notes/note/n/art-188-study-guide-2013-14-harvey/deck/10584883 FIGURE 3. CANADIAN MEMORIAL VIMY RIDGE http://www.worldwar1.nl/memorials/memorials.html FIGURE 4. MONUMENT DEDICATED TO JEWISH VICTIMS OF FASCISM, BOGDAN BOGDANOVIĆ, 1952. http://portalmladi.com/10-najinteresantniji-spomenika-u-srbiji-1-deo FIGURE 5. MEMORIAL ‘‘BROKEN LANDSCAPE’’, NFO ARCHITECTURAL STUDIO + PETAR BARIŠIĆ,2015. https://vizkultura.hr/slomljeni-pejzaz/ FIGURE 6. STONEHENGE http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/stonehenge/history/ FIGURE 7. RISIERA DI SAN SABBA MEMORIAL, ROMANO BOICO https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trieste-Risiera_di_San_Sabba-DSCF1482.JPG FIGURE 9. MAP OF CROATIA WITH MARKED GOLI OTOK BY MIA-MARTINA HREN FIGURE 10. EAST PART OF ISLAND BY MARCO MENSA https://storybuilder.jumpstart.ge/ka/goli-otok-zaborava FIGURE 11. GOLI OTOK BY MARCO MENSA https://storybuilder.jumpstart.ge/ka/goli-otok-zaborava FIGURE 12. GOLI OTOK BY MARCO MENSA https://storybuilder.jumpstart.ge/ka/goli-otok-zaborava FIGURE 13. GOLI OTOK FROM THE SPACE FIGURE 14. FORMER WORKSHOPS BUILDINGS BY MIA-MARTINA HREN FIGURE 15. FORMER RESTAURANT BUILDING BY DRAŽEN HREN FIGURE 16. FORMER SHIPBUILDING SPACE BY MIA-MARTINA HREN FIGURE 17. AREA FOR COLLECTING WATER BY DRAŽEN HREN FIGURE 18. FORMER SPACE OF VELIKA ŽICA (BIG WIRE) BY DRAŽEN HREN FIGURE 19. SCULPTURE IN STONE, AUTHOR UNKNOWN BY MIA-MARTINA HREN FIGURE 21. BUILDING CALLED ‘‘KAMENA ZGRADA’’, AUTHOR UNKNOWN Doktorski Rad Povijest informbiroovskog logora na Golom otoku 1949.-1956.Sveučilište u Zagrebu,2014. FIGURE 22. BUILDING CALLED ‘‘HOTEL’, AUTHOR UNKNOWN Doktorski Rad Povijest informbiroovskog logora na Golom otoku 1949.-1956.Sveučilište u Zagrebu,2014. FIGURE 23. THE FIRST PORT ON GOLI OTOK, AUTHOR UNKNOWN Doktorski Rad Povijest informbiroovskog logora na Golom otoku 1949.-1956.Sveučilište u Zagrebu,2014. FIGURE 24. WORKSHOPS, AUTHOR UNKNOWN

145

Leševi s Golog, David Tasić FIGURE 25. SLOGAN’S REMAINS, AUTHOR UNKNOWN Leševi s Golog, David Tasić FIGURE 26. ILLUSTRATION ‘‘SUFFOCATION IN WATER’’, NIĐO ERCEG http://www.cro-eu.com/forum/index.php?topic=1382.0 FIGURE 27. ILLUSTRATION ‘‘RUNNING THE GUANTLET’’, MIROSLAV ACIĆ http://hdlskl.hr/svjedocanstva/banja-luka/ FIGURE 28. MAPS OF FORMER CAMPS BY MIA-MARTINA HREN FIGURE 29. ILLUSTRATION OF THE FIRST CAMP ‘‘STARA ŽICA’’ (OLD WIRE); ALFRED PAL Doktorski Rad Povijest informbiroovskog logora na Golom otoku 1949.-1956.Sveučilište u Zagrebu,2014. FIGURE 30. CAMP ‘‘VELIKA ŽICA’’ (BIG WIRE); AUTHOR UNKNOWN Doktorski Rad Povijest informbiroovskog logora na Golom otoku 1949.-1956.Sveučilište u Zagrebu,2014. FIGURE 31. PAVILION IN CAMP ‘‘VELIKA ŽICA’’ (BIG WIRE),AUTHOR UNKNOWN Leševi s Golog, David Tasić FIGURE 33. FEMALE CAMP http://factum.com.hr/hr/filmovi_i_autori/novi_filmovi/goli FIGURE 34. DETAIL ON GOLI OTOK, MIA-MARTINA HREN FIGURE 35. ANARCHITECTURE_GORDON MATTA-CLARK https://www.pinterest.com/emanuelamastrog/gordon-matta-clark/?lp=true FIGURE 36. MONUMENT TO THE RESISTANCE IN CUNEO, 1962, ALDO ROSSI https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e7/2d/5d/e72d5dbf3b1c23c5efa910783e1fd7ef.jpg FIGURE 37. NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMP RISIERA DI SAN SABBA, TRIESTE https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Trieste-Risiera_di_San_Sabba-DSCF1483.JPG FIGURE 38. DETAIL ON GOLI OTOK, MIA-MARTINA HREN FIGURE 39.3D RENDERING OF ‘‘ŠPALIR’’, MIA-MARTINA HREN FIGURE 40.3D RENDERING OF ‘‘ŠPALIR’’, MIA-MARTINA HREN FIGURE 41. 3D RENDERING OF MUSEUM’S INTERIOR, MIA-MARTINA HREN FIGURE 42. 3D RENDERING OF MEMORIAL BUILDING, MIA-MARTINA HREN FIGURE 43. 3D RENDERING OF MEMORIAL BUILDING, MIA-MARTINA HREN FIGURE 44. 3D RENDERING OF MEMORIAL BUILDING, MIA-MARTINA HREN

146

147

ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND DEDICATIONS First and foremost I would like to thank my parents and my brother Dražen who encouraged me my whole life and enabled me to be the person I am today. Big thanks to my Professor Hirschberg and special thank you to my co-supervisor Milena Stavrić who followed every step of this project. Thanks to Mr. Darko Bavoljak-President, from the Association Goli otok ‘’Ante Zemljar’’, without him this work would have been impossible. I am grateful to my dear friends and colleagues Ajla Imamović,Tarik Jarkoč, Ružica Konjevod, Tea Pejar, Božena Rajič, Anthea Sršen and especial to my best friend and partner Tomislav Konjevod.

ZAHVALA Na prvom mjestu zahvaljujem se svojim roditeljima i bratu Draženu koji su me cijeli zivot bodrili i omogućili mi da danas postanem ovo sto jesam. Hvala profesoru Hirschberg-u, a posebno hvala profesorici Mileni Stavrić koja je pratila svaki korak i napredak ovog rada. Zahvaljujem se gospodinu Darku Bavoljaku, predsjedniku udruge Goli otok Ante Zemljar bez kojeg bi ovaj rad bio nemoguć. Veliko hvala mojim dragim prijateljima i kolegama Ajli Imamović,Tariku Jarkoču,Ružici Konjevod, Tei Pejar, Boženi Rajič, Anthei Sršen, a posebno hvala mom najboljem prijatelju i partneru Tomislavu Konjevodu.

148