Crises and Reforms of The Body The Cult
Crises and Reforms of The Body The Cult
Milena Jokanović
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy
[email protected]
The use of the body – whether it referred to representations of the leader through
media or artistic image, sculpture, photography, or specific choreographed
manifestations – is a recognizable tool for building and nurturing the personality
cult of Josip Broz Tito and communicating with the People. The crisis of the socialist 61
society and the ideological shift was therefore accompanied by sudden changes,
neglect, even literal cutting and melting of the monumental heritage, removal,
and destruction of Tito’s representations, and the forced oblivion of collective
performances that once celebrated Yugoslavia and its leader. In this paper, the
Museum of Yugoslavia in Belgrade and its surroundings will serve as the point of
departure for further reflection on the creation of a personality cult, as well as
its subsequent deconstruction and recontextualization followed by the notion of
the body’s bond to this space. Starting from the appearance of the literal and the
symbolical body of the leader, as well as the collective body in the context of the
25th of May performance and commemoration happening in the same area, we
will follow how these bodies transform over time at the same place through the
medium of contemporary art and curatorial practice.
KEYWORDS:
body, cult, crisis, contemporary art practice, socialist heritage, monument,
performance, Tito, Yugoslavia
1 The realization of this research was financially supported by the Ministry of Science,
Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia as part of the financing
of scientific research work at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade (contract
number 451-03-66/2024-03/ 200163).
Milena Jokanović: Crises and Reforms of the Body:
the Cult of Personality Fragments in Service of Reflection on Social Change
Introduction
Situating this research in the field of museology and its relation to
contemporary art practice, we will rely on the biographical method2 when
reflecting on many lives in the space of today’s Museum of Yugoslavia and
its surroundings. More precisely, the notion of the leaders’ body bond to
this particular space, whether it be the natural one or the political and
represented, symbolical one3 and its transformations through time, will be
in focus of this research. Therefore, starting from the detailed analysis of
the models used for the presidential residency creation in the service of
ruler’s identity building and the celebration of the 25th of May just across
the residency, we will follow how the identity of this space was highlighted
with the burial of the leader in its centre and creation of the Memorial, as
well as transformed later due to socio-political circumstances. Basing our
interests on the bond between (contemporary) art and heritage studies, we
will also offer a review of the art and curatorial strategies when issuing the
previous identity deeply connected to the cult of personality of the leader
and its symbolical body and the role of the Museum in this context from its
foundation in 1996 to today.4
The notion of the leader’s body, or more precisely Tito’s body in this
research is, as said, connected to the space of his residency in Belgrade,
and therefore to his natural and political body on one hand, but also to the
represented one mediated through the sculpture and collective performative
practice at this place. Recognising the representation of Tito’s body as a
62 particular mechanism for the production of the collective identity of Yugoslav
society, Maja Brkljačić explains that, in the Yugoslav case, the personification
of the social order was not the anthropomorphised body of the Party as in
other Communist countries. “In Yugoslavia, the bearer of the master fiction
of the order was none other than Tito’s body. A collection of stories, rites, and
insignia, that focused on Tito, worked to justify the existence of the State.
It was not Party which needed to be present everywhere in the most direct
possible way to maintain the existing power relations; rather, it was the face
of Tito that was the embodiment of the centre that was equated with power.”5
It is therefore important to follow how this symbolical representation of
the charismatic leader6 Tito, being it the sculptural or the collective body
2 Arjun Appadurai, “Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value,” in The Social Life of
Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986),
3–64; Igor Kopytoff, “The Cultural Biography of Tings: Commoditization as Process,” in The
Social Life of Tings. Commodities in Cultural Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1986); Marija Vasiljević, “Biografija stvari,” in Muzeologija, nova muzeologija, nauka o
baštini (Beograd: Centar za muzeologiju i heritologiju, 2013), 325–34.
3 Ernst Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1985).
4 The author of this paper has been an associate of the Museum of Yugoslavia in several
projects from 2014 to today and would like to use this occasion to sincerely thank to the
whole museum team led by the director Neda Knežević for deeper insights and openness for
collaboration, interviews and discussions.
5 Maja Brkljačić, “Titos Bodies in Word and Image,” in Narodna umjetnost 40, no. 1 (2003): 99–
127.
6 Radonja Leposavić, “Tito: harizma kao politička legitimacija – višak sećanja,” in Efekat Tito:
Harizma kao politička legitimacija (Beograd: Muzej istorije Jugoslavije, 2009), 2–13.
#6 / 2024 history in flux pp. 61 - 73
during performance was reformed, or even literally ruined when the State it
represented finally dissolute. How did the reformation of this body influence
the place once being the central spot of the representation of the leader?
Reflecting on the contemporary theory of performative turn in heritage
studies, we will also issue if this place has become a bare landscape, or if
it has a potential for a new identity construction through art and curatorial
interventions and a new museum audience bringing.
7 This part of Belgrade had important strategic and symbolical position of the ruler in the
history of Belgrade of the late 19th and the 20th century. Royal dynasties of Serbia and
Yugoslavia, Obrenović and Karađorđević families, had their Palaces on the hill and this
position functioned as an important point in the representative image of the ruler. Josip
Broz Tito therefore, tendentiously took over the top of Topčider Hill. See: Aleksandar
Ignjatović, “Otvaranje i popularizacija: Muzej 25. maj i transformacija prostora Dedinja,”
in Tito – viđenja i tumačenja, eds. Olga Manojlović-Pintar et al. (Beograd: Institut za noviju
istoriju Srbije – Arhiv Jugoslavije, 2011), 601–14.
8 We come across the term “communist court” in an interview given to the daily Borba
(September 5, 1991) by Miroslav Timotijević, then professor of the history of modern art at the
Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade. Namely, taking part in the inventory of objects
of applied art at the White and Old Royal Courts in Belgrade, Timotijević recognizes taking
over the model of the spatial arrangement from the royal dynasty in interior decoration
at the time of Tito, and he uses the term “communist court”. It is interesting that when
arranging the residence in Užička, the furniture was transferred from the White Palace or
produced following models of stylistic representative furniture based on the interiors of
other Western European palaces.
9 See more about the changing street names in Belgrade due to political ideology in: Dubravka
Stojanović, Kaldrma i asfalt: urbanizacija i evropeizacija Beograda 1890–1914 (Beograd:
Udruženje za društvenu istoriju – Čigoja štampa, 2009); Srđan Radović, Grad kao tekst
(Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek, 2013).
Milena Jokanović: Crises and Reforms of the Body:
the Cult of Personality Fragments in Service of Reflection on Social Change
the conference set with seventeen chairs and the smaller reception set with
a three-seater and armchairs, to the built-in pedestal for the bust of Lenin,
the specially made monumental painting for the wall behind the desk, built-in
boards for displaying maps, all the way to the exposed gifts to the president,
handy books and appliances – each element had its place and role in building
the image of the world and emphasizing the power of its owner. From this
cabinet onwards, the idea of creating the president’s residence and its
surroundings as a kind of ruler’s Cabinet of Wonder in which every element
emphasizes his identity and confirms him as a sovereign, forks further into
the entire complex. Thus, Tito displays his hunting trophies in a separate
house in the middle of a delicately composed paradise garden, which also
includes a small zoo, a billiards house, and a house where he keeps and gladly
shows gifts he received from the people of Yugoslavia and many foreign
diplomats.10 Finally, for his seventieth birthday, on the 25th of May 1962, Broz
received the museum building itself as a gift. This modernist edifice in front
of the residential complex stressed the cult of Tito’s image during his lifetime
and became a bridge connecting the residential complex with the carefully
constructed and used surroundings.
The May 25 Museum could be understood as a symbol of the changing
Belgrade after the Second World War and the establishment of socialist
ideology. Clarifying systems of legitimation of power through both, inherited
and new means in socialist Yugoslavia, the architecture historian Aleksandar
Ignjatović interprets the general transformation of the Dedinje quarter and
64 Topčider Hill where the Museum is, from an elite, residential part of the city to a
more open, accessible space for citizens, with the newly built “Mostar” Bridge
(1967-1974) and the “Prokop” railway station (1977) connected both with the
historical centre of the capital and with New Belgrade, the strongest symbol
of the new political order. Dedinje quarter and Topčider Hill in Belgrade were
important points in the symbolic representation of the rulers – the Obrenović
and Karađorđević dynasties, as well as Josip Broz Tito. As Ignjatović explains,
they all legitimized their power based on a similar representation of the
ruler who, like his residential space, is at the same time in the centre and
outside of the political discourse.11 The area of Dedinje quarter, therefore,
is established as a “natural” part of Belgrade, “simultaneously outside and
inside the city,” gaining a great symbolic potential “to indicate the natural
habitus of the ruler who, in that space (from) between, fixes his abode.” It
is the relationship of unity between the political (in the traditional sense
of ‘theological’) and the demotic (i.e. ‘natural’) that is at the core of reading
the space of Dedinje and the May 25 Museum as a symbol of the source of
government authority and a means of legitimating power, emphasizes this
author. The dichotomy of space, which corresponds to the aforementioned
dual legitimation of the ruler, between a closed, ruling, residential place and
an accessible, open, rearranged environment, was highlighted precisely by
the building of the May 25 Museum, which stands on the border of the two,
in front and the Museum of the 25th of May, acquired new layers of meaning
and transformations of collective body performance over time.
Finally, Josip Broz Tito is even buried in his residential complex,
leaving the literate body to dominate Topčider Hill after his death. The House
of Flowers, the previous winter garden, became therefore the Mausoleum. In
1982 the Memorial Centre of Josip Broz Tito was finally constituted opening
doors of the residential complex of the socialist president together with his
Museum of Gifts and the Mausoleum for the first time to all citizens. In the
1980s this Centre was visited by 10 to 15 thousand people per day who came
to worship the (dead) body of the leader.
in the same way as on the tombstone of Tito, illustrated very well the politics
of memory and deconstruction of the personality cult during the marked
period.20
On the other hand, the celebration of Youth Day at the end of the
‘90s and early ‘00s was still bonded to the space in front of the Museum of
Yugoslav History through the unofficial gatherings in the Youth Fountain
before the May 25 Museum building. Reflecting on these events, curator Marija
Đorgović explains: “When I first witnessed the celebration of the Youth Day,
I was surprised by the fact that every year on this day, people visit the House
of Flowers, leave batons on Tito’s grave and organize events in front of the
Museum of Yugoslav History. For a couple of years Joška Broz, Tito’s grandson,
participated in these events, representing himself like Tito’s legitimate heir
to promote his party.”21 The program of this political party22 organized at
that time at the plateau in front of the Museum included a combination of
political speeches, musical and folklore performances, and Joška Broz even
accepted relay batons before the participants of this manifestation would
place them on the grave, which gave the event new and different perspective
on that day and completely changed the appearance of the collective body.
Being almost completely neglected by Museum management,23 these events
together with the multilayered heritage of the space, have finally brought to
the moment when museum staff started considering inherited visitors as
active participants in the reproduction of memory.24
20 Milena Jokanović, Kabineti čudesa u svetu umetnosti, (Beograd: Filozofski fakultet – Centar
za muzeologiju i heritologiju, 2021), 200-04.
21 Marija Đorgović, unpublished paper, 2016.
22 Tito’s grandson Joška Broz was a president of the Communist Party from 2010 to 2022.
However, even before 2010 he was a candidate in front of the Coalition in the Serbian
parliamentary elections referring to Josip Broz Tito’s rulership with the slogan: “Kud ja
stadoh, ti produži” [Where I left off, you go on].
23 See: Vesna Adić, “Nevidljivi poklonici,” in Muzeologija, nova muzeologija, nauka o baštini
(Beograd – Kruševac: Centar za muzeologiju i heritologiju Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu
– Muzej u Kruševcu, 2013), 339-44.
24 Marija Đorgović, Milena Jokanović, “Living heritage in the Museum of Yugoslav History
– visitors as active participants in reproduction of memory,” in Lost and Found:
Heimatsuchende und Heimatlose Museen Seminar (Jena: Friedrich Schiller University, 2016).
25 Museum exhibitions such as “Tito Effect” from 2009 with the accompanying catalogue
already quoted in this text show first indications towards the new critical approach to the
uses and significations of this space. This new approach is a result of the new management
of the Museum of Yugoslavia and the new director of the time: Katarina Živanović. See more:
Milena Gnjatović, Problems of Museum’s Image Building During Museum’s (Re)construction, MA
Thesis (University of Arts in Belgrade/University Lumier Lion 2, 2014).
Milena Jokanović: Crises and Reforms of the Body:
the Cult of Personality Fragments in Service of Reflection on Social Change
the present elements of nostalgia, irony and aggression and a very complex
feeling towards those events,” Ritoša Roberts explained.
Finally, the exhibition “Figures of Memories,” set in the House
of Flowers, opened issues of many lives in today’s museum space and
the community creating the memorial place here during collective visits
and particular performances. The exhibition followed transformations of
processions of people coming to this complex on Topčider Hill in previous
decades.
The figures of memories syntagma, borrowed from the culture of
memory theory29 refers to different images – such as the tombstone itself, as
well as objects, photos, and documents including the Condolence books and
Memorial books written by thousands of visitors coming here after the funeral
– as the visual figures which help nostalgic audience recall their memories
and share emotions about the life in Yugoslavia. The exhibition revealed
data on the history and visitors to the space which today is the Museum
(represented with a big 3D graph) together with big video projections of the
contemporary visitors coming to a kind of commemoration every 25th of May.
In this way, a constant procession of people visiting this space over the years
was stressed and the museum audience felt a part of the whole setting when
entering the House of Flowers and contributing to the number of visitors in
this particular ritual. As curator Marija Đorgović, the author of the exhibition
concept concludes: “We could say that the exhibition is less informative, and
more performative. It was designed as a scenery in which museum visitors
also play their role as an integral part of the set-up, with a very reduced 69
but clear and strong conceptual determination and visual identity which
looks more like some site-specific art installation, than a classical museum
display.” 30 The exhibition was first planned to follow a work-in-progress
curatorial approach to refer to a dynamic processual character reflected in a
recreation of the exhibition space (House of Flowers) by visitors, who are seen
as the main carriers of memory and active participants in its reproduction.
They are represented by ritual circulation through the House of Flowers
which has been held for more than three decades (visually suggested by huge
photographs with procession/line of people all over the interior or standing
at Tito’s funeral in front of the House of Flowers), the continuing tradition
of leaving messages in Memorial room (which is an integral part of the
exhibition and where still official delegations come following the constituted
protocol) and through notes in visitor books, as well as social interaction
between visitors (community) in this site, especially on certain dates bond to
Tito’s life (such as the 4th of May and the 25th of May). Finally, the issue of the
function of the House of Flowers today was raised for the first time by the
Museum institution with this setting, while it was concluded that apart from
the audience, there are (still more numerous) visitors who do not perceive
29 Alaida Assmann, “Zur Metapher der Erinnerung,” in Mnemosyne. Formen und Funktionen
der kulturellen Erinnerung (Frankfurt: Taschenbuchverlag, 1991), 13-35; Jan Assmann, John
Czaplicka, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” in New German Critique, no. 65 (1995):
125–33.
30 Marija Đorgović, Milena Jokanović, “Living heritage in the Museum of Yugoslav History –
visitors as active participants in reproduction of memory.”
Milena Jokanović: Crises and Reforms of the Body:
the Cult of Personality Fragments in Service of Reflection on Social Change
31 Mitja Velikonja, Titostalgia. A Study of Nostalgia for Josip Broz (Ljubljana: Mirovni Institut/
Peace Institute, 2008).
#6 / 2024 history in flux pp. 61 - 73
Conclusion
Following the transformation of the space now known as the Museum
of Yugoslavia, this research examines the construction and dissolution of
the cult of personality through the lens of the ruler’s body, whether natural
or represented. In parallel, the theoretical concept of place-creation, formed
by the interplay of bodies within a landscape, allowed us to recognize the
many lives of the Museum of Yugoslavia’s area. These include collective
body movements on events such as the May 25th celebrations, Tito’s funeral,
subsequent commemorations, as well as performances by artists and
engagements by a new museum audience. Ultimately, it is demonstrated
that contemporary art and curatorial practices can reveal the crises and
transformations surrounding the use and representation of bodies—whether
the ruler’s or the collective—both of which are deeply tied to the uses and
abuses of this space.
Finally, the current exhibition, opened in autumn 2024 in the
Museum of the 25th of May building, focuses on the assassination of King
Alexander in Marseille, exploring the commemoration and memorialization of
his body after death. It also examines the deconstruction of his legacy at the 71
onset of the Second World War, alongside shifts in ideological discourse32
we could recognise similar models of the ruler’s political body (mis)use and
instrumentalization. Shown in this particular space, this exhibition got,
therefore, one more layer of signification, which curators have also wittingly
recognised offering a tour through the current setting in which they make a
comparative analysis of memorialisation of King Alexander I and Josip Broz
Tito.33 In conclusion, it is evident that the galleries and surroundings of the
Museum of Yugoslavia, shaped by their prior identities as a mausoleum and
their inherited visitors, cannot be regarded as a neutral exhibition complex.
Furthermore, the biography of this space presents significant potential
for deepening the understanding and interpretation of Yugoslav heritage.
Contemporary art practices have proven effective, offering new perspectives
on this contested and dissonant heritage while creating a platform for
discussion and further research.
Bibliography
1. Adić, Vesna. “Nevidljivi poklonici.” In Muzeologija, nova muzeologija,
nauka o baštini, 339-44. Beograd – Kruševac: Centar za muzeologiju i
heritologiju Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu – Muzej u Kruševcu, 2013.
2. Appadurai, Arjun. “Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value.”
In The Social Life of Tings. Commodities in Cultural Perspective, 3–64.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
3. Assmann, Alaida. “Zur Metapher der Erinnerung.” In Mnemosyne.
Formen und Funktionen der kulturellen Erinnerung, 13-35. Frankfurt:
Taschenbuchverlag, 1991.
4. Assmann, Jan, and John Czaplicka. “Collective Memory and Cultural
Identity.” New German Critique 65 (1995): 125–33.
5. Baković, Nikola. Brotherhood on the Move. Ritual Mobilities in the Second
Yugoslavia. Zagreb: Srednja Europa, 2023.
6. Brkljačić, Maja. “Titos Bodies in Word and Image.” Narodna umjetnost 40,
no. 1 (2003): 99–127.
7. Đorgović, Marija, and Milena Jokanović. “Living heritage in the Museum
of Yugoslav History – visitors as active participants in reproduction of
memory.” In Lost and Found: Heimatsuchende und Heimatlose Museen
Seminar. Jena: Friedrich Schiller University, 2016.
8. Đorgović, Marija. Unpublished paper, 2016.
9. Đorđević, Marija. Jugoslavija pamti: mesto, telo i pokret za prostore
izvođenog nasleđa. Beograd: Evropa Nostra Srbija, 2021.
72 10. Ignjatović, Aleksandar. “Otvaranje i popularizacija: Muzej 25. maj i
transformacija prostora Dedinja.” In Tito – viđenja i tumačenja, edited by
Olga Manojlović-Pintar et al., 601–14. Beograd: Institut za noviju istoriju
Srbije – Arhiv Jugoslavije, 2011.
11. Jackson, Anthony, and Jenny Kidd, eds. Performing heritage: research,
practice and innovation in museum theatre and live interpretation.
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2012.
12. Jokanović, Milena. Kabineti čudesa u svetu umetnosti. Beograd: Filozofski
fakultet – Centar za muzeologiju i heritologiju, 2021.
13. Jokanović, Milena. “Zgrada muzeja kao muzejski predmet: biografija
Muzeja 25. maj u Beogradu.” In Zbornik Matice srpske za likovne umetnosti,
edited by Vladimir Simić, 277–91. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 2021.
14. Kantorowicz, Ernst. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political
Theology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985.
15. Kopytoff, Igor. “The Cultural Biography of Tings: Commoditization as
Process.” In The Social Life of Tings. Commodities in Cultural Perspective.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
16. Leposavić, Radonja. “Tito: harizma kao politička legitimacija – višak
sećanja.” In Efekat Tito: Harizma kao politička legitimacija, 2–13. Beograd:
Muzej istorije Jugoslavije, 2009.
17. Manojlović Pintar, Olga. “O sletovima.” In Efekat Tito: Harizma kao politička
legitimacija, 40–43. Beograd: Muzej istorije Jugolsavije, 2009.
18. Stojanović, Dubravka. Kaldrma i asfalt: urbanizacija i evropeizacija
Beograda 1890–1914. Beograd: Udruženje za društvenu istoriju – Čigoja
štampa, 2009.
#6 / 2024 history in flux pp. 61 - 73
19. Radović, Srđan. Grad kao tekst. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek, 2013.
20. Vasiljević, Marija. “Biografija stvari.” In Muzeologija, nova muzeologija,
nauka o baštini, 325–34. Beograd: Centar za muzeologiju i heritologiju,
2013.
21. Vasiljević, Marija, Veselinka Kastratović, and Momo Cvijović.
“Predistorija: Osnova za razumevanje Muzeja Jugoslavije“, https://www.
muzej-jugoslavije.org/predistorija-osnova-za-razumevanje-muzeja-
jugoslavije/
22. Velikonja, Mitja. Titostalgia. A Study of Nostalgia for Josip Broz. Ljubljana:
Mirovni Institut/Peace Institute, 2008.
73