Mladen Stilinović's work from the "Exploitation of the Dead" cycle, depicting a photograph of one of the typical Party gatherings. The photograph itself, outside the context of Stilinovic's work, would represent visual proof of the Party gathering. But, as a part of his work, it points to the weariness of such gatherings, and thus to the end of the socialist period.

A volume of Jonynas’ writings was published in 1984, edited by one of his students, the famous Lithuanian historian Vytautas Merkys. It includes several previously unpublished works: Jonynas’ autobiography, and the article ‘Lithuanian historiography’. It also contains several letters from Jonynas from the interwar period to various foreign historians. Jonynas’ most important work ‘Vytautas’ Household’ was published for the first time in Soviet Lithuania. Practically all the documents were taken from the Jonynas collection.

The second issue of the magazine Viks, entitled “Homosexuality and Culture,” came out on April 24, 1984, the opening day of the Magnus Film Festival, the first cultural manifestation dedicated to homosexuality in any socialist country. The magazine was edited by a group of gays and lesbians who gathered around the youth cultural center ŠKUC and organized the festival. This special edition of the magazine was printed in 600 copies and handed to audiences at the festival. It contains 42 pages, and approximately 20 illustrations with contemporary, easily recognizable European gay subcultural motifs. Over the three following decades, this issue of Viks gained a cult status in Slovenian and the post-Yugoslav LGBT community, and was exhibited at events dedicated to the history of homosexuality and the LGBT movement.

Alongside the festival’s program and a schedule of affiliated cultural and club events, in an effort to appeal to the younger generation of Ljubljana’s gays, lesbians and artists, Viks also carried several lengthy programmatic articles and interviews with emancipatory, educational and mobilizing overtones. Thus it aligned itself politically and theoretically with contemporary liberationist, leftist and counter-cultural movements in Slovenia and Western Europe. These texts promote an ideal of freely and openly lived (homo)sexuality. Non-normative sexual practices were viewed as strongly dissident in nature, but not so much against socialism as against patriarchal and traditional forms of sexual and family life.

The article “Pink Love under the Red Stars – Homosexuality under Real Socialism” (“Roza ljubezen pod rdečimi zvezdami – homoseksualizem pod realnim socializmom,” pp. 18-21) delivers a historical overview of the legal and social status of same-sex sexual and emotional relationships in socialist countries. The anonymous author is equally critical of the 20^th century discrimination of homosexuality both in western liberal democracies and socialist countries. However, the Stalinist period in the USSR was seen as especially brutal and arduous insofar as it attributed negative political meanings to homosexuality, declaring homosexuals “traitors,” foreign “spies,” decadent bourgeoisie, and enemies of socialism. Soviet homosexuals, the article suggests, were not able to recover from this traumatic period, and were still unable to engage with emancipatory social movements and practices. At the same time, the example of the German Democratic Republic (GDR, known also as East Germany) is held as an example of both positive changes in communist stance on homosexuality, and a way in which, since the late 1970s, a dialogue could take place between the government and gay and lesbian groups.

This photograph from the Ștefan Gane Collection is a testimony to the Ceaușescu regime's policy of transforming the urban landscape and destroying everything that was opposed to its vision. An example of this is the almost total destruction in 1985 of the Mihai Vodă Monastery, of which only the church and the bell tower were preserved and moved to another site down an incline.

The church of the former Mihai Vodă Monastery is an emblem of premodern Bucharest and one of the oldest buildings that have been preserved in Bucharest. Built in 1594, over time it had several destinations, including Princely Residence, Military Hospital, Medical School, and headquarters of the State Archives. It was founded by one of the most important rulers in the Romanians' national history: Mihai Viteazul (Michael the Brave). He was the ruler of Wallachia between 1593 and 1601 and the only leader of one of the premodern states existing in the modern perimeter of modern Romania that unified, for the period 1600–1601, a territory roughly equal to that of today's Romania. Thus Mihai Viteazul was considered from the nineteenth century an important figure in national history. Under the communist regime, historiography of gave Mihai Viteazul a much more important place in national history than he had had before. He was named as the prefigurer of the so-called "Union of 1918". This historical event consisted of the annexation of the historical regions of Austro-Hungary, inhabited mostly by Romanians to the so-called Old Kingdom of Romania and was materialised in the Peace Treaties of Saint-Germain (1919) and Trianon (1920). This image of Mihai Viteazul as anticipator of the “Union of 1918” was strongly promoted under the Ceauşescu regime not only through textbooks and historical works, but also through the historical film Mihai Viteazul, made in 1970.

Despite the overwhelming importance the communist regime granted to Mihai Viteazul, the monastery complex he founded became the most famous victim of the total demolition of Bucharest. The site where it was located, a high position in the urban landscape of the capital, was assigned by the communist authorities to the building that is now home to the Romanian Parliament. In 1985 the monastery was demolished, but not entirely. At the last moment, the church and the bell tower were moved, despite the initial plan that everything should be destroyed. The church was moved to the base of the hill, where it was subsequently hidden by communist buildings. The church was originally located on Mihai Vodă Hill, on the former Archives Street no. 2, and was moved to Sapienţei Street no. 4, where it still stands. This photograph was taken clandestinely by Ștefan Gane a few months before the edifice was moved, and went with him to France in 1985 when he emigrated. The photo in question, which is today in the Ștefan Gane collection, is in the original, 10x15 cm, printed on black and white paper. Today it is an important historical source for understanding and writing a part of Romania's recent history in connection with the project of destruction of the national patrimony practised by the communist regime between 1977 and 1989.

By late 1983, Dorin Tudoran espoused increasingly radical ideas regarding the total failure and essentially flawed character of the communist system as a whole, which he saw as irredeemable and deeply corrupt. He had already made his views public in 1983 in a series of interviews with various Western press outlets, expressing his conviction that Ceaușescu’s Romania was an absolute dictatorship and seeing the communist system as the main cause of the Romanian people’s material and moral decay. In his essay written in early 1984, Tudoran proposed a complex analysis of the role and situation of intellectuals in communist Romania. Tudoran focused primarily on the causes of his colleagues’ subservience and total submission to the communist regime. He found the roots of this phenomenon in the persecution and déclassement of this stratum by the communist authorities after 1945, comparing them systematically to their peers in Central Europe. Among the factors which generated compliance, Tudoran highlighted the specificity of local political traditions; the terror of the first decade-and-a-half of communism, which led to a mass “moral capitulation” of the intellectuals; their complete reliance on the state for professional survival; and the skilful manipulation of their upward social mobility by the communist authorities. However, Tudoran argued that the compliance of the absolute majority of intellectuals in Romania was, above all, a direct consequence of Ceauşescu’s personal rule and of the Romanian communist system. The essay concluded that Romanian intellectuals had to reassert their responsibility toward the broader society by emulating and following the lead of their predecessors from the generation of 1848, who had succeeded in breaking with the political traditions of subservience to the state and had emancipated themselves by embracing synchronicity with the West. Rejecting the notion of “resistance through culture” as inefficient and outdated, Tudoran pleaded for an alliance with other social groups on the Polish model. In his opinion, this was the only way to limit the abuses of the communist system, as long as total change was still inconceivable. This work, viewed at the time as the most radical text written by a Romanian dissident since Paul Goma, still represents the best and most convincing analysis of the Romanian intellectuals’ plight under communism produced by an “insider.” Mihnea Berindei received a typewritten copy of the original text, in Romanian, which he then forwarded to the editorial board of the journal L’Alternative, recommending it for publication. It was in fact published in French later that year (in two parts, the first in L’Alternative, no. 29, September–October 1984, pp. 42-50, and the second in the following issue). In a special note to the editors, Mihnea Berindei stated: “the text turned out to be longer than required. If possible, I suggest its publication in two parts. If not, I would very much like to […] keep its structure, including the mottos. In other words, at least something from all the chapters should be kept, since the text has a certain structure and ‘strategy.’ Maybe the complete version would be interesting for another periodical, if it is not interesting for the journal that suggested its writing […]. It’s good that the text exists. It could also be printed under another, more attractive title!” This clearly shows Berindei’s personal role in steering the text toward publication and his position of intermediary between authors writing in Romania and the Western public sphere. Despite the apparent initial hesitations of the editorial board, Tudoran’s text had a rather significant impact on the exile community and also prepared the ground for the emergence of similar critiques in the following years. This masterpiece highlights Mihnea Berindei’s contribution to the “journey” of this fundamental text of Romanian dissent toward its target audience in the West.

The collection attracted the attention of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who visited the Keston College in 1984. Thatcher attended a reception in Church House, Westminster on April 25, 1984. The photo was taken by Derek Davis, most likely, a hired photographer. According to a Keston News Service report (No. 198, 3 May 1984), this reception was held in order to mark Rev. Michael Bourdeaux’s announcement as the recipient of the 1984 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. Sir Sigmund Sternberg and the Bishop of London hosted the event, as chair and co-chair of the newly formed “Friends of Keston College.”  200 distinguished guests were in attendance, among them Margaret Thatcher. She used the opportunity to praise the work of Keston College, noting that she often quoted information provided by Keston in meetings with other heads of government because of its reliability. Margaret Thatcher is associated with the systematic economic policies of neoliberalism that emerged under the Thatcher and Ronald Reagan governments. Neoliberalism confronted the planned economies of Socialist governments throughout the decades in which the Keston Institute was most active. These linkages between the Thatcher government and the Keston College/Institute highlight the intersection of religion and ideology with the politics of neoliberalism and human rights.

The life and work of the painter Ventseslav Terziyski during the period of state socialism are an expression of resistance and standing-up for one's own positions. The paintings of Ventseslav Terziyski are not realistic; they do not create a narrative. His paintings are usually untitled. A lack of figural composition and a storyline is characteristic to his work. Terziyski does not follow established norms, nor does he observe the rules of the perspective. He therefore did not receive recognition during the era of socialism; he was not accepted into the Union of Bulgarian Artists. Terziyski refused to compromise and to take jobs offered to him. He did not participate at exhibitions. He refused to accept any government assignments. He drew on cardboard boxes or any paper he found in the streets and survived only on his paintings, which he sold at low prices to acquaintances. "With his paintings the homes of people from all over the city [Blagoevgrad] are strewn," says Dr. Nurie Muratova from the Balkan Society for Autobiography and Social Communication. The paintings of this original artist became included in an avant-garde exhibition only at the end of the communist regime, in the 11.11.88 exhibition in Blagoevgrad. In the following year, shown the day after the political change on 10 November 1989, a following exhibition was organized by the Union of Bulgarian Artists in Blagoevgrad in which Ventseslav Terziyski participated. The exhibition gained great interest and became a sign of the transition. In 2014, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the political transition, a national exhibition of contemporary art was organized in Blagoevgrad, using the symbolic title 11-11. More than 30 artists from Sofia, Blagoevgrad, Ruse, Plovdiv, Botevgrad and elsewhere participated. Ventseslav Terziyski presented new works; his paintings were included also in other exhibitions, and he has since been making annual solo exhibitions at the American University in Blagoevgrad. Today, Ventseslav Terziyski is among the most established and famous artists not only in Blagoevgrad but also in wider national context.

The Fine Art Archive consists of diverse documents connected to Czech and Slovak art of the twentieth and twenty first century. Catalogues, books, invitations, journals, photography, slides, cuts and other items have been gathered continuously since the mid-1980s.

A work from the "Exploitation of the Dead" cycle showing a large factory complex with chimneys. The picture of the great factory complexes is one of the synonyms for socialism, which was the very reason why Stilinović used it. But shown on a black background and in combination with red geometric figures, it becomes the subject of Stilinović's criticism and indicates the weariness of this socialist symbols.

The bird itself was a central figure in the work of Baász. In the preface to The Bird and the World of Peace [A madár és a béke világa] exhibition catalog from 1986, he explains the usage of the bird’s eternal motive. According to this text, the bird serves as a symbol of the artist’s creative power, of his privilege to rethink, rebuild, but also to rediscover. The wings, present in Baász’s oeuvre even without the body of the bird, are a call for options, open possibilities, freedom.

Like a red line, Ellenpontok divided Géza Szőcs’s life into two: before and after 1982. Choosing to remain in his home country, thus accepting the monitoring by the secret police that this entailed, without a job and facing existential problems, he continued his dissident activity. On 14 July 1984 in the spirit of the traditions established by Ellenpontok, he addressed a fourteen-page petition to the Central Committee of the Romanian Communist Party in which he advocated the minority rights of Hungarians, and – at that time he alone – of Germans. With the thirteenth Congress of the Party drawing near, which provided the opportunity for publishing guidelines regarding its nationality policy, Szőcs formulates his demands in ten points. In the first point he asks that the Romanian constitution should include not just personal, but also collective ethnic rights – considered a taboo subject even today –, lifting up his voice for the recognition of Hungarians and Germans living in Romania as independent ethnic-historical groups. In addition to the reestablishment of the Ministry of Nationalities which operated between 1944 and 1952, he asks for the elaboration and guarantee of a law on nationalities (ethnic minorities), in accordance with the Nationality Statute of 1945, still in force, the 1946 Nationality Draft Act of the Hungarian People’s Union and the Programme Proposal drawn-up by the editors of Ellenpontok. He asks for public debate with a view to restoring such administrative, institutional and cultural frameworks related to ethnic interests as the former Hungarian Autonomous Region, The Transylvanian Museum Society, the Union of Hungarian Writers in Romania, the Hungarian Music Conservatory in Cluj-Napoca, the network of Hungarian-language schools and the university providing Hungarian-medium education in Cluj-Napoca, etc. He requests the making public of the unification document of the Cluj-based universities, dating from 1959, which stipulated as a principle for the future an obligatory minimum number of Hungarian students and teaching staff as well as the educational framework. He raises the issue of examining subjects such as Hungarian-language film production in Romania, or the extension of the one-hour Hungarian-language television broadcast. The fifth point of the petition is especially daring, since it encourages the compilation and disclosure of lists of Hungarians and Germans living in Romania. Moreover, Szőcs argues in favour of the disclosure of social and economic statistical data concerning the various nationalities. As far as education is concerned, he asks for disclosure of the number and proportion of Hungarian and German university graduates in the period 1945 to 1984, and, in the context of the last 10 years, a full l list of graduates who were declared to be Hungarians or Germans, broken down by higher education institutions. He also asks for the disclosure of statistics regarding secondary schools, by counties and cities. In the seventh point of the petition he asks for the Romanian Communist Party to publicly take a position against the practice of the press which, wrapped in the appearance of semi-officialdom, left room in periodicals or other publications for nationalistic and anti-Semitic manifestations, presenting the historical role of nationalities, especially that of the Hungarian minority, in a one-sided and distorted manner. Szőcs asks that the Party distance itself from the anti-minority policy of the interwar governments and render impossible the revival of this policy; as for preventing the falsification of history and malicious manipulation he sees the solution in the publication of a “White Book” which will contain all the significant documents – both political and cultural – pertaining to Romanian–Hungarian historical coexistence. Szőcs suggests that Romania should initiate at the United Nations the inclusion of an article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which will explicitly address minority rights, and also bring up the topic of supplementing the convention regarding genocide to include cultural genocide and, ethnocide, including an article about the elaboration of guarantees for rendering this impossible. In support of his requests and suggestions, Szőcs supplies primarily historical data, organised into points A, B, C, D and E. A part of the nationality-related requests touched upon by Szőcs in the spirit of constitutionality, compliance with Lenin’s ethnic principles and democratic freedom of opinion were already included also in the programme proposal of Ellenpontok in one form or another. He justifies his petition by arguing that the “current solution” of the nationality issue does not, for the time being, put an end to the flux of Hungarian and German masses determined to leave the country. “Except for those embracing assimilation,” Szőcs writes, “ethnic minorities at all times and in all places have wanted to enjoy equal rights not just as individuals but also as a group. This is why we demand not just personal rights – which can often prove to be rather vulnerable – but also collective ethnic rights.” “To conclude,” he writes, “I wish to express my appreciation to the Party leadership regarding the fact that they have abandoned the practice of retaliating against the formulation and expression of opinions different from the official point of view by immediately applying physical liquidation or long-term deprivation of liberty. I am fully aware of the fact that in the 1950s I would have had to pay with my freedom or life for similar activities, such as the publication of the illegal magazine entitled Ellenpontok – notwithstanding that this magazine did not attack the existing social order, had no agitating character and did not oppose the nationality policy of the party, either, but only practices and methods that are contrary to the declared principles of this policy.” The petition of July 1984 remained without a reply. Nevertheless, Géza Szőcs continued to use this means to inform the Party leaders about the existence of primarily Hungarian minority claims. On 10 February 1985, Szőcs drew up his proposal regarding the establishment of a world alliance of minorities. “We apply to the UN with the proposal,” he wrote, “that it should lay the foundation of an institutional system under its auspices, the purpose of which is to represent in principle the interests of all the ethnic minorities in the world.” He concluded his proposal, extending over more than one page, with the following lines: “The ethnic minorities living in all parts of the world together represent an enormous majority against any majority taken separately. The Minority International conceived by us could function as a right hand extended as a sign of peace for this majority organised from minorities.” On 15 February 1985, after a personal visit paid by Szőcs, the writer and later emigrant Dorin Tudoran also signed up to the proposal, as did the economist and politician Károly Király on 27 March 1985. On 28 March 1985 Szőcs submitted another petition to the Central Committee of the Romanian Communist Party. In the sixth and last point of the petition which summed up the new developments, unwelcome from the ethnic point of view, of the months following the first petition, Szőcs asked the Romanian Party and state leadership to present and support at the UN the proposal for the creation of a minority world alliance signed by the three of them and attached to the petition. The service of the petition represented not only an organised action but also a Hungarian-Romanian joint demonstration. This proposal for a world alliance of minorities was presented also in Western countries, but no substantive reverberations resulted.

Video published in December 2016 on the YouTube channel of VLS, 47’ 17”

The material was recorded in February 1984 at the University Stage, Budapest in the third productive period of the band, after the release of their first disc, during the concert entitled Aerobic. The performance was carefully arranged and included first-time performances of new songs, large scale stage design, and costumes painted for the occasion.

The most interesting aspect of the video – beyond its documentary value – lies in the history reflected of its mediality: according to the caption it was shot by a professional television team with three cameras, but it never was broadcasted, as several small characteristics of the material suggest, for example some parts of the image are missing and black blanks have been inserted, while the sound continues.

This YouTube video is most probably the digital version of the once half-cut material: it was abandoned at this stage, when it turned out that permission would not be granted to broadcast it. However, someone archived a copy on VHS. The quality of the image suggests that this tape was digitalized then and published on the internet 32 years after the event.

There are other interesting details: the method of editing songs separately breaks the original span of the concert, some parts were clearly left out; the cameramen sometimes stands in front of the performers; the totals were recorded through the reflecting window of the technician’s cabin, so the stage design is not very prominent.

However, the pillows fixed on the performer’s garb function perfectly. The stage presence of the artists is elemental and provocative. They restart the performance of several songs, and the program is intertwined with various spontaneous actions. Some of the songs sound provocative even today.

Doctor Ivo Banac is one of the most recognized and world-famous Croatian historians. His work is also recognized by his status of professor emeritus at Yale University. His book The National Question in Yugoslavia. Origins, History, Politics, first published in 1984 in English and later in Croatian, is one of the best books dealing with the national origins and issues in Yugoslavia. In Tito's Yugoslavia, this problem was swept under the rug, but eventually, due to other reasons as well, it gave way to Slobodan Milošević attacking Croatia, resulting in the war in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Today, it is a cult book and describes the creation of Yugoslavia, explains the roots of the national problem in Yugoslavia and associated political implications. Until 1991, there was a ban on publishing the book in Yugoslavia. The importance of the book lies primarily in the scientific approach by Dr Banac and his abilities to emotionally distance himself from the issues, separating him from the numerous Croatian authors abroad. What makes this book significant is also its availability in English-speaking countries, making it accessible to foreigners and all those interested in issues associated with socialist Yugoslavia. 

"Report by Ivan Stoyanov Yankulov, Head of Division 01, Section 06 – State Security", Sofia, 30 January 1984, to the Minister of the Interior.

Through colour photographs and slides, the Alexandru Barnea private collection documents the demolitions imposed by the communist regime in the centre of Bucharest following the devastating earthquake of 1977, which served as a pretext for the destruction or mutilation of many historic monuments. The policy of demolishing the architectural and urbanistic heritage has been considered one of the most aberrant and arbitrary measures in the recent history of Romania.