Aleš Gabrič
Umetnost in politika v partizanski Beli krajini
Art and Politics in the Partisan-era Bela Krajina
Slovenski sinopsis
English synopsis
English summary
Slovenski sinopsis
Prispevek govori o literarnem aktivizmu in cenzuri v partizanski Beli krajini. Slabe strani aktivizma so omejevali umetniki med partizani, ki so v odkritem pogovoru s politiki razjasnili nekatera odprta vprašanja, razlike pa so le še ostale in se še močneje pojavile v prvem povojnem obdobju. Bolj kot cenzuri so bili umetniki v vojnem času podvrženi avtocenzuri. Politika je namesto klasične cenzure na umetniško področje vplivala z ločevanjem umetnikov na bolj in manj zaželene ali celo nezaželene in neuradno prepovedane. Pri ločevanju so glavno vlogo namesto kulturnih prevzeli politični kriteriji. Cenzurnih in drugih posegov političnih veljakov na umetniška tla je bilo med vojno manj kot pred njo in po njej. Za te niti ni bilo pravega vzroka niti potrebe, saj se je vpliv vojne in političnih delitev na umetnike močno odražal v njihovem delu in je bil poziv k aktualnosti ali literarnemu propagandizmu odvečen.
English synopsis
The paper discusses literary activism and censorship in the Partisan-controlled region of Bela krajina during World War II. Attempts to bridle negative sides of the activism came from artists among Partisans, who cleared up a number of questions in their open discussions with politicians. However, differences remained and even intensified after the war. During the war, artists were not constrained so much by censorship as by self-censorship. Political leaders, rather than by using censorship, exerted their influence by dividing artists into more and less wanted, or even unwanted and unofficially banned. In this categorisation, the main criteria were not artistic but political. Censorship and other interventions by influential politicians in art were during the war less common than either before or after it. There does not seem to have been a real need for that, as the influence of war and political divisions on artists was strongly reflected in their works anyway, so any call for engaged and propagandistic literature was superfluous.
English summary
The paper discusses literary activism and censorship in the Partisan-controlled region of Bela krajina during World War II. Attempts to bridle negative sides of the activism came from artists among Partisans, who launched polemical debates regarding bias in art, calls for activism and the partisan birch, arguing that the very number of artists who had joined the Partisan movement proved how they viewed war and the political reality. Open discussions between artists and politicians cleared up a number of questions, but differences remained and even intensified after the war.
During the war, artists were not constrained so much by censorship as by self-censorship, which is in a conflicting political situation usually a product of one's personal understanding of the sharp contrasts and actions bordering on inhumanity. Official censorship existed only for agitprop theatre plays, which were in general pieces of propaganda rather than works of art. Rather than by using censorship, political powers exerted their influence by dividing artists into more and less wanted, or even unwanted and unofficially banned. In this categorisation, the main criteria were not artistic but political. If we want to look for a censor who controlled Partisan writers during the war, we should search at the other Slovene political pole.
Censorship and other interventions by influential politicians in art were during the war less common than either before or after it. In a way it is surprising that in a serious political situation, such as World War II was in Slovenia, political interventions in art were not more widespread. However, there does not seem to have been a real need for that, as the influence of war and political divisions on artists was strongly reflected in their works anyway, so any call for engaged and propagandistic literature was superfluous.
