DESIRE FOR TRANSFORMATION This leads me to into a method explorations where neither destruction or completion of the monument to its pre-designed state would be a solution in part of whole. Thus, “one could argue that only the construction of the building”, such as the People’s House, or the Home of Revolution, which themselves “entailed the destruction of some previous precious remnants” of these two cities “could be construed as politically ideological.” 43 Any subsequent readings of both these edifices must be based on the aesthetic. 44 Hence, the intentionally unique aesthetic style of architecture Yugoslavia had does capture a political revolutionary act. In its absolute autonomy and abstract expression of alien-like forms, the aesthetic still poses a problem for the society of Nikšić and the public sense of identity despite the changing attitudes of generations who may no longer associate with the ideology of the building. Therefore, while the building itself - its form with hierarchy of program and space - may no longer hold power and serve as a reminiscence of a failed political ideology, its aesthetic still poses a problem. 126
Destruction is unnecessary as some present and future generations are not necessarily bothered by its presence, but only by its strange unearthly style and dilapidated state. The sense of collective memory will further fade with progression of time, and just like many of Tito’s monuments across the former Yugoslavia, they will sit abandoned and forgotten. However, Home of Revolution is one which is not so easy to forget because unlike most of the Yugoslav monuments, this one is not located in nature, atop a forested hill. It sits in the heart of the city and is passed by and stumbled upon on a daily basis.
The monument was designed almost three decades ago when sustainability was not necessarily considered as a design factor. Meanwhile, two decades of its abandonment and exposure to elements seems to suggest that much of the infrastructure is no longer sound. However, in alignment with Foucault’s theory of the power of space, the program of the building’s spaces is not inefficient. The program is adaptable and may be re-appropriated for the needs of the 21st century privatized system and globally oriented youth. This isn’t to say that the program and form are perfect as is, which is what the living architect still argues to be true. I assert that the existing program is quite excessive and redundant in comparison of the city’s population and that the form’s sheer volumetric size is also excessive and too powerful for the city and its textural fabric.
On the opposite end, this building should not be completed in its originally envisioned state despite the local government’s promises and such stated intentions because such action would not be economically sustainable. 1.
Home of Revolution, exterior view.
43. Toy, 11. 44. Ibid.