Bulgarian sculpture from the 1960s and the beginning of 21st century

by Natasha Noeva

Even today, the question about the development of Bulgarian sculpture remains topical and debatable. In the amplitudes of its diametrical deviations, the past decades have shown it both as an incarnation of dominating ideological dogmas and inconstant intentions of the government and as a territory of artistic spirituality and emancipation. This development reflects significant changes and factors of historical, political, economic and cultural nature, which undoubtedly affect art as a whole. Its places of deployment – in the exhibition hall and in the social environment, and its main transformations – as an easel picture and as monumental art, not only express its dual nature, but also reflect the interaction between these two important sides of its social being.

In the period concerned, the processes are distinguished by intensive dynamics, in which artistic experience is “pressed”, which, given the entire contestability of the initial considerations, is valuable with the posed artistic questions, with materialised sculptural and spatial solutions, with the expression of certain content-related problems, etc., and the result is development and transformation of the sculptural expression and the essence of the art of sculpture. It is curious, for instance, how the genres figural composition, portrait, and nude developed, which symptomatically outlined contradictory contributions of different periods with the tendencies that dominated them – the limitations of the 50s and the normativeness of the Socialist realism, the new suggestions from the beginning of the 60s, the problem of the significance of the individual artist’s presence, the changed views of the sculpting of the shapes, etc.

This text aims, without laying any claims to being exhaustive, at summarising historical data and artistic events, analysing artistic processes and thematic, genre and stylistic tendencies, art acts in a public environment and their socialisation.

The review starts from the 1960s, as this decade marked a new stage in the development of Bulgarian art. The overcoming of the dogmatic understanding of its essence and content started as early as the mid-50s with the April Plenary Session in 1956 and the first beginnings of democratisation of the artistic life, albeit the general model according to which visual arts functioned was still determined by the centralised government and party control, as in all other areas of cultural life. The number of general and solo exhibitions increased, and the National Youth Exhibition (1961), the exhibition of the Plovdian artists and the General Art Exhibition of the provincial artists (1962) marked the entry of the Bulgarian art into a new period. The so-called “April generation” already worked with an expanded register of themes, and were heavily interested in experimenting and the original expression, the active role of the personal position, and the problems of content and sculpture grew more complicated. The questions about the nature of realism, about the relation between form and content, about national tradition and innovation were reconsidered. The general exhibitions still predominantly presented figural compositions and portraits of workers, farmhands or revolutionaries, yet innovative solutions also emerged in the treatment of the form – elongated proportions, summarised forms, lack of detailed development of the characters (Ivan Neshev, Panayot Dimitrov, Vesa Voynska, Lyubomir Dalchev, Ana Dalcheva,[1] Victor Todorov, Penka Mincheva, Galin Malakchiev, Alexander Dyakov, Nikola Terziev, etc.). In this decade, those opposing the normative aestheticism began to express themselves in a new way, by treating the three-dimensionality of the sculptural form, creating a provisional imagery opposing the Socialist realism.

The following decade is defined as the romantic period of Socialist art, according to Dimitar Grozdanov.[2] Certainly, the processes in the 70s were a natural continuation of the tendencies that had started in the previous decade, namely: the relative liberalisation in the choice of artistic expression and overstepping the dominant ideological principles that were applicable to the artistic field. The emergence of various non-conformist and independent, even oppositional artworks, which deviated from the doctrine of government-approved art, became more common.

In the 1970s, a model of organisation in art was established, which was idealistic to a great extent. The encouragement, contracting and purchases were so many that they could not fit today’s notion of stimulating art.[3] The Union of Bulgarian Artists had a key role as the largest and only organisation of artists engaged in artistic activity in Bulgaria. The general art exhibitions held by UBA were by large a reflection of the official party and government policy. The historical theme was widely covered, and large exhibitions dedicated to the September Uprising, the April Uprising, the Great October Socialist Revolution, etc. were organised. Meanwhile, exhibitions free from any ideological framework were also held, in which the artists were at liberty to choose genres, stylistic devices and themes. 

In the 70s, the artists began to seek a signature pattern and style that could distinguish them from the general mass, either through revisiting tradition and folklore by creating a new, modern expression, or through emphasised stylisation, provisional imagery, geometrisation of forms, and transformation of the composition elements into a sign, a symbol, a bearer of new meaning. An interesting GAE was that in 1979, in which the sculpture section still included the portrait in its traditional, classic form, but together with the conventional in terms of their performance works it featured works developed in close-up, with generalised forms lacking portrait details (Angel Stanev, Tomas Kochev, Bozhidar Kozarev, etc.). This was in no way an escape from the requirements of the genre, but a search for new meaningful and stylistic interpretations of the artistic image. Another characteristic was the size of the artwork, the scale, the feeling of monumentality. An interesting fact is that in most articles from this period, the works of the sculptors who went in the direction of experiment, the expression of form, overstepping the thematicality, comprising a symptomatic sign of an innovative approach from today’s viewpoint, were then considered “flaws in the works”, and the lack of a precise sculptural equivalent of the artist’s underlying idea or the amorphousness of the very idea was also marked…“[4] Bearers of the new, of the movement, of the changes which took place in sculpture, other than the aforementioned artists, were also Emil Popov (A girl), Valentin Starchev (The Golden Age), Ivan Rusev (Remembrance), Krum Damyanov (Galin), Vasil Simeonov (A Metalworker), and Dimitar Boykov (A Portrait from Memory).

 A crucial moment for sculpture occurred after 1975, when the number of cultural events held increased manifold, and a host of new cultural institutions, galleries, museums, etc. were opened. The National Palace of Culture was completed in 1981, and the Foreign Art Gallery was opened (1985). The end of the 70s and 80s was the time when the biggest orders of monumental complexes in our history were placed. The monumental art was entrusted with the consolidation and propaganda of the power of the totalitarian state and this determined its development to a great extent, and the Union of Bulgarian Artists became the crucial unit in the government’s policy. Meanwhile, the organised general, collective, international and solo exhibitions were financed with budgets on a Union, state and regional level.

The themes of the national and general art exhibitions gradually became more diverse and that provided the artists with various sculptural solutions. Easel, and also monumental sculpture, was emancipated from the strict canons, typical of the previous decade. There was a multiformity of styles. Increasingly often, the general exhibitions displayed large-format sculptures in gypsum, and not in any durable material, which would later become a part of a memorial composition (Lyubomir Dalchev, Krum Damyanov, Ivan Neshev, Boris Gondov, Valentin Starchev, Ivan Varchev, etc.). We can summarise that two stylistic lines formed in sculpture. The first one was associated with the architectonic structure – the construction of compact and monolithic figures from stereometric volumes, whose joint placement in space marked their anatomy and movement. A representative of this line, who also had a leading role, was Lyubomir Dalchev. Together with him, part of his students such as Dimitar Daskalov, Valentin Starchev, Boris Gondov, Ivan Neshev, and Alyosha Kafedzhiyski worked in this direction.

Krum Damianov

Father and son, 2013.

Sculpture

Details

  • Photographer: The Candle House - Sveshtari
  • Material: ceramics

  • Property of: The Candle House - Sveshtari, doctor A. Kanev
  • Copyright: The Candle House - Sveshtari, doctor A. Kanev

The second line was connected with creating amorphous structures, in which convex and concave volumes merged into one another, constructing the sculptural form and building the space. Here, the line was represented by the monumental figures created by Galin Malakchiev, Alexander Dyakov, and Dimitar Boykov. The two lines often intertwined and created a diversity of individual sculptural achievements in our monumental art.[5] 

In this period, the process of assigning and construction of monuments was strictly regulated and was carried out by a State Commission (the State Commission on Fine and Applied Arts and Architecture - SCFAAA). The possibility for public initiatives was minimised. This was the period in which the character of the monuments changed. In addition to the intensive production of portrait memorials of National Revival heroes and participants of the Anti-Fascist Resistance, which inevitably decorated the squares, streets and parks of towns and cities, there were also orders of monuments that were imposing in terms of their size and design, erected on the occasion of great historical events and people – the April Uprising, the Russo-Turkish Liberation war, the Unification, men of letters, revolutionaries, educators, etc., which became increasingly commoner. This was the period of bloom of the so-called “memorial ensembles”.

sculptor Ivan Neshev, arch. V. Kolarova

Monument "Simeon and the Bookers" - Preslav, 1983.

Sculpture

Details


  • Copyright: scanned from the book 120 Years Bulgarian Art, 2, 2014

Both the purpose and the structure of the monument changed. The classic pedestals transformed into standalone or complementing the sculpture plastic bodies with a meaning of their own. If in the 40s the traditional pylon, obelisk, truncated pyramid resembled architectural elements (a gate, a fortress tower), in the 60s and the 70s, and especially in the 80s they acquired the shape of another type of symbols – a flag, a book, a flame, a spiral (Protectors of Stara Zagora monument; Chadar Mogila, Stara Zagora province, 1977; Unification Monument, Plovdiv, 1985). Such large and majestic sculptural compositions dominated everything in their vicinity, and the architectural solutions organised the ceremonial, ritual approach to them (the monument to the April Uprising, Panagyurishte, 1976, artists Dimitar Daskalov, Sekul Krumov, Velichko Minekov; Samuilova Krepost memorial complex, Petrich, 1982, Boris Gondov). A unique pinnacle in the development of the memorial ensemble was the monument built in the beginning of the 80s on the occasion of 1,300 years of the foundation of the Bulgarian state in Shumen (1981, author collective: Krum Damyanov, Ivan Slavov, Simeon Venov, Vladislav Paskalev). In them, the so extensively discussed and debated problem of the synthesis of architecture, monumental arts and environment found new and adequate solutions.

sculptor Boris Gondov, architects Rositsa Gondova, Evgenia Kasevelova

Memorial complex "Samuilova krepost" - Petrich, 1982.

Sculpture

Details

  • Photographer: scanned from the book 120 Years Bulgarian Art, item 2, 2014

  • Property of: personal archive
  • Copyright: personal archive

Krum Damyanov, Ivan Slavov, Simeon Venov, Vladislav Paskalev, arch. Georgi Gechev and Blagoi Atanasov

Memorial complex "1300 years Bulgaria" - Shumen, 1981.

Sculpture

Details


  • Copyright: scanned from the book 120 Years Bulgarian Art, item 2, 2014

Within this process of intensive monumental construction, another type of ensembles were erected, in which the meaning of architecture increased and became leading in the overall composition. It formed the interior space in which it housed and confined the sculpture (Bratska Mogila pantheon, Plovdiv, 1974, Lyubomir Dalchev, Ana Dalcheva, Petar Atanasov). A more comprehensive and complex influence of the memorial was sought and in addition to the traditional inscriptions, signs, symbols and ornaments, its interior spaces included mosaics, murals, elements of the performing arts – lighting, music, as well as museum exhibitions of relics, archive documents, photographs (the Pantheon of National Revival Heroes, Ruse, 1978, sculptors’ collective Nikola Terziev, Dimitar Boykov, Borislav Stoev).

sculptors Lyubomir Dalchev, Anna Dalcheva, Peter Atanasov, architects Vladimir Rangelov, Lyubomir Shinkov

Panteon, Plovdiv, 1974.

Sculpture

Details


  • Property of: scanned from the book 120 Years of Bulgarian Art, 2, 2014, p. 255
  • Copyright: scanned from the book 120 Years of Bulgarian Art, 2, 2014, p. 255

In the first half of the 80s, memorial ensembles were still built. Works such as Pieta, Bratska Mogila – Pleven, 1982, sculptor Valentin Starchev; the monumental Column of Letters, NPC, Sofia, 1985, sculptor Galin Malakchiev; the monument to the Asen Dynasty, Veliko Tarnovo, 1985, sculptors’ collective: Krum Damyanov, Ivan Slavov, Vladimir Ignatov; the Banner of Peace complex, Varna, 1985, Alyosha Kafedzhiyski, 1,300 years of Bulgaria in Sofia by Valentin Starchev, the Georgi Dimitrov and the revolutionary struggle of the Pernik miners complex, Sekul Krumov (1982), the Pantheon in Burgas, Valentin Starchev (1980), the Monument to Khan Aspatuh in Tolbuhin, Velichko Minekov (1981), National Revival, NPC, Dimitar Boykov (1981), and the Pantheon of Georgi Rakovski in Kotel (1982) by Dimitar Boykov and Dimitar Krastev date back to that period.

Ivan Rusev

Portals, Park area of the hotel Hissar, 2011.

Sculpture

Details

  • Material: stone

  • Copyright: scanned from 120 years Bulgarian art, 2, 2014, p. 282

Emil Popov

Interior of Sculpture exhibition, Art Center Pleven, 2018.

Sculpture

Details

  • Photographer: personal archive
  • Material: ceramics

  • Property of: Emil Popov
  • Copyright: Emil Popov

In the first half of the 80s, memorial ensembles were still built. Works such as Pieta, Bratska Mogila – Pleven, 1982, sculptor Valentin Starchev; the monumental Column of Letters, NPC, Sofia, 1985, sculptor Galin Malakchiev; the monument to the Asen Dynasty, Veliko Tarnovo, 1985, sculptors’ collective: Krum Damyanov, Ivan Slavov, Vladimir Ignatov; the Banner of Peace complex, Varna, 1985, Alyosha Kafedzhiyski, 1,300 years of Bulgaria in Sofia by Valentin Starchev, the Georgi Dimitrov and the revolutionary struggle of the Pernik miners complex, Sekul Krumov (1982), the Pantheon in Burgas, Valentin Starchev (1980), the Monument to Khan Aspatuh in Tolbuhin, Velichko Minekov (1981), National Revival, NPC, Dimitar Boykov (1981), and the Pantheon of Georgi Rakovski in Kotel (1982) by Dimitar Boykov and Dimitar Krastev date back to that period.

The image of art changed with the advent of the new generations, which outlined the next stage in the development of Bulgarian sculpture. The tendency towards dismissal of the figurative beginning and the penetration of the abstract forms initially developed in the easel and gradually in the monumental sculpture, which started to live in the urban environment in a new way. (Ivan Slavov, Angel Stanev, Emil Popov, Vezhdi Rashidov). Artists with a signature style such as Ivan Rusev, Hristo Haralampiev, Bozhidar Kozarev, Stefan Lyutakov, to name but  few, expanded the perimeter of stylistic and thematic pursuits. The borderline between easel and monumental lost its clear outlines.

To activate the processes, the organised international and national symposia on sculpture in Burgas, Sandanski, Yasna Polyana, Stara Zagora, etc.[6], where the Bulgarian artists worked together with foreign sculptors and became acquainted with various artistic traditions and contemporary sculptural conceptions, also played a part. In addition to the opportunities they provided to the participants for collegial, creative communication and exchange of experience and ideas, the symposia ensured freedom and a stimulus for new sculptural pursuits, and the works chiselled in wood and stone enriched the park and urban environment in the towns and cities. It was Henry Moore who voiced the thought: “Sculpture is an art of the open air. Daylight, sunlight is necessary to it, and for me, its best setting and complement is nature…”[7] The critique noted that “it was exactly those plein air events that created interesting special structures that can be identified as sculptures, as decorative sculptures, but also as installations…“[8] 

The period of the 80s was accompanied by events of diverse nature, which testify to a new artistic situation not only because of the different tendencies and processes marking the period and the penetration of a new generation of artists, but also because of the changes in the organisation and functioning of the artistic life. The general art exhibition remained basic in terms of scope and opportunity. Increasingly more artists participated in the GAE, and the number of solo exhibitions also grew. The thematic benchmarks, which in the previous decades had dictated the presence or absence of artists and thematically oriented works, lost ground now and were replaced by more abstract or neutral categories. The signs of a growing dynamics were present. The national sculptural exhibition in 1987[9] was indicative of the increased diversity and declared the direction of the occurring change. The tracing of the breaking of the morphological mould in sculpture is not an easy task, as the artists were numerous, but sculptors who had broadly achieved autonomy in the Bulgarian art, whose works increasingly covered the destruction of the image, the tendency towards segmenting the object, the extraction of one or several details, the decomposition of the volumes in the space, and the work with solid material, were clearly distinguished (Emil Popov, Ivan Rusev, Konstantin Denev, Asparuh Slavkov, Snezhana Simeonovа, Petko Arnaudov, Tsvyatko Siromashki, Plamen Avramov, Rusi Dundakov, Ivan Zhekov, Rusi Stoyanov, etc.).[10] This exhibition was deemed significant by the art critics, as it showed the change in the way of thinking and the penetration of new generations in the art scene.

Kiril Mateev

The Doubt, 2017.

Sculpture

Details

  • Material: bronze

  • Property of: Kiril Mateev
  • Copyright: Кирил Матеев

Kiril Mateev

Doubt, 2017.

Sculpture

Details

  • Material: bronze

  • Property of: Kiril Mateev
  • Copyright: Kiril Mateev

The upgrade was a fact and it comprised improvement of the system, of those working in it, the change of the generations and the maturity of a new generation of artists. Since the middle of the 80s, increasingly fewer works on historical and revolutionary themes were displayed. The dominant art traditions of the figurative beginning and the easel forms, which found their expression in the model called GAE, came to be replaced, albeit episodically and with difficulty, with new forms of expression that were competitive with UBA and broke its monopoly, through which they laid down the terms on the art market (Popov, C.). One of the first was Doychin Rusev, who familiarised himself up close with the works of Joseph Kosuth, Joseph Beuys, and Rebecca Horn. He set the beginning as early as in 1978 with exhibitions in his own flat, as well as with actions in the open, consisting of temporary sculptures in the natural environment. A considerable change was observed in the choice of forms of expression and the material, since the most important was the message, the influence on the spectator.

Hence, there were important questions about the processes of transformation, which changed the Bulgarian visual arts: where we can find the genesis of the new phenomena, how and in what way they affect the general picture and whether tendencies preceding 1989 generating the so-called “change” can be identified.

At a plein air event in Kosti in 1983, Veselin Dimov created Water Dragon, defined by some artists as the first installation in the contemporary Bulgarian art, and in 1986 in Sandanski his The Dragon’s Wedding appeared, both of which were works marking the borderline condition between installation and sculpture. Another representative of this tendency seeking a symbiosis between art and nature was Tsvetan Krastev (Islands, Conversing Rocks, The Lunch). Moreover, the Earth and Sky exhibition, held on the roof of the UBA gallery at 6, Shipka St in October 1989, was undoubtedly one of the major events for the first generation on non-conventionalists in the art space. It was curated by Diana Popovа and Georgi Todorov.

After 1989, the art scene was exceptionally diverse. The exhibition halls and the open spaces displayed easel and large-format works, both nudes, figural compositions and portraits and sculptural objects and installations. The art of sculpture expanded its borders, breaking the mould of the classic understanding of the form; in constructive thinking, the concept was leading, the used materials together with the traditional for this art gypsum, metal, concrete, stone, and wood were combined with resins, bricks, cement, polystyrene and paper. In the territory of sculpture, several generations worked alongside: the artists wo had gone through “the system” and had overcome the conjuncture, following their own trajectory of development (Krum Damyanov, Valentin Starchev, Pavel Koychev, Bozhidar Kozarev), the once “young”, and today “mature generation” (Angel Stanev, Emil Popov, Ivan Rusev, Milan Andreev, Bogomil Zhivkov, Hristo Haralampiev, Stefan Lyutakov, Vezhdi Rashidov, Boyko Mitkov, Kiril Mateev, Konstantin Denev, etc.), who re-defined the borders through the metamorphoses of the sculpture, volume, material, and image. I would not dare to provide definitions, make contrastive analyses or seek analogies, as the evolution of the artists whose artistic biography encompasses several decades cannot be formulated unequivocally, but requires special research. More important in this case is that they created a solid basis on which the next generation would step (Ventsisalv Zankov, Dan Tenev, Emil Bachiyski, Kamen Tsvetkov, Pancho Kurtev, Rasho Mitev, Orlin Ivanov, etc.). Nevertheless, the strive for synthesis of the form, the laconism of the sculptural language, the diversity of used materials and the installation as a form preferred by many artists can be identified as a general characteristic.

Emil Bachiiski

"Orpheus and Eurydice", Art Center Ilindentsi, 2000.

Sculpture

Details

  • Photographer: Emil Bachiiski
  • Material: marble
  • Width: 300.00 cm    Height: 600.00 cm    Depth: 600.00 cm   

  • Property of: Emil Bachiiski
  • Copyright: Emil Bachiiski

Emil Bachiiski

Window, 2001.

Sculpture

Details

  • Photographer: Emil Bachiiski
  • Material: marble, iron
  • Width: 300.00 cm    Height: 180.00 cm    Depth: 600.00 cm   

  • Property of: Emil Bachiiski
  • Copyright: Емил Бачийски

Emil Bachiiski

ARGUS, 2014.

Sculpture

Details

  • Photographer: Emil Bachiiski
  • Material: steel, ceramics
  • Width: 340.00 cm    Height: 210.00 cm    Depth: 150.00 cm   

  • Property of: Emil Bachiiski
  • Copyright: Emil Bachiiski

On the artistic stage, the youngest artists, who had recently graduated from the National Academy of Arts - Martin Trifonov, Martian Tabakov, Verzhinia Mihaylova, Anatoli Yonchev, Blagitsa Zdravkovska, Elena Anachkova, along with others, also started the search for their way in art. Differing in terms of temperament, aesthetic and sculptural pursuits, working with minimal and clear forms of expression, they attempted a provocation to the spectator which influenced various levels of the sensory perceptions and the imagination, in a wide range of physical, aesthetical and spiritual pursuits. The generation born after the changes sought a field for realisation of their projects, willing to go outside the gallery spaces. Such an example was the exhibition From Project to Object in Berlin, realised in a private gallery and in the Bulgarian Cultural Institute in 2017, which featured sculptures, installations and paintings by Hristina Drenska – Tita, Elina Simeonova, Nikola Tsvetanov, Hristo Antonov, Svetlin Demirev, Yana Karamandzhukova, Galya Blagoeva, Iliya Vladimirov, Valentina Sciarra, who had graduated with a degree in Sculpture at NAA under Prof. Angel Stanev. With this exhibition, they emphasised on possible alternatives for life of the sculptural objects in a natural environment. In this respect, we cannot help but mention a sizeable project in terms of design, whose initiator and main driver was the sculptor Ivan Rusev. Since the 90s to date, the unique for the Bulgarian practice Sculpture Park has been built on an area of 30 decares in Ilindentsi art centre, where works of Bulgarian and foreign artists are displayed.

The new cultural and public environment, in which the contemporary Bulgarian art is developing, contains problems requiring urgent resolution. The question about the establishment of a regulated, competitive system limiting the erection of monuments of arguable artistic and aesthetic qualities remains topical. A sad, intolerable and completely contrary to the adopted norms of synthesis between architectural environment and a work of sculpture was the case with the relocated Samuil’s Warriors by Lyubomir Dalchev due to the installation of the Bulgarian Volunteer Soldier, on whose “artistic merits” I will not comment.

Lubomir Dalchev

The wars of Samuel, 1970.

Sculpture

Details

  • Photographer: Deni Krastev

  • Copyright: fotograf Deni Krastev

We cannot help but mention a sore problem, which lies at the root of the raging discussion, provoked by the fate of the 1,300 Years of Bulgaria monument by Valentin Starchev. The indifference and the lack of care on the part of the state or the municipality, the raids of scrap scavengers, the demolition of existing monuments out of conjunctural or other considerations, whatever the reasons may have been, have all led to one and the same result – they destroyed works of art.

It is beyond doubt that the processes are irreversible and the Bulgarian art is in a new, crucial stage of transformation. Discussing, analysing and thematising the new tendencies, identifying the place of the artists, works and styles is the objective of the future, and it is the researchers’ task to cope with the challenge of this complicated objective.

[1] Catalogue of the General Art Exhibition dedicated to the 8th Congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party, 1962.

[2] Grozdanov, Dimitar. The 1970s – 120 Years of Bulgarian Art. Sofia, 2012, 200 – 229.

[3] Idem.

[4] Danailov, V. Sculpture in GAE’79. – Izkustvo magazine. 1980, book 1, 27-29.

[5] Ivanova, V. Bulgarian Monumental Sculpture. Sofia, 1978, 223.

[6] National symposium on sculpture in marble, Sandanski. Catalogue. 1983; Symposium on sculpture in wood, Yasna Polyana. Catalogue; The goals for works of art and the public patron. A discussion on the symposia on sculpture. – Art in Bulgaria magazine, (with the participation of B. Danailov, V. Starchev, D. Popova, I. Rusev, M. Andreev, N. Stoychev, S. Yanakiev, D. Grozdanov and B. Klimentiev) 1989, No. 2, 10-18.

[7] Sommer, Siegfried. On Sculpture in the Open. – Izkustvo magazine, 1967, book 9, 27-30.

[8] Vasileva, Maria. The Beginning of Our Avant-Garde –  Art in Bulgaria. 1994, No. 17, 6-9.

[9] Yosifova, First National Sculptural Exhibition – Izkustvo magazine, 1988, book 1, 2-7.

[10] UBA photo archive, НИ Sculpture, 1987