Era Milivojević first carried out the work ‘Taping the Slave’ in 1969, followed by ‘Taping the Mirror’, while his first performance, ‘Taping the Artist’, was staged at the exhibition in 1971. In the words of the artist, a performance is created by including the person in the work itself. This is a photograph of the performance enacted in the Student Cultural Centre in Belgrade. The photograph records the creation of a living sculpture produced by the artist himself, Era Milivojević, in collaboration with another artist, Marina Abramović – the taped artist.  

The work was incorporated into the collection of the Museum of Contemporary Art in 2007 thanks to funding provided by the City Assembly of Belgrade. 

This is a reprint of a Ukrainian underground samizdat journal published by Smoloskyp and P.I.U.F. Ukrainskyi visnyk was the first samizdat literary journal in Ukraine, founded in 1970 and edited by Viacheslav Chornovil until his arrest in 1972 (issues 1-6). Iaroslav Kendzior, Mykhailo Kosiv, Atena Pashko were among the journal’s main contributors. In 1975, after Chornovil’s arrest, Stepan Khmara,Vitalii Shevchenko, and Oles Shevchenko published one more issue of the journal (7-8). In 1987, the journal reappeared again, this time as the main publication of the Ukrainian Helsinki group. The journal published information about political repression and cases of violations of human rights in Ukraine, as well as literary criticisms, poetry, and socio-political articles.

Smoloskyp and P.I.U.F. published nearly all the issues of the journal (except no. 5) that were smuggled from Ukraine to the West. Reprinted issues of the Ukrainskyi visnyk played a key role in making the case of political repression in Ukraine and the Ukrainian liberation movement internationally known. Soon after its first publication by Smoloskyp, materials of Ukrainskyi visnyk were widely circulated by Western media, including Radio Freedom, which of course did not go unnoticed by the Soviet authorities.

Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca had an intense correspondence with Romanian intellectuals in exile and a part of this correspondence is preserved in the collection housed by the National Archives in Bucharest. Among the letters preserved here there is one signed by the well-known historian of religions, Mircea Eliade. Eliade left Romania in 1940 and dedicated his entire intellectual activity in exile to the study of history of religions and the history and philosophy of culture.

In his letter of 27 March 1971, which was read by Monica Lovinescu in her broadcast on RFE under the suggestive title of Refutation, Mircea Eliade speaks about the interview he granted to Adrian Păunescu and published in the Romanian magazine Contemporanul (The contemporary) on 10 and 17 March 1971. The historian of religion underlines the fact that he agreed to answer Păunescu’s questions on condition that the interview would be published in full. To his unpleasant surprise, the conversation was drastically censored and according to Eliade, the cuts dramatically altered the meaning of the interview. Specifically, the Romanian censorship removed those parts in which Eliade mentioned autobiographical details connected to his youth in interwar Romania, such as the impact that Nae Ionescu, a very influential right-wing-oriented journalist and professor of philosophy, had on his intellectual development. Also, the names of other renowned Romanian exiles such as Emil Cioran and Eugène Ionesco were removed, as was any reference to his co-generationist, Mircea Vulcănescu, who ended his life in a communist prison. Finally, any mention of his writings about the history of religion and philosophy of culture, which were central in Eliade’s work, were absent from the published interview. Consequently, Eliade bitterly concluded that: "As for the memories of the nights spent together in the winter of 1971, they are evoked by the poet and journalist Adrian Păunescu and belong to him entirely. When we were talking, I thought we were speaking the same language: the old, honest Romanian language that I learned in my childhood and which I am still speaking now, in my old age. I admit with immense sadness that I was wrong."

The censorship of the interview can be easily understood if one considers the political and cultural context in Romania at the beginning of the 1970s. The nationalist turn of the Ceaușescu regime (Petrescu 2009, 523–544) did not result in the rehabilitation of Nae Ionescu, Emil Cioran, Eugène Ionesco, or Mircea Vulcănescu whose names were still on the list of the Romanian censorship. Moreover, the ending of the liberalisation period, marked by the so-called Theses of July 1971 on improving political-ideological education, made even more problematic the publishing of any reference to religion and history of religions. The paradox that Mircea Eliade accepted an interview with Adrian Păunescu only on the basis of the latter’s assurance that the text was going to be published uncensored in Romania can be understood if one takes into consideration the situation of the two protagonists involved. Since Mircea Eliade left Romania in 1940, he had lost touch with what was really going on in the country, and he seems to have been unaware about what censorship really meant and how it actually worked.  As for Adrian Păunescu, at that time a young man of only twenty-eight and without any obvious connection with the communist regime, he had come to the United States at the invitation of several Romanian writers. Enticed by the young poet’s genuine interest in his person and work, Mircea Eliade not only agreed to grant him an interview, but also answered wholeheartedly the provocative questions asked by Adrian Păunescu, at that time a promising and uncommitted young writer (Manolescu 2014).

The collection is made up of the papers of the avant-garde multimedia conceptual artist Hardijs Lediņš (1955-2004). It reflects his activities, and those of his collaborator Juris Boiko (1954-2002), as well as a number of their friends who were at the centre of alternative culture in Latvia in the 1970s and 1980s.

This manuscript was created at the time of the Croatian Spring, and was published in the journal Kritika in its June issue in 1971. Rendić discussed the Croatian national question under Yugoslavian socialism, with particular emphasis on the status of Croatian language and Croatian statehood within a common state. In this respect, Rendić negatively assessed the developmental logic of Yugoslav socialism, which according to her view was based on the negation of the Croatian national identity and language. The main reason for Rendić's thesis was that the “radical colonization of the Croatian language” was carried out in socialist Yugoslavia by the introduction of numerous words from the Serbian language. Precisely because of that, the “Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Language” arose to resist such efforts in 1967. According to Rendić, apart from linguistic policy, the unequal status of Croatia in the Yugoslav federation was reflected politically in the fact that all republic institutions were written in the genitive case, "Croatia has been wholly reduced to a certain administrative-territorial term, so that it could only be expressed as: Republic of Croatia, Parliament of Croatia, Executive Council of the Parliament of Croatia…"(Rendić 1971: 14). This prompted the Supreme Court to rule against her, after which she was forced to retire.

In March 1971, two manuscripts of unique books describing the events of Aktual, created by a Czech artist, musician and performer Milan Knížák, were bought by the Literary Archive of the Museum of Czech Literature (LA PNP). The books, containing scripts of happenings organised by a nonconformist art group Aktual in 1962–1969 as well as manuscripts and typescripts with illustrations and photographs, were sold to LA PNP by Knížák himself after a deal with its employee, PhDr. Jaromír Loužil. This acquisition was interesting for PNP mainly because it documents the artistic and literary effort in the 1960s. By similar purchases, PNP not only gained materials created by “unofficial” authors, but at the same time financially supported them.

The collection includes different operational reports, transcripts of conversations, anonymous letters and pamphlets, as well as other written materials collected by the Croatian State Security Service during Operation Tuškanac, conducted against students and professors at the University in Zagreb in the early 1970s, based on charges of nationalist and hostile activities against the communist regime in Croatia. It was one of several operations conducted by the Croatian State Security Service against members of the Croatian Spring, a national movement which included student reform demands among its essential elements.

The documents present the continuing tendency of Prosvjeta’s leadership to expand Serbian influence in society and insure equality with the Croats, but they also reflect an attempt to justify this tendency, denying any oppositional activity by the Association (so-called counter-revolutionary activity) and rejecting comparisons with Matica hrvatska. The Conclusions of the Executive Committee and the Commission on Conclusions were in fact the working agenda the SCA Prosvjeta i.e., a list of priorities: reviving passive subcommittees and establishing new ones, launching a weekly magazine to cover cultural and social issues Srpska riječ, implementation  of a scholarship and research work plan, restoring the museum of Serbs in Croatia, activation of the Documentation Department  under the Prosvjeta SCA Main Comittee, the Association's active participation in deliberations on amendments to the Constitution of the SRC and the  proposal for constitutional and legal regulation of the status of Serbs in Croatia (equality of languages and scripts in all segments of society, education of Serbian children in special school programs), the establishment of a roughly a dozen commissions with the Main Comittee, and enhanced  funding. A change in the Association's name was also proposed: to Prosvjeta – Serbian Union of Croatia, also the convening of the Second Congress of Serbs in Croatia and re-establishment of a Serbian caucus which was supposed to have been decided at the next, twelfth, annual assembly, which, however, was never held because the association’s  further work was halted.

Sociology was the official periodical of the Sociological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (1972–1990). It was the first journal in Hungary devoted entirely to sociology. It opened a new chapter in the history of Hungarian sociology. Although the conservative ideological campaign led by orthodox Communist leaders made some changes in the editorial staff, Sociology was published continuously until 1990. The manuscript of the first issue from 1972, with the archival documents from 1971, inform us of the beginnings of this important journal. The authors of the first issue –included Zsuzsa Ferge (“Social Structure and the School System”), István Kemény (“Stratification of the Hungarian Working Class”), Iván Szelényi (“Housing System and Social Structure”), and others.

The Alexandru Călinescu private collection epitomises the trajectory of an intellectual in an important university city who began to practise a camouflaged contestation, published in local student magazines, with a limited readership, and ended up in unequivocal public opposition, disseminated transnationally through foreign radio stations. The collection marks some of the key episodes in the movement of resistance to and contestation of the communist regime as it manifested itself in Iaşi, the historical capital of the region of Moldavia and the city with the oldest university in the Old Kingdom of Romania. At the same time, the collection and the personal story of Alexandru Călinescu illustrate a lesson in dignity in very difficult times, when there were few who had the courage to speak openly against the Ceaușescu regime.