The FV 112/15 Group Collection is a blend of artistic materials representing the time, social movements, and lifestyle of young people in Slovenia in the 1980s. It documents a central part of Ljubljana’s subculture and the alternative youth movement through the work of an amateur theatre group called the FV 112/15 Theatre and through the activities of three alternative clubs. The group cultivated an ironic attitude toward socialism and deconstructed bourgeois stereotypes.

Fotografia przedstawia Ewę Partum w trakcie jej performansu Stupid Woman, wykonanego w Pracowni Dziekanka 20 listopada 1981 roku. Performans ten stanowił jedno z ważniejszych wystąpień sztuki kobiecej, a wręcz sztuki feministycznej w Polsce. Ewa Partum, należąca – obok Natalii LL, Marii Pinińskiej-Bereś, Izabelli Gustowskiej, Teresy Murak, Zofii Kulik czy Barbary Konopki – do czołowych artystek neo-awangardy późnego socjalizmu w Polsce. Partum wielokrotnie badała performatywność płci, poddając dekonstrukcji kobiecość i przypisywane jej cechy. Temat ten podjęła także w performansie Stupid Woman. Na zdjęciu, wykonanym przez Tomasza Sikorskiego, nagą Ewa Partum oplatają tylko łańcuchy ze świecącymi lampkami.

The fourth performance from the Homage to Josip Broz Tito cycle is ˝Telephoning˝ by Tomislav Gotovac. It was staged in the SC Gallery in Belgrade on April 5, 1981, and the photographs of the performance were done by Milisav Mio Vesović and Ognjen Beban. It is the only performance from the Homage Tito cycle that was not staged in Zagreb.

In the last subversive action, Gotovac waited for someone to inform him by the telephone that President Tito had died. With this performance, the artist additionally placed himself in a passive position by waiting for the information to come to him indirectly, not directly as in earlier actions via television, newspapers or radio, for one of his friends, associates or family to indirectly notify him about Tito's death. In this work, Gotovac used subversive activity, in which he did not criticize the regime, but rather encouraged the public and the regime itself to think. 

Milan Šimečka made the chess pieces using bread in the prison where he was taken after the capture of the exile literature caravan, which was sent from London by Jan Kavan. Milan Šimečka spent one year in prison and during this period he wrote letters that were preserved and later published in samizdat editions. He also spent some time playing a game of chess using pieces he made from bread that had been given to prisoners.

The Student Newspaper published a photograph of Marijan Molnar dressed as a terrorist/criminal in 1981. With this photograph, which is a part of the "For the Democratization of Art" cycle, Molnar wanted to point to the "dose of terrorism in the field of art” by dressing himself as a terrorist. This means that the external difference is always the internal, that the external constraints pressuring art are always reflected in it, as an inherent (im)possibility to be tamed by the artwork" (Molnar, Marijan. Akcije i ambijenti, Zagreb: Naklada MD, 2002., 161).Suzana Marjanić thinks that with this action, Molnar ˝also expressed his fascination with the anarchist groups of 1970s˝ (Marjanić, Suzana. "Performans i terorizam ili izvedba terorizma." Narodna umjetnost 50, no. 2 (2013), 102-127).

“The Glossary of Technology” is the name for the special issue of “Vidici” that came out in the spring of 1981. It is one of the most significant dissenting publications that directly relied on the then subversive press trends in Czechoslovakia and Poland. “The Glossary of Technology” acquired a great deal of inspiration from the Solidarity Movement, which some of the journalists and editors were in contact with. In contrast to all previous editions, it was modelled on a manuscript from mediaval times with illustrations and using a calligraphic style. It was completely handmade and crafted with old-fashioned technology. Another specificity was that this issue was conceived as a dictionary with carefully selected samples. The manner in which the dictionary looked had a symbolic meaning. It was a protest against the modern technology-based social systems (Z.P. Piroćanac, Nomenclatura Serbica, 2012, 1). The edition had 171 terms on 30 pages. Some of the terms mentioned were: "WILL – unconditionality. The possessor of movement and the only force that can master it. Will realized as life is personality. Will is without conditions, but it is the condition for everything. “Let there be light,” and there was light. (Book of Genesis); DEMOCRACY – equilibrium. A form of medium of society. This is the technology that cannot be eliminated by an individual. The devilish game of democracy is concerned with knowledge and ignorance, crime and punishment, cruelty and kindness ... (Cummings); MASS – indolence. Being the mass does not mean being part of the crowd, but rather being indistinguishable in the same impersonal frequency of consciousness in general. History is required to vanish in the mass, because it has become complete numbness, pure immanence. A direct consequence of the new role of masses organised into a collective ... is barbarism (Berdyaev); MORALS – mirroring, limiting. Morals are laws realized in the medium of society. Only technologists need morality to avoid collision while moving, however the individual does not need it. Morality is acting egoism. Moral judgments belong to a stage of ignorance in which the distinction between what is real and imaginary is lacking …” (Nietzsche).

All this was too confusing for the political authorities who did not know exactly what was behind this coded edition. The edition was banned, and its subversive nature was discussed in front of the University Commitee of the Union of Communists, where an analysis was initially formulated in the party document "Analysis of the Ideological Orientation of the Journals "Vidici" and "Student".” In it we see that it is precisely the "aesopian language" and that it is impossible to understand the text without a "key" or "code", which worried the party most. Eventually, it was concluded that "The Glossary" was anti-humanist and antisocialist-oriented, which was enough of a reason to ban it. Soon afterwards, the party organs launched a media avalanche that lasted for several months, and the highest party officials spoke of the necessity to reckon with the group gathered around "Vidici" and "Student". However, it turned out that the criticism of "The Glossary" was merely a motive for launching a broader backlash against dissident groups after Tito’s death (1980). The subsequent outcome would be the publication of the "White Book" in 1984, by Croatia’s Communist party leaders, which called for an end to the so-called "cultural counter-revolution".

„Przypadek” uznawany jest za film-moralitet, jeden z najlepszych przykładów polskiego kina moralnego niepokoju. „Przypadek” opiera się na podziale fabuły na trzy równorzędne części – ukazanie w trzech wariantach losów życiowych młodego człowieka granego przez Bogusława Lindę. W zależności od przypadku jakim było spóźnienie/wejście do pociągu, bohater filmu trafia do różnych środowisk społecznych i w odmienny sposób konstruuje swoją biografię. Pytanie o sprawczość bohatera, możliwość realizowania przez niego własnych planów i marzeń przy jednoczesnej przygodności ludzkiej egzystencji, jest najważniejszym, uniwersalnym i ponadczasowym zagadnieniem „Przypadku”. Film dobrze ukazuje rzeczywistość społeczną Polski lat 70. i 80. – w konsekwencji nawet najmniejszych, najbardziej banalnych decyzji student mógł się znaleźć w różnych środowiskach społecznych: partii, opozycji bądź neutralnej społeczności akademickiej.

Został wyprodukowany w 1981, ale wszedł na ekrany dopiero w 1987 ponieważ został uznany za „niebezpieczny”. Z protokołu z Komisji Kolaudacyjnej, która odbyła się w sprawie dzieła Kieślowskiego w  grudniu 1981 roku, dostępnego w czytelni Filmoteki Narodowej, można odczytać nastroje przedstawicieli różnych środowisk po obejrzeniu filmu. Kilkoro z uczestników Komisji Kolaudacyjnej próbowało zwrócić uwagę na metafizyczny i filozoficzny wymiar dzieła, reżyserską rzetelność i „historyczny” bagaż filmu (kolaudacja odbywała się zaledwie kilka dni po wprowadzeniu stanu wojennego). W zdecydowanej większości głosów bagatelizowano obawy o niebezpieczeństwo, jakie mogłoby nieść za sobą wejście filmu na ekrany. Mimo raczej ciepłego przyjęcia podczas Komisji Kolaudacyjnej, „Przypadek” przeleżał na półkach 6 lat i został dopuszczony do rozpowszechniania dopiero w 1987 roku.

Film „Przypadek” to jeden z bardziej znanych polskich „półkowników” , czyli filmów niedopuszczonych do obiegu kinowego po wyprodukowaniu. Jego losy pokazują, że nawet produkcje oficjalne, finansowane przez Ministerstwo Kultury i Sztuki mogły zostać uznane za na tyle „niebezpieczne” czy „nieodpowiedzialne”, że władze decydowały się wbrew oczekiwaniom i opiniom środowiska na zatrzymanie ich w archiwum filmowym. Mimowolnie więc reżyserzy kończący publiczne uczelnie artystyczne stawali się wyjęci poza oficjalny obieg kultury. 

A solo exhibition by Marijan Molnar was held in the Extended Media Gallery (Gallery PM) in Zagreb. The exhibition named "Common and Special“ lasted from 11 to 15 May 1981 and also included some of the works from the "For the Democratization of Art" cycle. The exhibition was well attended by the city’s cultural circle, and the main youth magazines (Polet and Studentski list) ran positive reviews on the exhibition.   

The philosopher Péter Egyed and the poet Géza Szőcs convinced István Darkó to write and to publish his writings in a separate volume. But Darkó's writings did not conform to a regular genre. In his book it is also disturbing that one or two pieces are similar to short stories or narrations but yet are not. In literary terms, this is such a text écriture that it is patterned with some established genres. In those days, text and text literature should have lived its time in Romania too, as in the whole of Europe, but this was an unfortunate environment in which, if one did not adapt to the literary standards, one’s writings were not published. Darkó did not adapt to the current literary standards, because this was not an aim for him as an actor. He wrote down what he wanted, in the way he felt and saw. His writings were often the written modification of a sounding material. In certain cases he may have heard what happened before he could note it down. The writing was born from the sound, and one genre gave him the possibility of another one, but Darkó remained an actor in each genre, as both his tape plays and his writings are performable. In his "city" live "distilled people", who behave amazingly, but with their thoughts, their obsessions they carry the burden of every person. Darkó "plagiarises" many times from his earlier writings: he copies from the programmes of Cat Radio, from the articles of his paper Bendzin, and sometimes from the writings of “Henrik Szénégető” or “Fruléz.” The characters of his fictive world organise their own lives, creating a fictive reality, with a certain deadly content, from which may be understood the true reality, which is thoroughly hidden because of the normality of cowardice. The singularity of his writings lies in the fact that they create a structural fiction with multiple content and layers, which has a kind of hermeneutical relation to the current reality. Darkó never forgets those who are writing the counter story, the cultural history of nastiness, against the forces creating the world order, those who set all kind of traps for the heedless part of humanity, who harass, threaten and chase them. The people of darkness and nastiness cannot be helped to power. Darkó's writings are all allusions to such a utopia, in which the atmosphere and the hopelessness of the depressed existences, the Nothing continuously speaks.

The Forrás (Source) series of the Kriterion Publishing House had an official committee, an editorial council. The usual procedure was to ask for a reference either from them or from other famous writers. Two references had to support a Forrás volume and according to custom the volume editor could ask for references from whoever he wanted. He obviously would not ask for references from anyone he knew would have an unfavorable opinion of the manuscript. Thus Egyed turned to the poet and writer László Csíki and Andor Bajor, because he knew that they understood the message of the author. The two references were obtained, the volume was published, and then came the official standpoint of the editorial council members according to which Egyed had gone beyond the rules and that he had exaggerated or rushed with this project. This was discussed at the consultation organised by Utunk (Our way), the Cluj-based literary, artistic and critical weekly of the Hungarians of Romania. The participants included Zsófia Balla and Géza Szőcs, representing the third Forrás generation, who said that the manuscript had to be published at all means, because it was important, it expressed something that came from their life experiences. They found themselves in Darkó's writing, rather than in other writings that had been published earlier in the Forrás series, boring, grayed, dusty, forgettable. Péter Egyed interprets the expression of cultural resistance, which appeared also in the Romanian press and constitutes a specific genre, in its content as being about an another culture. He claims this because as an editor at Kriterion Publishing House he knew exactly the censorship instructions. He knew very well the sort of cultural products that the Romanian Communist Party expected from authors. He knew the key terms and he corresponded on various matters with the ideological secretaries, who always wrote down what the poem, prose etc. on had to contain. If these were not contained in it, an another culture was obviously born, not one that accorded with the official system of expectations. But the official expectations could not work, because no one was willing to write like a Party official in the 1980s. Specifically, in a situation recalling Cat Radio, in which writing is about nothing other than the fact that everybody is chased and the chasers are also being chased round and round, this could not really be a content corresponding to any official ideological norm. According to Egyed the "opposition" says openly: "not this." Darkó's writing does not go directly against the system, but it says that there is an "Other", which expresses you and which has nothing to do with this system – which says that what you live in is not like that, and pays attention to the fact that you are being chased, that you are near to death. These are the feelings that come over from his text.

The volume was published in a print run of 5,000 copies, an astonishing number from today’s perspective, and created quite a considerable literary subculture. The interpretation of Darkó's writings appeared periodically later in the works of the literary critic Attila Mózes, the man of letters Levente Gyulai, the artistic writer Gábor Martos and the literary historian and poet Ágnes Kata Miklós.