No Flash

Slavko Timotijević

A rainy day with memories overflowing
regarding the Virtual Symposium of Printmaking Today

Before I respond to the specific demands and the topic of this Symposium, I shall use the advantage given to me by working from home, and the most contemporary methodology which this kind of work brings with it - the so-called floating through method, which allows me to start with the most important preparation to every research process - cleaning out one’s house. In fact, the freeing of one’s memory. In the typically Serbian manner, instead of making a list of completed works, I first have to make an inventory of the unfinished ones, the unclarified concepts and topics, unrealized ideas, and hidden potentials. The partial list of traumas which follows is a personal impression of incompleteness, and not necessarily an objective one at that. Still, here it is:

- I’m missing a small, yet comprehensive local history of printmaking;
- I would like for someone to explain to me the specificities of the local identities - what is considered the Belgrade school of printmaking, and what is not? In other words, are the different styles which developed in art reflected in printmaking, or is printmaking a completely independent field with its own native processes?
- why do Serbs dislike geometry and abstraction, and is this somehow connected to the Eastern paradigm?
- what is the relationship between the original and the copy; how do you feel about printmaking as a multi original?
- what is the relationship between that which is technical and poetic?
- the elite vs. the democratic dilemma;
- art, business, and ethics;
- identifying the core, or rather the search for the paradigm shifts in the art scene;


Gvido Pretnja: One rainy day - a good day to remember, polaroid SX -70, 1979

So much has been swept under the rug of history, and the confusion and mess which follow are a direct consequence of this. In order to start considering the position of printmaking today, I have to once more look back in retrospect at one rarely considered course in the art scene, and touch upon the many crossroads which I believe to be the times and places when and where it changed its traits. Regardless of whether or not those traits stood a chance against the abyss of history. More often than not, it is despite the most unfavorable circumstances that some traits flared up into new volcanoes of art. This is why every crossroads brings with it that one heretic question which disturbs the rut and blows away our delusions like powder rosin on a lithographic stone. Who are we, where are we, where are we headed, and - what are we to do?
Those questions are actually always present, not just when paradigms are changing, when we are forced to change strategies, politics, and poetics, or when the pressure of the current discourse is so strong we have to react to it, but also in times of lethargy and complacency, when we are sure in the rightfulness of our ways, disinclined to consider our identities (changes).
To liberate oneself of stereotypes and push on forward, or to retreat quietly and sit comfortably within the rut - those are the main dilemmas of both artist and critic when faced with these questions. Both yesterday and today!
However, in order to answer these questions we must first identify the crossroad/s, which is the main objective of art history, and understand whether it is that particular crossroad which will determine new values, new perspectives, and new discoursivities. It is also necessary to indicate the fact that personal crossroads and those of paradigms don’t coincide systematically. I attempt this inventory in order to either objectivize my personal history or cover up the ever unclear histories of intersections. Even today, I wonder if that crossroads which I consider to be a paradigm shift is an actual intersection of changes or a personal illusion. This is why I take the liberty of responding to the topic of this symposium by evoking memories of events from the peripheries of art and society, as well as certain works that I remember vividly, yet are somehow left outside of the usual reviews of printmaking.


Zoran Popović: Axiomi, Axiom O, 1971, 1/1, linocut 40 x 40 cm, print run 1
Joseph Beuys in front of tables with a graphic presentation of the thesis on direct democracy. SKC Belgrade, 1974

Printmaking in the time of new artistic practices

Outside of the Students’ Cultural Center (Serbian: Studentski kulturni centar, abbr. SKC) the postconceptual practices were considered, and often derisively called heated conceptualism. In the background of this heated conceptualism, in the years 1974. and ‘75, I felt like I could discern some more dominant processes within the abundance of parallel and intertwined courses.
First of all, I was under the impression that the art scene around SKC was ready to join in/fit in, to become part of the mainstream in the most positive way, which I think is an incredibly important process as it creates space for an ever vital alternative. One of the best examples of this was the fact that in the year 1974. Joseph Beuys had a guest lecture-performance in SKC on the topic of democracy - direct democracy, the very thing that defined SKC as the local equivalent of the ICA (1) in London. It had both the staff and space, but never the approval and support of the community.
On the other hand, the isolation, disapproval, and lack of societal and official support that cultural institutions usually have at their disposal (i.e. media space, cultural and political dialogue, a source of funding, awards, etc.) lead SKC to an intensified and uncritical identification with its own concept (the ghetto syndrome). It also led to degenerative processes and the hegemony of those elite six (Raša, Neša, Gera, Era, Zoran, Marina). The ever-threatening boredom was caused by the tendency to academise the art scene rather than leave it in a state of creative mess. This horrible boredom is what threatens every form of art.
Moreover, the vitality of this art scene was maintained thanks to its program’s activism and the vitality of its base concept, despite all the limitations of isolation, and the economic and political circumstances. Among other things, SKC was a permanent workshop - not a place where finished works were brought to be exhibited, but a place where the works were taking place, the research and creative and productive processes which lead to the exhibitions and innovative programs. The workshop and the production were the two main drives of the art scene around SKC. Aside from the unforgettable April Encounters (Serb. Aprilski susreti) - the festival of extended media.

But where on Earth is printmaking? Did anyone even consider it?

It seems contradictory, but in the multitude of various practices (objects, projects, propositions, office art, performance, lecture-performance, tableau vivant, action, idea art, photography, film, projections, mail art, etc) printmaking had its distinct and essential place within SKC. It was either out of an egotistical need for distributing the new ideas, or a more democratic need to allow access to works of art to as many people as possible, with the added convenience of the prints being easily transported. Mere unpretentious pieces of paper. All of this makes printmaking ever-present.
It is important, however, to point out that a year before SKC was opened, in the year 1970, the 23rd issue of Art magazine (Serbian: Umetnost), edited by dr Lazar Trifunović, was devoted to printmaking and featured on its covers a work (print) by Zoran Popović - JaXsna (multiplied). I believe it was the first innovative transfer of a small edition of prints (made by combining lino-relief and silkscreen printing) into a large edition printed magazine. I felt as if the cover of that issue was a work of art in itself (an original print to put it conservatively), because the designer, Mile Grozdanić, created it according to the artist’s wishes as a blinddruck, specially constructed for the cover page. This turned Zoran’s original print into a whole new work of art. Any other technique would have given poor results. This is to say, I had been aware of the different forms of printmaking since the very beginning of my studies (as much as the scene allowed it, due to its many segregations). Even though I was present during Zoran Popović’s performance AXIOMI, I missed his series of linocuts by the same name, made in 1971. That series was the basis of his following performance in 1972, as well as the rest of the project production. I had almost forgotten about Raša Todosijević’s graduate thesis project, a series of prints created as shaped paper, yet it was also exhibited in the Small Gallery of SKC (later to become the Happy Gallery). Following the same thread of memories, I remembered also a mobile print by Zoran Popović, entitled Zlatana Čok- Outlined, which was part of the Youth ‘71 (2) (Serbian: Mladi ‘71) exhibition. It was a full-size print made up of several parts so that different hand, feet, and head positions could be arranged.
The foundations of a specific course in printmaking production were laid by Jasna Tijardović, the founder and first curator of the Small Gallery (the future Happy Gallery). She established the poster as the main way of communicating. The posters, containing only information pertaining to the works themselves, represented the main artists around SKC - Radomir Damnjan, Marina Abramović, Zoran Popović, and others. At the same time, she made efforts to enrich the collection of original prints of artists from across Yugoslavia (such as Jemec, Knifer, Dobrović, Radović, etc) with the kind of art posters which could then be found only in foreign galleries. As for the invitations, and in general the production of accompanying elements of exhibitions - posters, catalogues, etc, SKC was deprived of the so-called authorial discourse, except in such cases where the artists themselves took over the design and production. But I still remember and keep the magazine FILM FORUM, a work of art in itself, created by Nenad Čonkić, a member of the first design team of SKC. That one issue with a page called TREPLJOSKOP, created as an analogue film projector, was a reflection of the ever-present, but never completely understood and processed local Fluxus movement. By the time we started receiving invitations/postcards from foreign galleries and museums, we became aware of the uninspired production of the subsequent design team. The thin line between a work of art, its reproduction, and a standardized invitation/postcard is the very same line that stands between stereotypical and innovative practices.
Torn between an inner need to be subversive (which I was in the group called A3) and the demands of curating a commercial gallery (3) (which I was doing after Jasna and Zoran ran off to the US), I decided to use the mainstream standards from classical lithography in producing the works of three artists: Radomir Damnjanović Damnjan, Braca Dimitrijević and Raša Todosijević. Inspired by the state of the scene, and considering the needs of the alternative to blend into the mainstream, we produced five lithographs from each artist. The catch was that all of them could have been made as silkscreen prints on low quality paper, but I wanted to take seemingly poor content (the works were in the form of writing, names, words, statements, etc) and reproduce it in optimal quality materials, as if they were, say, pastels by Manet. I chose Rives, a high quality lithography paper, upon which we printed simple words like white, blue, yellow in the case of Damnjan’s Misinformation group series, the names of strangers Braca’s series Passers-by, and Raša’s cynical statements: Dilletants in Art, Nude no.5, etc. from the series Name of Artwork.
Many anecdotes accompany the creation of this series of lithographs, the most dramatic of which regards their journey from Zagreb, where they were printed. But that is a story for a different occasion.

There were many reasons why I chose to produce works of conceptual art in a classical printmaking technique. The artists at that time, those within SKC and wider, started using all sorts of materials, and with office supplies right at their disposal, creating works on A4 copy paper by using staplers, tape, typewriters, etc. Some of the works were outstanding but most of them were, in a way, both materially and spiritually worthless, especially because everything and anything a conceptual artist’s hands touched quickly became fetishized at the time. It turned into a misuse of freedom and an uncritical usage of all kinds of materials. I felt like overusing poverty when choosing materials was masking the very meaning of poverty in the conceptual strategy. I wanted to see the poverty of conceptual art and its meaning shine on high quality materials. That, and I had always been into the idea of what a Rothko would look like if done in mezzotint!


Julije Knifer, from the exhibition in the Small Gallery
Braco Dimitrijević, graphics from the folder List No 3, 1975

Going off of the fact that the essence of conceptual art isn't in its expanded means of presentation but in the complex structures behind an entirely new way of understanding the work of art, Nena Dimitrijevic organized an exhibition entitled Canvas (4) in 1973. It was not an invitation to return to classical ways of expression, but to question the position and capacities of the discursive field according to the paradigm shift in artistic production. It also meant breaking down the delusion that anything done in nontraditional media was automatically a work of art. This idea was important not only in itself but because it arose within an institution - an important institution for contemporary art, where the state of contemporary art topics like constructivism, digital and conceptual art were discussed at that time (TENDENCIJE 5 - Galerija Suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb, 1973.)
The prints produced in the Gallery Happy New Art (later on the Happy Gallery) were exhibited in the Cultural Center of Belgrade (5) (KCB) without glass or frames, by simply pushing pins or thin nails through the corners of the works. This little professional blasphemy created an unusual sense of emptiness which caught both the audience and the curators by surprise. This sense of emptiness was very different from the previous and future exhibitions held in that space.


Gramophone record (single) by Marina Abramović, published by the SKC Gallery
Raša Todosiijević: Was ist kunst, a performance frame used for graphics

I recall this little personal curatorial episode in order to once again pose the question - was it a crossroads, did Belgrade have the crossroads necessary for an appropriate reaction? Due to the policy of the Museum of Contemporary Art (6) (MSU), which was at the top of the mainstream, and the cultural policies in general, it seems that SKC was not recognized as the phenomenon it was. All of the international researchers who have been following its program and production since 2000. understand it as an unprecedented cultural volcano that arose in the recent institutional history of Europe and the world. A phenomenon which developed out of a small students’ cultural center which was originally created as a kind of bribe for the students after their political victory in 1968, but led to world class artistic and cultural effects. Marina Abramović, to name a world famous example, started forming her poetics within SKC, and her works are just the tip of the iceberg.
The student protests of 1968. led to the foundation of SKC inside the former State Security Administration Cultural Center (Serbian: Dom Udbe), which was formally opened in 1971. after three years of reconstruction. The years 1974-76. witnessed paradigm shifts within the very essence of postconceptual practices, and the year 1979 brought a new eruption. All of these years, by cumulating the discoursivities of different disciplines, ideological courses and practices, brought out a major change, which was reflected in printmaking, or rather, the need for multiplying and distributing artistic ideas.

Vlado Martek: p. poetic agitation, leaflet, samizdat

In a further, accelerated but fragmented walk through memories, I must mention the six artists from Zagreb (7) and their unpretentious and reduced program, fundamental for both the context of multiplication and their active participation in the paradigm shift. By examining personal participation and individual traces left on the art scene and life, and using these personal optics (existence, creativity, sexuality, politics, education, history, etc.) they questioned the positions of the individual within history, socialist heritage and the cosmos. As photography and text, xerox, office supplies and later on silkscreen printing, became the basic means for the production and distribution of ideas of that time, I have no choice but to accept them as means of multiplication. While the work of Željko Jerman “Leaving a Trace” (Croatian: Ostavljam trag) meant the printing and imprinting of the personal into the public sphere both literally and figuratively, the repetition of the question WAS IST KUNST? was resounding around Yugoslavia in order to question the position of society and art, and perhaps propose an answer. Vlada Martek’s poetic leaflets demanded answers to questions of knowledge, education and cultural policies. The six artists’ printed edition magazine MAJ 75, made up of recycled and multiplied original works, became the basis of a new understanding of printmaking.


Vlasta Delimar and Željko Jerman: JA, page from MAJ 75 magazine, issue D from 1979. permanent marker over a photocopy
Dejan Knez: Leibach, woodcut

In a similar sense of questioning history and heritage, re-reading the specific traits of style (socialist realism) and its subsequent interpretations, the Leibach group and Dejan Knez tried to put in focus the need for redefining societal and artistic models. In a wider context, their work belongs to the punk and New Wave scenes and the formal break-up from modernism and its aesthetics.
However, not everything revolved around SKC. In June 1967, the Zagreb gallery Nova managed to combine new artistic practices within the field of multiplication, which lead to an exhibition named Prints (8). The exhibition, curated and produced by Ljerka Šibenik, an artist and the gallery director, and Jerko Denegri, curator and selector, featured many artists from around Yugoslavia and pointed towards new principles. The catalogue also featured a text by an artist, Raša Todosijević. Later on the exhibition was moved to SKC. Compared to other printmaking exhibitions at the time, this one represents a revolutionary drive, both because it dealt with an expanded field of multiplication (using new processes), as well as pointing toward changes in the very language of art.
I am finding it difficult to stop myself from going down memory lane because recollecting some of the works made during those few unusual years preceding Tito’s death makes me very happy. Zoran Popović returned from the US and brought with him the project named I never promised You an avantgarden, made up of film and slide projections and a series of drawings entitled The Pleasure in Drawing. Zoran and I tried to publish a series of silkscreen prints, but our printmaking workshop ended up producing just a small selection in various sizes. This project is still waiting to be finished, but I bring forth one of my favorite pieces.
Skipping ahead to some of the memories from the nineties, I arrive at the works of Sale Denić and Goran Dimić, members of the TO FRIZURE group. We worked together on several projects, one of which was an exhibition called From the Lives of Squirrels, and a series of prints representing Belgrade stirrings. Perhaps I am lamenting too much, so I will regrettably return to reality and address the topic of the Symposium, in order to make the connection between the above text and the current situation. But first let’s consider the second question/topic:

Has printmaking crossed the boundaries of media and expanded its field?

If we decide to accept Ljiljana Stepančić’s idea of the expanded field of printmaking, which dismantled the traditional conceptions of the International Printmaking Biennial (9) in 2001 and thus legalized and institutionalized the artistic practices of multiplication outside of the main, traditional techniques (the artist poster, postcard, album covers, books, artists books, fanzines, etc.), then it becomes clear that printmaking has long ago built a new field for itself, with new technical and creative possibilities. We have to also take into account the ideas of Nena Baljković that nothing can be considered art except those structures which are innovative and contextually outside of traditional means of production. And vice versa, that traditional means shouldn’t necessarily be excluded from the world of contemporary art, but have to have clear reasons behind them.
A whole new topic within contemporary art is computer-based, digital multiplication, which is gradually reaching very high quality results. First and foremost for those of us willing to embark on the adventure of discovering new possibilities, and who don’t consider it a problem that the final product has not been dealt with by actual human hands. Digital production brings to life the dream of every printmaker - entire series with the exact same quality of prints. I have always been fascinated by the technical, mechanical side of printmaking, the authority it has in a gallery space as opposed to the direct manual feeling of a painting. The printmaker has the advantage of choosing when the work is ready to be multiplied, while a painter has to create many variations. Digital production is even more industrially precise than classical printmaking, and as far as I am concerned, it does not matter which means are used to reproduce a work of art as long as the reasons and concept behind the decision are valid - that is to say, as long as there is a balance between the idea, the methods and the result (or a disbalance if that is what the artist is going for).
A digitally rendered work of art is closely related to the development of printing methods, so as I behold a digital print today, I feel the same satisfaction as when I held the first, freshly printed aquatint of Alexandrina Pascuttini


Zoran Popović: Satisfaction in drawing, 1982 graphics from an unfinished map
Goran Dimić: From the life of squirrels, Dimić and Denić in Tito 's Mercedes Pullman, graphics from the map, screen printing in 1990.
Nikola Tesla: I support students, a leaflet issued on the occasion of the 1992 student protests

- (1) How is printmaking positioned today, in the year 2020?
- (3) What are the ethical, aesthetic and communication roles of printmaking in times of global changes and crises?

I believe it is impossible to detach the question of the position of artistic printmaking today and the problems which lead to the current situation. The ‘80s brought about a clash in the Serbian art scene - that between oil on canvas and paper. One side wished to defend the print as a specific kind of multiplied original, and the opposing side wanted to take all importance away from printmaking as an artform, declaring it a cheap reproduction for commercial purposes. The conflict arose because of the printed reproductions of works by Olja Ivanjicki and Mića Popović. The prints were not produced by the artists themselves, but by photographic processes in the Knežević Studio. However, the actual reason behind the conflict was the commercial success of the prints (10), which threatened the less successful painters as well as the printmakers, due to the lowering of market values. The campaign against this kind of reproduction caused damage to printmaking and other media on paper, ultimately deconstructing printmaking as an artistic discipline, due to the fact that it came from respectable art critics. Some experts considered this an unethical targeting of professional printmakers which benefited amateurs and only certain curators and amateur art dealers. This did not help however, as attacks and slurs are usually printed on the cover, and rebuttals on the last page.
In a wider sense, all of this was due to liberal capitalism and the abrupt changes for which our disordered and unregulated art scene was not ready. It is because of all these facts, as well as the discontinuity caused by wars and various crises, and the current political climate in Serbia, I am unable to pinpoint not only the position of printmaking in the art world, but the position of art in our disorganized political system and society. In order to understand the position of a discipline, there has to be a coordinate system and standard set of parameters.
And in order to understand the ethical, aesthetic and communicational role of printmaking today, we ought to forget the production defined by the Belgrade printmaking school, and take a look at the expanded field of printmaking, especially its digital aspects, and the world of the internet. Perhaps then we would recognize some of the new and vital functions of printmaking.

Slavko Timotijević

Translation from Serbian: Dunja Karanović

1. ICA - Institute of Contemporary Arts was founded in 1947, and in 1974 it was a non-formal center and an important hub for all the mainstream occurrences in art
2. The exhibition took place in the Museum of Contemporary Art in February 1972, with the idea of becoming part of the annual program. The curating team: Jasna Tijardović, Jadranka Vinterhalter, Nikola VIzner and Slavko Timotijević. The promise of an annual presentation of young artists was not kept, and the program had to move to a less important venue.
3. Readers from abroad should understand that there was a distinct difference in Yugoslavia between commercial galleries and those with a curated program
4. The Canvas exhibition was organized as part of the T-5 programme (Tendencies 5) from June 1st to July 1st 1973 in the Zagreb Gallery of Contemporary Art. T-5 had three main topics: Constructive visual research , Computer visual research and Conceptual art.
5. I chose this space in order to get out of the ghetto and face the realities of the local art scene. Apart from the aforementioned series, there was also the series of Gera Urkom: Index of Different Identities, and a series of 8 silkscreen prints by Neša Paripović
6. MSU held the exhibition Yugoslavian Printmaking 1950-1980 in 1986. The conclusion of the exhibition catalogue, written by Ljiljana Slijepčević, regarded postconceptual printmaking (esp. the series by Braco, Damnjan and Raša) within the context of Belgrade school. This was not widely accepted at the time.
7. Boris Demur, Željko Jerman, Vlado Martek, Mladen Stilinović, Sven Stilinović i Fedor Vučemilović, later accompanied by Vlasta Delimar
8. Vesna Antunović, Braco Dimitrijević, Vladimir Dodig-Trokut, Ivan Doroghy, Nuša i Srečo Dragan, Gorann Đorđević, Želkjko Jerman, Željko Kipke, Antun Maračić, Neša Paripović, Zoran Popović, Mladen Stilinović, Raša Todosijević, Goran Trbuljak, Gergely Urkom, Fedor Vučemilović
9. The importance of the deconstruction of the traditional biennial form was that it happened under the authority of an institution. It was a sort of change which brought new life to the institution
10. It is well known that printmakers in Serbia did not produce series at once (except perhaps in silkscreen printing), but printed their works for exhibitions, competitions and buyers. Aleksa Čelebonović, the director and editor of the Jugoslavija publishing house, bought entire series from artists. One of the phenomena of the Belgrade scene were unique, original monotypes. Vladan Micić-Micke was famous for the commercial success of his monotypes.

Note: Illustrations for this text are borrowed from the archives of the Shadow Museum

Slavko Timotijević (1949)
1974, graduated Art History, Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade; postgraduate studies at the same faculty, Prof. Lazar Trifunović
1971-1974, member of “Team for action and anonymous attraction”, artistic multimedia group.
1971, one of the four selectors (with J. Vinterhalter, M. Vizner, J. Tijardovic) for the exhibition “Young 1971” at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Belgrade
1971-1974, Assistant of program for the Gallery of Students Cultural Center, Belgrade
1974-1998, Curator of Happy Gallery in Students Cultural Center, Belgrade
1974, editor in the “Vidici” magazine
1974, graduates Art history in department for Art history on the Philosophical Faculty in Belgrade
1974, enrolls postgraduate studies on the department of art history under supervision of professor doctor Lazar Trifunovic
1974, reworded with Republic scholarship for postgraduate studies
1985, for the Sebastian gallery initiates the magazine “Beorama” and works as an author and main editor until 1989.
1990, „Happy gallery“ has been declared as one of the best galeries world wide
1991, one of the selectors for the exhibition “150 years of photography”, Museum of Contemporary Art, Belgrade
1995-2003, renews the “Beograma” magazine, as a main editor, director, marketing manager, editor of photography….
2000, selector and art director of “Biennale of Young Artists”, Vrsac
2000 – 2005, Director of Students Cultural Center, Belgrade
2001, initiates the project “The Masterpieces of Contemporary Art in Serbia”.
2007-2012, initiates, editART FAMA mgazine
2011- founder of WIENER ART PROJECT and select works for the WIENER COLLECTION
2013/14 – SOUNDING, currating the exhibition WIENER ART COLLECTION, Belgarde, Novi Sad, Vršac, Niš
2017 – currating the exhibition COLLECTING IS CONNECTING, the part of WIENER ART COLLECTION in the gallery HOUSE OF LEGACY, Belgarde
As an art critic and theorist, he published various articles in few of the most significant Yugoslavian magazines: Vidici, Knjizevne Novine, NIN, Start, Duga, … He wrote prefaces for many exhibition catalogues and great number of monographs of the artists. At the moment writes analytical articles about art, for weekend appendix of Danas and Politika magazine. He published books: “Tomislav Peternek-photographs”, “Drazen Kalenic-photographs”, and edited the book of photography - 9th March 1991; Raša Todosijević - Stories on Arts, Aleksandar Cveteković, monograph etc.
He published several pportfolios of graphics and over 50 individual graphics.
For his own most important exhibitions he considers the following:
“Young `71”, “Todosijevic, Dimitrijevic, Damjanovic – collection of graphics”, “Polaroid’s 1980”, “Papic – Documents 79-80”, “Cycle of exhibitions of the photography”, “9th March 1991”, “150 years of photography 1991”, “Students demonstrations ’92”, “Rasa Todosijevic - sculptures `93”, “Potemkino’s villages `98”, “Biennale Of Young Artists 2000”, “Masterpieces on billboards 2003-2006”, “Nenad Bracic – photo cameras”, “Masterpieces-Museum of Contemporary Art Novi Sad 2006”.



Graphic Collective Gallery, Dragoslava Jovanovića 11, Belgrade, Weekdays 12 - 20h, Saturdays 12 - 17h, Sundays closed
tel: +381.11.3285.923; tel/fax: +381.11.2627.785