production and of those subcultures. “It is about the projection of personality as a mediator of ideas”, said Uroš Đurić in an interview published in 1996, explaining the role of his own image in the paintings he was producing at the time, adding that the “self-portrait makes it a historically determined model, the specific feature being that, in this case, the image of the author is activated as a part of the content by being included in the representation”. From this quote, it is quite clear that, at least on the level of intentionality, the image of the author is not used as a simple mirror-image of himself or of his identity belongings and affiliations, but as a tool for conceptual manoeuvres. Therefore, Uroš Đurić may appear as an “organic intellectual”, in the sense of visually codifying and making more coherent, presenting and making more broadly present in the public, a specific shared non-hegemonic and, both culturally and socially, underrepresented world-view “in a way that is directive and organizational, i.e. educative, i.e. intellectual”, but he does not do that as someone who enters the field of art from the outside. He does that as an artist fully belonging to it, and being formed by it, and within it. Thereby, he acts in a synthetic manner, as a link between the life worlds where minor cultures are developed, and the elitist art world, as defined in its hegemonic role. Uroš Đurić even made that clear himself in a discussion with the local art critic and art journalist Danijela Purešević, by stating the following: “I use figuration the way Duchamp used ready-made. I use figuration dually. And I am not a figurative painter. I am a pure conceptualist”. Uroš Đurić is not a punk who paints. He performs conceptual manoeuvres by using a specific “painterly style” (or “style of representation” in his later works that are not paintings) treated as a ready-made. That enables him to resample different historical styles without actually paying tribute either to the artists who originally used them or to the actual times and contexts of use. He uses the surface of the painting, drawing, photography or a digital collage as a screen for projecting, not his own empirically and psychologically framed visions and desires, but those specific social issues that go far beyond what is screened in the public media or conventionally shown in major art shows.