Search

The article raises the problem of sharp turning points in the Soviet urban discourse that occurred with the moment of Stalin's strengthening in power and after his death. The analyzed urban material was limited by three perspectives: (1) the city's creator (architect and authority), (2) urban space (architectural culture), and (3) the official discourse. The article substantiates the point of view according to which, and despite the radically different formal languages of the avant-garde, the Stalinist style, and late Soviet modernism one can see behind them a single “content”, namely, the phenomenon of the Soviet city. The changes concerned only the discourse (in our case, urban planning, and architectural one); the main paradigm of the culture did not change: it was remaining uncompromisingly modern. The article follows the tradition of the critical analysis of modernity – developed both by the members of the Frankfurt School and by postmodernists – but expands the concept of European modernity into Soviet culture. The Soviet metanarrative was based on the belief in the possibility (and necessity) of comprehensive and rational constructing of the reality. It had the character of a total and uncompromising project. And it is the uncompromising nature of Soviet modernity that dooms it to failure. To trace this process, the article explores the relationship between modernity and utopia – both uncompromising and rejecting the legitimacy of the past in favour of a rational plan. Any attempt to realize utopia means changes in the initial, ideal, theoretical plan, and official Soviet culture – fundamentally uncompromising – carefully concealed that fact (lie and violence become an institution). However, the official discourse and the real image of the Soviet city diverged more and more. The only way for the rapprochement of life and official culture could be an abrupt shift in the dominant discourse playing at the same time the central mobilization role (the pathos of a radical new beginning, according to W. Welsch).

«Постконструктивизм» в советской архитектуре, получивший наиболее целостную оценку в недавней монографии Александры Селивановой, отдельно определяет период развития советской архитектуры рамками 1932–1937 гг. В то время как серьезно исследуются архитектурные процессы в Москве и других крупных городах СССР, слабо изученной остается ситуация на периферии и в национальных республиках. Однако именно на примере национальных республик можно наиболее подробно рассмотреть взаимоотношения между центром и регионами на архитектурном и градостроительном «поле» –– предмет, весьма слабо изученный в советской архитектуре. Наконец, за рамками сегодняшних исследований постконструктивизма находится проблема формирования национальных стилей в советских республиках. Все это объясняет необходимость более детального изучения специфики постконструктивизма –– его региональных особенностей. Так, период постконструктивизма в Грузии имеет несколько иные выражения и особенности, отличные от обще-советских тенденций, описанных А. Селивановой. Обращаясь к научным работам, текстам статей, выступлениям архитекторов, а также художественной критике того времени, исследование предполагает историографический анализ формирования национального стиля Грузии в рамках архитектурной теории. Применяя в первую очередь социально-исторический и формально-стилистический методы, исследование выводит ряд принципиально важных моментов относительно архитектурного метода, согласно которому формировался национальный стиль Грузии. Метод, будучи изначально программной установкой из Москвы, политическим заказом, был значительно переработан и впоследствии искажен уже в рамках грузинской архитектурной практики. Грузинский постконструктивизм, ставший результатом взаимовлияния партийных установок из Москвы и собственной архитектурной практики Закавказского региона, получил к 1937 г. ряд специфических черт и приемов, позволяющих говорить о нем как об отдельном подстиле в рамках постконструктивизма., In Soviet architecture, “Post-constructivism” matched the 1932–1937 period. While the experts examine the architectural processes in Moscow and other major cities of the USSR, the situation in the regions and national republics has remained poorly studied. However, the example of national republics shows the relationship between the center and regions in great detail in the context of architectural and urban planning problems — a subject that is also very poorly studied in Soviet architecture. Finally, the problem of the formation of national styles in the Soviet republics is beyond the scope of today’s studies of post-constructivism. All this explains the need for a more detailed study of the specifics of post-constructivism and its regional features. Thus, the period of post-constructivism in Georgia has a slightly different image and features that depart from the General Soviet trends described by A. Selivanova. Referring to scientific works, texts of articles, speeches of architects, as well as art criticism of that time, the author suggested a historiographical analysis of the formation of the national style of Georgia within the framework of architectural theory. Applying primarily socio-historical and formal-stylistic methods, the author brought out a number of fundamentally important points regarding the architectural method according to which the national style of Georgia was formed. The method, being initially imposed from Moscow, was significantly reworked and subsequently changed in Georgian architectural practice. By 1937, Georgian post-constructivism, which was the result of the mutual influence of party policies from Moscow and local architectural practice in the Transcaucasian region, received some specific features and techniques that allow us to speak of it as a separate sub-style of post-constructivism.

This is an account of the relationship between architecture and power in Romania during the Stalinist period. A cursory glance at Arhitectura – the only specialist magazine to resume publication after the change in regime – suggests compliance with political direction, and professional interest in translating the theoretical method of Socialist Realism into a specific, culturally localized architectural language. Architecture competitions are a medium of intersection between theory and practice, power and the profession, ideology and economy – a space where political contention based on professional knowledge becomes possible even in totalitarian regimes. Between 1950 and 1956, Arhitectura published several competitions which, far from reinforcing Socialist Realism as the dominant architectural discourse, exposed the method’s internal contradictions and utopianism. In the ensuing confusion, there emerged a creative, practice-based counter-discourse centered on previously hegemonic dialects (the ‘national’). Based in equal amounts on the pre-established dynamics of professional culture, and on the willingness and ability of the architecture field to speculate the rules of the political game, this counter-discourse gradually led to the dismantling of Socialist Realism into alternative readings of Socialist architecture.

Tez (Yüksek Lisans) -- İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2011, Thesis (M.Sc.) -- İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, 2011, Bu çalışma, ekonomik bunalımların yaşandığı 1930’lardan, II. Dünya Savaşı’nın yaşandığı 1940’lı yıllara uzanan süreçte değişen milliyetçilik ve ulus tanımlamalarının, mimarlık üzerindeki etkilerini incelemeyi hedeflemektedir. Aydınlanma sürecinin bir parçası olarak evrensel ve hümanist değerler içeren 1930’ların ulus tanımının; 1940 lara gelindiğinde Almanya ve İtalya örneğindeki Faşist rejimlerin etkisiyle ırk, dil ve dini öne çıkaracak bir içerik kazanmasının, modernleşme atılımındaki İran ve Türkiye gibi ülkelerin kültürel biçimlenmelerinde nasıl bir etkiye sahip olduğu araştırılmaya çalışılmıştır. Türkiye ve İran’ın devlet politikaları ve ekonomik koşulları; uluslararası politik ve ekonomik koşullar göz önünde bulundurularak incelenmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu incelemenin ardından ortaya çıkan verilerin yabancı ülkeler ve bu iki ülkedeki mimarlık ortamına ne derece etki ettiği ve bu etkilerin benzer yönleri, örnekler üzerinden anlatılmaya çalışılmıştır. Sonuç olarak çalışma, ulusal mimarlık akımlarının bünyesinde bulunan uluslararası etkileri ortaya çıkarmayı ve böylelikle yaşandığı dönemin şartları nedeni ile ülkeler genelinde yaşanan diğer ulusalcı mimari akımlar gibi, o dönemin koşulladığı bir tavır olduğu gerçeğini açığa çıkarmayı hedeflemektedir., The aim of this work is to analyse the influence of evolving definitions of nationalism and nation on architecture during 1930’s – marked by economic crisis, and 1940’s – marked by the Second World War. The definition of nation in 1930’s, derived from Enlightenment, was based on Universalist and humanist values. However, in the 1940’s, this notion was defined by a content highlighting the race, language and religion, particularly with the influence of fascist regimes in Germany and Italy. This work will analyse the impact of this changes on the cultural formations of modernizing countries such as Turkey and Iran. In this work, the national policies of Turkey and Iran and their economic conditions are analysed taken into account the international political and economic conditions. Following this analysis, the impact of these conditions on the architectural environment in both countries and also other countries is studied from a comparative perspective basing on case studies. Consequently, this work aims to disclose the non-national factors influencing the Turkish and Iran national architecture movements and to prove that these movements emerged under the conditions of this period like other nationalist architectural movements in other countries., Yüksek Lisans, M.Sc.