Search

«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.

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.