Arhitektura i ideologija - novo jedinstvo - Nemačka 1918-1945

Ana Mikic

Arhitektura i ideologija - novo jedinstvo - Nemačka 1918-1945

2009

Abstract

The link between politics and ideology on the one hand and art, or architecture in fact, on the other has often been thought of as a bad thing something that 'spoils' the art. This work, by using the example of Germany between the two World Wars, tries to represent art as an integrated part of all social, political, economic and historical movements in a society. In that light, Bauhaus and Nazi architecture are not seen as good or bad exceptions in the history of architecture, but as a natural course, the reasons and direct inducements of which can be traced in any part of a society. However, by that, the individual and irrational in art should not to be denied, but there should be put an accent on continuity of architectural thought and art before everything.Veza između politike i ideologije, sa jedne strane, i umetnosti, odnosno arhitekture, sa druge strane, često se smatrala za nešto ružno, nešto što 'prlja' ono umetničko u stvaralaštvu. Ovaj rad je, na primeru Ne...

ALEKSANDAR KADIJEVIĆ THE ROLE OF IDEOLOGY IN RECENT ARCHITECTURE AND ITS INTERPRETATION IN HISTORIOGRAPHY Despite the striking popularity and growing influence of historiographic interpretations on the protection of cultural monuments, the written works have not paid due attention to all fundamental components of the researched architectural fund. This particularly refers to those less obvious ideological premises of recent architecture which are more difficult to prove; their role cannot be properly judged because of the scarceness or total absence of original data. Therefore, their historiographic interpretations are most frequently incomplete and controversial. The aim of this article is to instigate a debate on the role of ideology in recent architecture and to indicate the difficulties faced by its interpreters. Primarily interested in the morphology and structural features of architectural works, contained in the empirically testable design processes, art historians have paid less attention to the conceptual, ethical and psychological bases of collective inclinations and individual desires in the history of architecture. Generalized evaluations about the social causality of the studied composition were rarely supported by detailed analyses of their representative–linguistic qualities. Occasional interpretations of ideological and political meanings of the realized architectural works were made reluctantly, with a fear of random excursions outside the main field into the area of social historiography and sociology. However, in the last decade of the twentieth century, under the influence of postmodernist theories in culture, such an attitude was somewhat revised and historiographers experienced a methodological turning point. Although renounced at the beginning, the semiological approach to interpretations in the history of architecture has gradually become desirable. The treatment of architecture as cultural text was initiated in structuralism, but was later diversified in post–structuralist iconographic, hermeneutic, discursive and deconstructive analyses. It has not yet been exactly proven that, in its representative segment, architecture unambiguously represents an order of conventionally recognizable signs and symbols, nor that, like a text, it communicates messages to the general public; its inferential classification as discourse with different connotation was inspired by mass „recognition“ and „measurement“ of the extra–numerical ideological substance in buildings and designs. There is a growing interest of post–historic historiography in ideological premises of artistic creation, and it has had its effect on the interpretation of architecture. In appropriating recent methodological experiences of social history, sociology and politicology, some interpreters of architectural historiography urge selective multidisciplinarity (more acceptable than the total or unselective one), and therefore the contents of their works are easily identified. Despite these emancipatory endeavours, which can be very fertile, their perspective is unavoidably limited, particularly in the judging of periods when public architecture was not subjected to a manifest political instrumentalization, or in cases when the building of private houses was not crucially inspired by ideological interests. Therefore, their interpretations are not always firmly founded, particularly those that perceive in the architecture from the late eighteenth to the end of the twentieth century only the reflections of social fermentation and deterministically see these works only as means for the transmission of political messages, a form of sophisticated conjuring of tradition, the framework of ephemeral spectacles, the proof of rulers’ megalomania, the expression of a competitive boasting of the rich classes and the pragmatic servility of the architect. In other words, the interpretation that mechanically insists that ideological, political and class dimensions of architecture are crucial, or if it treats all other segments of architecture, for reasons of post–historic revisionism, as peripheral, such interpretation will unavoidably inspire historiographic particularlism. The making of an objective and comprehensive image of the nature of ideological desires of architects is a specific challenge to historiographers of different epochs. A systematic typological classification or founded valorization of the relevant historic ideologies will establish their influence on the development of architectural forms and structures. In this complex aspiration, which should be institutionally ramified and methodologically deepened, the role of impinterpreters is of crucial importance.

Уни вер зи тетИс точ ногме ди те ра на, Фа кул тетар хи тек ту ре,Ки пар DOI10.5937/kultura1754300K УДК711.61(497.11) 72.071.1МандићС. оригиналаннаучнирад КУЛ ТУР НЕОСНО ВЕ АР ХИ ТЕК ТУ РЕМО ДЕР НЕУ ЈУ ГО СЛА ВИ ЈИ(1945-1990) ПРИ МЕРТР ГАПАР ТИ ЗА НА УУЖИ ЦУ(1961) Са же так: Трг пар ти за на је отво рен 1961. го ди не пре ма про јек ту ар хи тек те Стан ка Ман ди ћа. Про је кат је сло је ви то об ли ко ван због че га је ду бо ко ин те гри сан у жи вот гра да. Сто га је по треб но ана ли зи ра ти осно ве ко је су по ста вље не пре не го што је по ву че на пр ва ли ни ја ко ја тра га за фор мом. Овај рад ана ли зи ра фи ло зоф ске, етич ке, естет ске и со ци о ло шке осно ве ко је је ау тор де фи ни сао пре при сту па ња про це су про јек то ва ња. Рад ана ли зи ра сле де ће еле мен те ко ји су из дво је ни из пи са них из во ра ар хи тек те: на ви ке ста нов ни штва и ре кон струк ци ја гра да, не до след ност и не по што ва ње усво је них ур ба ни стич ких ре ше ња, ур ба но ис ку ство ста нов ни штва и са вре ме на ре ше ња, укла ња ње ори јен тал них тра го ва и европ ски сно ви ста нов ни штва, ге не ра то ри про ме на у про сто ру, ар хи тек ту ра је сли ка дру штва, кул тур но на сле ђе се по шту је и чу ва, укљу че ње вер на ку лар не тра ди ци је у је зик Мо дер не, ло кал ни ма те ри ја ли, ло кал но при род но на сле ђе, но ви тех нич ки при ступ про јек то ва њу, то по гра фи ја те ре на као ком по зи ци о но си дри ште, из бе га ва ње ап со лу ти стич ке ат мос фе ре тр га, при стој на ме ра мемо ри јал ног сло ја, па жљи во кре и ра ње ви зу ра и ат мос фе ре. Кључ не ре чи: Трг пар ти за на у Ужи цу, ар хи тек ту ра Мо дер не, Стан ко Ман дић, ар хи тек ту ра Ју го сла ви је, те о риј ске осно ве архитек ту ре Ју го сла ви је

SUMMARY: The Bridge of Chivalric King Alexander I the Unifier across the Sava river, also known as Zemun Bridge (1929–34), was the first suspension bridge constructed in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. It connected the capital city and Zemun and provided the major link for Belgrade’s urban expansion onto the left bank of the river, which was one of urban planning priorities between the two World Wars. А different and broader context to the bridge, more complex and ideological in nature, reflected, inter alia, in the symbolic unification of the Yugoslav nation, for centuries divided by the border along the Sava. The piers and approaches to the bridge were constructed by the Paris-based Société de Construction des Batignolles, while the Oberhausen-based company Gutehoffnungshütte was to manufacture the iron construction. Design of Piers 2, 4 and 5 was entrusted to Nikolay Petrovich Krasnov (rus. Никола́й Петро́вич Красно́в), a prominent Russian-born architect employed at the Architecture Department of the Ministry of Construction, at the discretion of the minister. Krasnov met the specified requirements and clad the piers in rough-textured stone slabs and decorated them with a combination of Byzantine and Romanesque motifs. The initial idea for a triumphal arch at the right-bank entrance to the bridge was soon replaced by the idea of erecting four guard lion statues, and a commission was set up to that end. The lions of Dragomir Aramabašić, a sculptor, and Roman Verhovskoy (rus. Роман Николаевич Верховско́й), an architect, were rejected, while those of Risto Stijović and Petar Pallavicini (Palavičini) were not even submitted to the commission for review, a fact that, once it became public, caused an outrage. The sculptural decoration of the bridge became the focus of public debate when a new project suddenly appeared, this time for four equestrian statues by the sculptor Ivan Meštrović. The statues of the horsemen, Emperor Dušan and Kings Tomislav, Tvrtko I Kotromanić and Peter I Karadjordjević, made the bridge the perfect stage for constitution of Yugoslav identity. The architectural, aesthetic and ideological aspects of the Bridge of Chivalric King Alexander I the Unifier were largely identified during and after construction. Predictably enough, the construction was accompanied by a number of scandals, which were given coverage in the press, and heated debates at the meetings of the Association of Artists and the Association of Yugoslav Engineers and Architects, which involved architects, engineers, visual artists, journalists and others interested in urban planning and architectural issues. Professional opinions expressed in a critical and problem-oriented manner stirred up a discussion on functional, architectural and artistic problems, which escalated into an open clash of opinions over the aesthetic and ideological aspects of how to interpret a contemporary utilitarian structure, which was characteristic of the time in which the bridge was being constructed, the time when modern architecture won a decisive victory. ABSTRACT: The Bridge of Chivalric King Alexander I the Unifier across the Sava river was built in 1929–34 and was the largest utilitarian structure in Belgrade at the time. As such, it was seen not only as a local landmark and a link between Belgrade and Zemun, but also as a symbol of the economic growth and technological progress of the whole Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The modern suspension bridge was to be set into a historical matrix embodied in the piers designed by the architect Nikolai Krasnov and the initially planned triumphal arch, subsequently replaced by four lion statues and, eventually, by Ivan Meštrović’s equestrian statues of emperor Dušan and kings Tomislav, Tvrtko I Kotromanić and Peter I Karadjordjević. The bridge construction was taking place amidst a debate over its architectural, aesthetic and ideological aspects, and involved engineers, architects, visual artists, journalists, and other experts. The study of the overall context of its architecture reveals the concepts of ideology which had a bearing on broader spheres of politics, culture and society. APSTRAKT: Most viteškog kralja Aleksandra Prvog Ujedinitelja podignut je preko reke Save u periodu 1929–1934. godine i predstavljao je najveći utilitarni objekat u Beogradu. Kao takav, nije bio posmatran samo kao lokalni orijentir i spona između prestonice i Zemuna već kao simbol ekonomskog razvoja i tehnološkog napretka cele Kraljevine Jugoslavije. Za savremeni viseći most bila je predviđena istorijska matrica koju su činili piloni arhitekte Nikolaja Krasnova i prvobitno predviđena trijumfalna kapija, ubrzo zamenjena figurama četiri lava. Kasnije je ipak odabran projekat konjaničkih skulptura istorijskih vladara – cara Dušana, kraljeva Tomislava, Tvrtka Prvog Kotromanića i Petra Prvog Karađorđevića – koji je izradio Ivan Meštrović. Rasprave o arhitektonskim, estetskim i ideološkim aspektima mosta, u kojima su učestvovali inženjeri, arhitekti, umetnici, novinari i drugi zainteresovani stručnjaci, pratile su tok izgradnje. Ispitivanje punog konteksta njegove arhitekture otkriva postojanje ideoloških koncepcija koje su se odražavale na šire sfere politike, kulture i društva.

Предмет рада представља сагледавање промена значења појма синтезе у архитектонском дискурсу у Југославији од 1948. до 1987. године, под утицајем идеологије којом се редефинишу односи архитекта– друштво, процеси демократизације културе и уметности, увођење самоуправних односа у архитектонску и уметничку праксу – кроз обликовање, хуманизацију и естетизацију простора. Циљ истраживања огледа се у дефинисању и раслојавању фокусних објеката и целина у оквиру града Крагујевца, који су представљали важне примере успостављања програма синтезе. Кроз рад је заступљена историјска научна метода примењена кроз прикупљање и обраду доступних извора у виду писане и илустроване архивске грађе. У процесу писања рада коришћен је и типолошки метод, путем којег су успостављени базични параметри за типолошку класификацију спроведену кроз анализу архитектонских одлика. Суштина истраживања заснована је на идеји детерминисања синтезе као свеобухватног процеса који се развијао на простору бивше Југославије и имао за циљ едукацију друштва и естетизацију животне средине, посебно у новоформираним политичким центрима као што је то био Крагујевац. Резултати истраживања могу бити употребљени као база за конституисање дискурса синтезе као важног дела наслеђа и заједничког добра кроз изградњу односа према уметничким колекцијама којe припадају свима.

Log In

Arhitektura i ideologija - novo jedinstvo - Nemačka 1918-1945

Sign up for access to the world's latest research

Abstract

Related papers

Related topics