Forget your past - Jordanka Peycheva

Forget your past.

Jordanka Peycheva MA Architecture and Landscape Kingston Univeristy K1513168 1

Forget Your Past.

The Changing Face of Modernism in Bulgaria Creating a Sense of Place From Collective Nostalgia and Cultural Memory.

Jordanka Peycheva Kingston School of Art

MA Dissertation Word Count: 13, 258

2

CONTENTS. Preface.

5.

Chapter 1. CONTEXT - The Modern Movement in Bulgaria Examined

6.

Through the ‘Bauhaus’ House on the Hill: 0.1 Emergence of Modernism

10.

0.2 Birth of Modernism in Bulgaria

16.

0.3 The ‘Bauhaus’ House on the Hill

28.

0.4 The Birth, Sunset and Nostalgia of the Bulgarian Modernism 30.

Chapter 2. TECTONICS - Nostalgia in the Post-Stalinist Architecture of Stefka Georgieva: 01. Introduction to the Bulgarian Socialist Realism

34.

02. Tectonics and Nostalgia

38.

03. Stefka Georgieva and Tectonic Symbolism of the Tennis Hall

50.

Chapter 3. ARCHITECTURE - The Everyday Memory in the Monuments and Public Spaces of the Post-Communist Future: Reflective Nostalgia, Memory and Narrating Identity: 0.1 Memory and Monuments

54.

0.2 The everyday Memory of Post-Comminst Bulgaria

58.

0.3 The “Despised” Monument - “1300 Years of Bulgaria” - Sofia

66.

0.4 The “Beloved” Monument - “1300 Years of Bulgaria”- Shumen

3

Conclusion

76.

Bibliography

78.

List of Illustrations

80.

PREFACE. Caught between ancient culture and modern tradition, socialism and capitalism, small towns and big cities, leisure and schedule, analogue and digital, Bulgaria continuous to simultaneously grow and flee from itself. This ongoing duality and contradiction is also evident within Bulgarian architectural history, which is what initially inspired this research. Transformation from old to new always involves negotiation: no matter how absent from the physical landscape, the old is never really gone - it is always present - be it in an old photograph, a story, a poem. Memory, individual or collective, is not only closely related to socio-political phenomena, but also to the socio-cultural richness such as architecture and art.

When radical movements such as modernism try to break through a given context, it is usually holistically connected to the political and social development of the country. In this light, architecture carries a lot of the definitions, sometimes unconsciously and unsuspectingly, that society places upon itself. Hence, at the core of this thesis is the notion that any expressiveness of a building or a monument can become the subconscious expressiveness of society as a whole. Therefore, when modernism is introduced in this research, it is examined through three distinct time periods, as it plays a vital role as a universal style and symbol of technical progress in the architectural development in Bulgaria.

When reconciling with the past and trying to find the right place and context within which to identify with, a certain degree of emotional negotiation is necessary. In this case, nostalgia is the binding force of this reconciliation, whether on an individual or collective level, and therefore underpins the landscape of this dissertation. Nostalgia can be a useful practice, which grants access to sites and selves from the past, and connects them to those of the present. It’s important to note that nostalgia in this thesis does not aim for a sentimental lament over a loss, but rather a critical reclaiming and understanding of the past for the purpose of constructing an alternative future. Ultimately, this practice allows not only to remember and understand the past, but gives meaning to the present, as one is bound to the other. It is precisely within post-communist societies, such as Bulgaria, where this negotiation, and the discourse around it, becomes imperative for the understanding of its architectural historical contingency.

4

CHAPTER 1. CONTEXT THE MODERN MOVEMENT IN BULGARIA ANALYSED THROUGH THE ‘BAUHAUS’ HOUSE ON THE HILL 1. EMERGENCE OF MODERNISM The Western view: “Let us create a new guild of craftsmen, without the class distinctions which create an arrogant barrier between craftsmen and artist.

Together let us conceive and create the new building of the future, which will embrace architecture and sculpture and painting in one unity and which will rise one day toward heaven from the hands of a million workers like the crystal symbol of a new faith.” 1 - Proclamation of the Weimar Bauhaus, 1919

The Bulgarian view: “With pride and faith in their own strength, let our contemporaries and future generations turn the pages of the past, to meet again and again those heroic years, when the centuries-old spiritual forces of the nation raised their wings, pierced the darkness, illuminated the land of slavery and showed the world that he who is the recipient of the rich and ancient culture, deserves trust and respect because he carries within himself the fighting power to defend its freedom and potential to abide.”2 - Georgi Ovcharov, 1924

1 2

5

Frampton Kenneth, Modern Architecture - A Critical History.(Thames and Hudson, 2007) p. 123.

Nedelcho Paskalev, Georgi Ovcharov, (Sofia: Technika, 1982) (in Bulgarian) p. 3.

‘Pure architecture’ no longer exists - nor has it ever. Architecture is not an isolated phenomenon, but rather a manifestation of elements adopted, interpreted and moulded within the context of the period in which they were created. Architectural history (regardless of whether it encompasses a decade or a period of a thousand years) entails the distinction between different architectural styles, types of buildings and construction. However, most notable are the studies which consider the architectural developments in the light of the events in society in general, making architecture not an obsolete object devoid of any reference, but rather a crucial part of the development of our history and culture as a whole. This dissertation focuses partly on this idea that every architectural movement went hand in hand with the cultural, societal, and political environment of the given context. One of the most groundbreaking movements, which emerged at the end of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth century, Modernism, defined a wide range of cultural movements in music, literature, fine arts and, of course, architecture - ultimately concretising the evolution of these disciplines ever since. From its initial inception, modernism at its core attempted to incorporate new knowledge, technologies and practical skills within the rapid development of art and the bright individualisation of artistic creativity.3 (fig 1-3) This specific time was when Industrialisation was presented with enthusiasm - as an opportunity for a total renewal of the economic, social and political life.4 According to the chronicler of the Modern Movement - art critic and engineer Siegfried Gideon (1888-1968) “the shift in paradigm of technical and scientific innovations imposes new spatio-temporal dependencies within the human perception and thinking, which inevitably changes the creative approach towards the arts.”5 The pursuit of this experimentation and fragmentation of human experience provoked experiments with form and new materials and technologies, leading to a purposeful disengagement from the sorrow past, by using the language of art to seek an answer to the rapid changes of life.

3

6

4 5

Banham Reyner, Theory and design in the First Machine Age, (MIT Press, 1960) p. 12.

Ibid., p. 12.

Ibid., p. 12.

This revolt from the tradition of Academicism and Historicism aimed to establish mechanisms to diffuse art into everyday life.

Key figure of this phenomenon, poet Ezra Pound (1885-1972) summarises that this new universal aspiration was undoubtedly a new innovation. It provoked complex revolutionary approaches nihilism, fanatical enthusiasm for change, and creativity for the sake of creativity and as a result it sometimes lead to disengagement and despair from society as a whole.6 Although the pioneering period of Modernism began to develop as early as the nineteenth century, it was only able to gain full momentum and rapidly spread internationally only after the rattling horrors of the First World War. The desire to immediately overthrow the burden of the recent past, and overcome the discord with applied arts, allowed the emerging style of modernism to give birth to new concepts in architecture “the new modern style was a revelation bearing the spirit of a new time with its social and democratic philosophy, dynamism and changeability, impulsiveness and universality.”7 It is important to note that although modernism erupted and spread quickly around Europe and the rest of the world, its acceptance and realisation depended vastly on the different cultural and political situations of each country. The most obvious divide we can see is between the West capitalist world and the East communist side.

On the Western side modernism was able to erupt in a more liberal and thus linear development, as opposed to the east had to break through the prism of rapidly changing and contextually opposing political and social paradigms. This in turn created suddenly very specific modernist sub-movements, only relatable to the historical experience in Eastern Europe. In this vein this thesis will use Bulgaria as a case study to explore the different faces of modernism throughout the 20th century in an extremely changing climate. The three main time periods which will be analysed are: the post-war years when modernism first makes a break-through in the country and manages to assert itself as the new style. The second is the post-stalinist era where the architects of that time look back at the post-war years to try and re-apply the same modernist principles but also the hope that a better future is still possible. The final and most intricate period analysed will be the post-communist era, and the effect that had on the public places and monuments in Bulgaria. All three time periods deal with the key transitions within the Bulgarian architectural contingency, and through this analyses that I hope will shed light on the development of architecture in a rapidly changing Eastern European country such as Bulgaria.

6 7

7

Childs Peter, Modernism, (Routledge, 2000) p. 9.

Willett John, The new sobriety 1917-1933, (London: Thames and Hudson, 1987) p. 22.

Figure 1. Le Corbusier, Villa Stein/ de Monzie (Les Terrasses), Garches, 1926-8, Garden facade

Figure 2. Marcel Breuer and F.R.S. Yorke, house at Angmering, 1936

Figure 3. Amyas Connell, Basil Ward and Colin Lucas, House at Frognal, Hampsted, London 1937

8

2. BIRTH OF MODERNISM IN BULGARIA

Figure. 4 Kosta Nikolov, Pleven Country Headquareter, 1927-9

Modernism begins to emerge in Bulgaria shortly after the First World War and the degree of adherence to its basic principles were directly and indirectly presupposed by the specifics of the nationalhistorical destiny and social conditions in the country during the first decades of the twentieth century.8 After its liberation from the Ottoman empire in 1878, Bulgaria immediately established stable trade relations with Western Europe, through which a direct import of ideas and technical innovations began to flood in as the main cultural standard by broad social strata.9 This rapid pace of ambitious economic and cultural growth was abruptly interrupted by the Balkan Wars (1912-14), and later by Bulgaria’s participation in the First World War (1915-17), ultimately leading to the still unfortified country’s losses of territory and population.

8 Boyadzhiev Stefan, Bulgarian architecture during the centuries, (Sofia: Ed. of BAS, 1982) (in Bulgarian) p. 18 9 Tonev Luben, Architecture in Bulgaria, (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Studies, 1962) p.41.

9

However, as most cases in Bulgaria, it can not be said that the connection between the historical conditions and the reflection of modernism in the country, lie within the correct proportionality of a consistent one-way determinism. Rather, it was characterised by duality and contradiction; often the same phenomenon favoured and at the same time hindered the manifestations of modernism - partial, rarely consistent, and most often contradictory.10 For example, the impact of economic instability in the country, could be seen as a two-way antithetical development. On the one hand, the modernist influence was favoured because of its promise of economy, however, at the same time the lack of sufficiently developed construction equipment and production of construction materials became significant obstacles to the literal application of modernism. Subsequently, the slow and poor development of building technique, along with the complex and dynamic picture of the political life, further delayed the complete realisation of the modernist movement in the country and, along with it, the overall social optimism.

Figure 5. Kosta Nikolov, Pleven Country Headquareter, 1927-9 10

10

Luben, Architecture in Bulgaria, p. 41

The period after the First World War was especially complicated for Bulgarian culture. In an effort to overcome a well-known national complex of cultural backwardness, the country’s “accelerated development”11 feverishly tried to catch up with models proposed by advanced countries. The urgent need to accumulate and absorb the achievements of a developed Europe was an inevitable historical reality after centuries of cultural isolation. An essential distinguishing feature was the coexistence of opposing artistic models which were deprived of the opportunity for a natural and full development, thus, failing to ever reach maturity and creative exhaustion.12 (fig. 4-5) It is in this respect that the period between the two world wars was among the most dynamic in the Bulgarian history. Although the twenties were a period of eclectic political and social dynamics, not just in Bulgaria but also in a pan-european, post-world war context, they were also a time of hectic artistic life, with a burst of exhibitions, competitions, professional associations and the creation of many publications.13 The twenties also marked the first time when modern ideas made their way into Bulgarian architecture via Bulgarians educated in Western Europe (there was no academic architectural school in the country until 1943). Nevertheless, they were immediately presented with an insufficiently developed and unstable economy, restless and changeable political life, and a rapidly emerging culture - forming a complex moment within the Bulgarian historical contingency.14 The acceptance of modernism did not have its own national basis of origin and development, thereby if we return to its three main facets - technical progress, artistic avant-garde and social reform ambitions - it is not difficult to establish their insufficient completeness in Bulgaria. (fig. 6-7)

11

11 Boyadzhuev Konstantin, Classic and Romantic in Contemporary Bulgarian Architecture, (Arhitektura, 2000) (In Bulgarian) p. 28 12 Ibid., p. 83.

13 Luben, Architecture in Bulgaria, p. 43.

14 Lyudmil Andreev, The Western functionalism and Its Influence on Bulgaria, (LIK, 1988) (In Bulgarian) p. 10.

Figure 6. Boris Boyadzhiev & Velyo Debelyanov, Cooperative apartment building, Sofia, 1925

Figure 7. Boris Boyadzhiev & Velyo Debelyanov, Cooperative apartment building, Sofia, 1925

12

Figure. 8 House of Stoyanov, Boris Rusev, Sofia, 1931 (left-ext. view, above - floorplans, )

The emergence of modernism in the country was almost entirely an integral part of the cultural system in which the reference to foreign influence was a crucial determinant, and not a complementary factor.15 Although the modernist innovations were radical enough to break the national tradition, the degree of socio-economic, political and cultural maturity was still weak for self-generation of avant-garde ideas, leading to the full assimilation of the borrowed artistic models. Detached from the national tradition, the Bulgarian culture could hardly reorganise itself in such a short time and avoid the chaos inherent in the European culture itself, leading to the slow and difficult transition to modernity.16 Fundamentally, external influences became the decisive component for the perception of modernism in Bulgarian architecture.

Universally, when a new style emerges, it is initially reflected through the individual house and Bulgaria was no exception.

Therefore, when the modern movement finally gained momentum in Bulgaria during the 1930’s, it was most visible in the twostorey residences of the educated members of the middle class, for whom the modern form was a symbol of technological and cultural progress, a sign of integration with European civilisation and personal prosperity.17 (fig. 8-9)

13

15 Lyudmil. The Western functionalism and Its Influence on Bulgaria, p. 50.

16 Ibid., p. 56.

17 Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings.

(Arkhitektura. No.2, 1994) (In Bulgarian) p. 6.

Figure. 8 House of Stoyanov, Boris Rusev, Sofia, 1931 (front elevation)

This phenomenon emerged not as a fleeting fashion but rather as a product of the architects’ social commitment and personal beliefs. In the architecture of the individual residential buildings commissioned to them, the young Bulgarian architects were given the freedom to follow most closely the artistic credo of the epoch. Henceforth, Western influences were becoming obvious, and cultural borders insignificant for a style both so vital and democratic.

The houses built in the beginning of the 1930’s came as evidence that creative concepts in Bulgaria were striving to be in line with the spirit of the time. However, the more modernism was beginning to assert itself deeper into the architectural scene, the more dramatic the split between the historic-romantic and the modernist artistic circles became. The historic-romantic group of the pre-war generation of architects aimed at creating an identifiable national culture and a relevant national style by interpreting the classical vernacular and national revival styles of the 19th century18; whereas the universal or rather modern new generation of architects, which had already tasted the culture of the European industrial society, particularly the rationalism and constructivism of the Bauhaus, were anticipating that time had passed into a new era, and it was time to fully embrace the new values of culture and architecture of the twentieth century.

18

14

Stoilova, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, p. 8.

3. THE ‘BAUHAUS’ HOUSE ON THE HILL

“Architecture in the last few generations has become weakly sentimental, aesthetic, and decorative… this kind of architecture we disown. We aim to create a clear, organic architecture whose inner logic will be radiant and naked, unencumbered by lying facings and trickery; we want an architecture adapted to our world of machines, radios and fast cars… with the increasing strength of the new materials - steel, concrete, glass - and with the new audacity of engineering, the ponderousness of the old methods of building is giving way to a new lightness and airiness” 19 - Walter Gropius

Bauhaus was the name of the school of arts founded by Walter Gropius in 1919, on the site of the school ‘Saxon-Weimar School of the Arts’, where Gropius further stated that: “The Bauhaus believes the machine to be our modern medium of design and seeks to come to terms with it.”20 The Bauhaus only lasted from 1919 to 1933, and although it had a short life, it was more than a personal statement of assurance; it marked a major step in the maturing system of forms that many architects adopted and even took with them to foreign shores, which was also the case with Bulgaria. (fig 9-10)

19 20

15

Curtis William J.R., Modern architecture since 1900 (London: Phaidon, 2013) p. 193.

Ibid., p. 194.

Figure 9. Walter Gropius, Bauhaus, Dessau, 1926

Figure. 10 Bauhaus, Dessau, 1926, axonometric projection

16

Figure 11. House for Tepavachirov, Neno Yamantiev, Garbovo, 1933 External view

Figure 12. House for Tepavachirov, Neno Yamantiev, Garbovo, 1933 floor plans

17

Following the devotion of the Bauhaus’s functional credo for marginal economy and purism, many of the Bulgarian architects began to apply its principles almost religiously. In most of the houses with two residential floors, located freely in a small yard in a central city plot, the functional logic was expressed by clearly defined volumes, sparing use of materials, colours, harmonious proportions and rhythm. The façades were asymmetrical and well balanced with horizontal bands of windows, and powerful contrast of solid/open, light/dark and vertical/horizontal elements.21 (fig 11-12) By the mid-1930s more typical attributes of modernism were making their way into the designs of these private houses. However, modernist ideas were co-opted, muted and mated with more traditional Bulgarian ideals in the quest for suitable metaphors to express the new way of life. Thus, the avant-garde - a curious minority class of its own - took on the task of formulating a visual language with the purpose of encapsulating the aspirations of the Bulgarian society as a whole.22

Although, modernism was a crucial vein in the residential development, it could not yet completely escape the echo of the traditional. In spite of this, one house managed to not only apply the modernist principles in full force, but also asserted itself as the best example of modern architecture in the country. The Stoynov House, designed in 1934 by architect Svetoslav Grozev, is among the highest examples of pure modernism, not only in the city it was built in, Plovdiv, but also in all of Bulgaria, which later led to its non-official name ‘The Bauhaus House on the Hill.’23 (fig. 13) It is no coincidence that this house emerged specifically in Plovdiv, Bulgaria’s second largest city, which throughout its millennia-old existence has preserved its essence of being an important cultural hub - even in present-day Bulgaria, Plovdiv is known as the city of free-thinkers and artists.

18

21 Stoilova, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, p. 10 22 Ibid., p. 11.

23 Ibid., p. 12.

Figure. 13 The Stoynov House, Svetoslav Grozev, 1934, Plovdiv

Originally built within seven hills, which form the skeleton of Plovdiv, The Stoynov House is situated on one of three hills, which outline the city centre, Taksim Tepe.(fig. 14) This represents one of the main symbolisms of the residence - being placed on a hill overlooking the centre it immediately acts as a monument for the new movement, asserting the strive for a new era to arrive. Furthermore, it is no coincidence that the mind behind the emblematic nature of The Stoynov House, the architect Svetoslav Grozev, despite being originally from Plovdiv received his higher education in Berlin. Bulgarian writer and critique, Nikola Chinkov, described his work as a “true artist with a pronounced individual style and, at the same time, a person - interesting and desirable in the broad circles of the Plovdiv cultural society.”24 It goes without saying that the influence of the Bauhaus school is especially felt in Grozev’s work, where he masterfully, like most prominent architects of that time, adds his own touch to the stylistic features of modernism.

24 Stoilova, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, p. 11

19

Figure. 14 The Stoynov House, Svetoslav Grozev, 1934, Plovdiv,

Figure. 15 The Stoynov House, Svetoslav Grozev, 1934, Plovdiv, Site plan

20

The Stoynov House follows a clear functional system, where the reinforced concrete structure arranges the form in service of the function, adapting Louis Sullivan’s formal vocabulary of ‘form follows function’.25 The functional differentiation is carried out by levels, where living room, kitchen and bathrooms are placed on the ground floor with a harmonious proportionality and are connected through sliding doors. The house has two entrances - an official and a back one, usually used by the servants and leading to a long narrow corridor which provides access to the kitchen, a dining room and a large living room divided by a multiwinged door. A two-wing staircase located at the main entrance hall leads to the upper floors where the number of rooms along a narrow corridor follow the same layout as downstairs.26 (fig 15-16)

The house has two semi-circular flat roof terraces, one on the southeast facade which projects over the main entrance of the house, and the other on the southwest side, with projecting views to the whole city of Plovdiv. Le Corbusier’s idea of the roof terrace is here employed as a communal space to be used in the summer months. The exterior of the house consists of clean and laconic volumes, whilst still looking elegant and expressive.

The inspiration for this romantic display of volumes without decoration seems to have come from the Bauhaus’ images of “white cubic volumes, stripped planar shapes, open plans, and machine-age detail.”27 However, the abstract forms of the house were more than a display of private virtuosity, the volumes were intended as the most suitable expression of the new movement.

21

25 Curtis, Modern architecture since 1900, p. 173.

26 Stoilova, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, p. 12.

27 Curtis, Modern architecture since 1900, p. 197.

Figure 16. The Stoynov House, Svetoslav Grozev, 1934, Plovdiv, Perspective views

Figure 17. The Stoynov House, Svetoslav Grozev, 1934, Plovdiv, first floor plan

22

Figure 18. Bauhaus, Dessau, 1926, window detail

Figure 19. The Stoynov House, Svetoslav Grozev, 1934, Plovdiv, front facade

23

Further parallels with the Bauhaus functionalism can be found in the accentuation of volumes and planes, verticals and horizontals, through the composition of window surfaces - a set piece exercise in the heightened expression of three-dimensional tensions in space, a notion which Gropius first applied at the Bauhaus school.28 (fig 17) The varied fenestration on each facade of the house accentuates the largeness and smallness of the spaces within, and thus, admits different levels of light according to the function. The wide glazing of the living rooms along with the spacious terraces, connected to the courtyard, create an overflow between the spaces inside and outside.(fig 18) Subsequently, the functional organisation and the interior furnishing further cover the ideas of Gropius about building as a place of living, which serves the diverse and changing needs of the inhabitants.29

The monolith expressiveness of the silhouette and the plasticity in the house, married with the well-thought-out propositions and rhythm of the elements create a logical composition of volumes, expressing the functional solution. The house marked a transition from the hybrid private houses, which until then presented a mixture of the traditional and modern. The prominent impact of The Bauhaus order, as well as Le Corbusier’s (among others) formal vocabulary, was indisputable, and it is scarcely an exaggeration to claim that without them the Bulgarian architect Svetoslav Grozev would of had far less of an idea on how to translate modernism into forms and then into three-dimensional realities.

28 29

24

Curtis, Modern architecture since 1900, p. 197.

Ibid., p. 198

The glories of this house and the architecture it symbolised, however, did not last long - September 9th, 1944, marked the beginning of the new Communist government and its nationalisation politics.30 In its fundamental essence - despite the initial explorations which happened in the USSRs, just after the revolution such as constructivism, suprematism, etc. modernism represented the complete opposite of the uniform communist ideology, therefore, like any dictatorship aiming to establish itself, the new order could not allow its existence within Bulgarian society. Subsequently, the pioneers of modernist cultural idealism, who represented a big part of the intellectual class, were the first victims of this persecution, which resulted in the loss of all private property and imprisonment. Such was also the fate of Stefan Stoynov, who later committed suicide. The house then suffered full neglect during the entire communist reign, only its skeleton remained on top of the hill as a testament to a nearly forgotten past. (fig.19) Nonetheless, communism did not succeed in eradicating the legacy of Stoynov House, which still up to this day is seen as the first pure incarnation of the modernist movement on Bulgarian soil.

“Ruins make us think of the past that could have been and the future that never took place, tantalising us with utopian dreams of escaping the irreversibility of time…. Ruins give us a shock of vanishing materiality… Contemporary ‘ruinophilia’ relates to the prospective dimension of nostalgia, the type of nostalgia that is reflective rather than restorative and dreams of potential futures rather than imaginary pasts.”31 —Svetlana Boym, The Future of Nostalgia

30 Andreev, The Western functionalism and Its Influence on Bulgaria, p. 38.

31 Boym Svetlana, The Future of Nostalgia, (Basic Books, 2008) p. 41.

25

fig. 20 The Stoynov House, Svetoslav Grozev, 1934, Plovdiv, skeleton photos, 2009

fig. 21 The Stoynov House, Svetoslav Grozev, 1934, Plovdiv, skeleton photos, 2009

26

4. THE BIRTH, SUNSET & NOSTALGIA OF THE BULGARIAN MODERNISM

While forms of modern architecture created during the inter-war period were manifested worldwide, one can find a multiplicity of reactions to these ideals, all the way from those who considered architecture a minor element on social reform to those who felt, on the contrary, that artistic endeavour should be in the vanguard of change.32 Likewise, the modern movement cannot be understood separately from the specific social ideals which gave rise to it. Therefore, it can be stated that the selfless service of certain ideals, as in the case of Gropius, or the intellectual paternalism of Le Corbusier, does not lie within the sobriety and realism of the Bulgarian architect, who hovered between the historical and national-psychological roots rather than relate to the scientific and technological progress.33 Nonetheless, the difficult national-historical destiny gave way for the emergence of modernism, for which the requirement for economy and utilitarian expediency were inherent. Here, too, the characteristic duality manifested in itself ambiguity, in which the Bulgarian architects determined the partial application of modernism, with predisposition to extremes and literalness in the perception of the new.34 Likewise, whatever utopian yearnings they may have shared of the ideal life entertained by their Western contemporaries, the insufficient maturity of the Bulgarian society and culture for risks and experiments eliminated any individual phases of a full-fledged development. Thus, it is safe to say that the manifestations of modernism are the result of the perception of its ideas in a movement that seldom goes beyond the bounds of the conjectural (with the exception of some of the younger architects educated abroad). Therefore, consistent modernism was limited to the individual residential buildings, which were designed to communicate the message that Bulgaria was striving to be a new, technologically sophisticated and, more importantly, developed country.

32 33 34

27

Curtis, Modern architecture since 1900, p. 202 Andreev, The Western functionalism and Its Influence on Bulgaria, p. 42.

Ibid., p. 43

The reflection of modernism in the inter-war architecture in Bulgaria can be synthesised in three stages - birth, sunset and nostalgia. Its birth comes late, without its own support, where its flowering is manifested in a passion for its attributes for a period not exceeding a decade. Henceforth, its sunset comes prematurely, without sufficient maturity or being completely differentiated and fully experienced as a generally accepted practice. The tragic fate of the Bulgarian modernism gives rise to a new, complex notion, which unsuspectingly defines Bulgarian architecture in the coming age - and Bulgarian identity as a whole - nostalgia. Nostalgia comes from the Greek words: ‘nostos’, meaning ‘to return home’ and ‘altos’, meaning ‘pain’. The pain refers to a dissatisfaction with the present and subsequently a will to return home to happier times.

The concept of nostalgia often comes with negative connotations and is usually dismissed as unhelpful and pessimists, however the experience of nostalgia is melancholic, and can be affirming in one’s sense of identity, stability and continuity. Nostalgia provides an escape from the discontent present and the fearful future; an outlet to connect back through the ages and across social divides. Nostalgia, thus, has many dimensions where Russian writer and academic Svetlana Boym argues for two types of nostalgia: ‘restorative nostalgia’ versus ‘reflective nostalgia.’35 Whereas restorative nostalgia “attempts a transhistorical reconstruction of the lost home,”36 reflective nostalgia “dwells on the ambivalences of human longing and belonging and does not shy away from the contradictions of modernity.” 37 It is here I employ the idea that the nostalgia born in this specific Bulgarian context is an emotional response to a previous experience; a nostalgia which cherished memory and cultivated the later architects’ imagination and longings - longings for a better-imagined home in the future. Therefore, if nostalgia can evoke imagination and desire for a home in the future, it can be said that it is not only a longing for the past but also, a longing for the future. Arguably, the ‘Bauhaus House’ with its manifestation of pure Bulgarian modernism, plays a hidden role. The nostalgia born from the house is reflected in the later works of the poststalinist era architects who look back at the past to imagine a better present and future. Although the Bulgarian modernism fails to reach complete maturity and evolve in its own era, it nonetheless paves the way to reconcile the future with the past.

28

35 Boym, The Future of Nostalgia, p. 41 36 Ibid., p. 42 37 Ibid., p. 42

CHAPTER 2. TECTONICS NOSTALGIA IN THE POST-STALINIST ARCHITECTURE OF STEFKA GEORGIEVA 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE BULGARIAN SOCIALIST REALSIM

As stated earlier, it has become evident that, though indirectly, political developments have an impact on architecture and especially strongly on urbanism as a system of policies for urban development. After the Second World War, Bulgaria falls within the Soviet sphere of political influence and in 1948 was officially declared a socialist republic. The country immediately undergoes a period of rapid modernisation, including industrialisation, urbanisation, development of public facilities along with postwar reconstruction and redevelopment.(fig. 20-21) Even though modernisation was increasingly spreading everywhere in postwar Europe, there were distinct differences between the Western Capitalist process and the Eastern Communist one. While the former was centred around the model of the market economy and it’s subsequent spontaneous nature, Communism, on the other hand, placed its belief, as Boris Groys stated, in “aesthetics above life.”38 This way, by executing planned goals dictated by the political ideology, politics was able to liberate itself, thus, gaining sovereignty within the social domain and even becoming its own artificial organism.

Communist ideology was implemented in Bulgaria as a viable tool to “reconstruct the country’s infrastructure, boost the industrialisation process, solve Bulgaria’s backwardness in terms of political management and radical social inequalities, and convert the country into a giant socio-economic machine of a new order”.39

38 39

29

Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Stiller Adolph, Stefka Georgieva 1923-2004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 57.

Ibid., p.57.

Figure 22 Association of Financial employees’ vacation building, Nesebar, 1936, Krum Plakunov

Figure 23. Hristo Kovalcheki, Plan for development and construction of quarters for railroad workers in Sofia, 1935

Subsequently, modernism adapted to the new socio-political dynamics and asserted itself not merely as a style, but as a state religion in the form of Marxism-Leninism, and then later Stalinism, which intensely protruded every aspect of society’s fabric.The Soviet experiment as a whole began to crumble during the mid-1950’s when, after Stalin’s death, the upcoming modernist movement in Bulgaria was yet again abruptly interrupted, this time by a moral-ideological paradoxical equation between communist modernisation and reinventing the national continuity.40 Although still in a socialist-totalitarian context, the cultural processes in terms of architecture began to return back to the natural development of modernism - that is, the mainstream international (Western) modernism. It can thus be argued that, this is where this specific vein of nostalgia was born, which we will later see reflected in the works of architect Stefka Georgieva - a nostalgia for the ruins of a previously imagined modernity, which held the promise of an alternative future.

40

30

Kamenova, Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 1923-2004, p. 57.

It is here we arrive at an intricate situation within the young architects in Bulgaria, after the ‘April Thaw’ in 1956, amongst which the return to sincere modernism was embraced with open arms and enthusiasm. The aforementioned symbiosis between communism and nationalism was supposed to underpin the ideology’s fight against Western formalism. Nevertheless, there were no concrete parameters for the newly-evolving poststalinist modernism, in addition to the gradual liberalisation of the architecture scene, which left architects and artists in a flux of individually determining what architectural trends to work with.

Furthermore, due to Bulgaria’s peripheral positioning in Europe’s historical context and the present Soviet influence, the country started to develop a set of tactics for benefitting from its inbetweenness regarding the two universalistic centres at the time, aiming at constructing its identity upon this complex equilibrium. As a result, the communist ideology was ultimately adapted, softened and domesticated without being rejected.(fig 22-23)This provided fertile ground for a communist society in which positive qualities of each system could co-exist, paving the way for the romantically nostalgic architects, such as Stefka Georgieva, and their work to blossom as a symbol of this transition. Bulgaria slowly became a place for breeding dreams of reforming the socialist model, “while still being part of utopia, a world of the best impossible future.”41

41

31

Kamenova, Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 1923-2004, p. 58.

Figure 24. Alexander Barov, Ivan Ivanchev and Doncho Vladishki, University Sports Hall, Sofia, 1961

Figure 25. Ivan Tatarov and Dontcho Wladishki, “ Festivalna” Sports Hall, Sofia, 1968

32

2. TECTONICS AND NOSTALGIA It is within this respect where the aforementioned end of a certain cultural period in post-stalinist Bulgaria applies in full force, and predominantly to architecture. For a short time, there was a sense of new possibility and progress - including the new possibilities of a united nation, which would manifest itself through rebuilding its identity, which nevertheless existed alongside a sense of restriction, born from the social and cultural xenophobias of Socialist identity politics. In architecture, these tensions resulted in the oscillation between identification with collective contextualism and that with individual expressionism.

These tensions, and many others, were expressed architecturally from the level of urban design to that of the tectonic detail.

Ever since its self-identification in the 20th century, Bulgarian ‘national’ culture has been living in constant conflict between its so-called ‘roots’ and the universal civilisation it constantly compares itself to. Therefore, ‘finding the vernacular’ has always been the steady formula to be implemented when any architectural doubts and cultural problems occurred. It is with this in mind that we find the aesthetic of brutalism also arriving broken by the local context, and somewhere there, on the border, before the nationally rethought modernism turned from an experiment into a cliché, we find the works of architect Stefka Georgieva. It can be argued, that to truly understand the work of Georgieva, apart from the aforementioned nostalgic expression of modernism, her work and the tectonic order of her architecture have to be examined above all as a brutal testament to its time.

“I think that the dressing and the mask are as old as human civilisation and the joy in both is identical to the joy in those things that led men to be sculptors, painters, architects, poets, musicians, dramatists - in short, artists. Every artistic creation, every artistic pleasure, presumes a certain carnival spirit, or to express it in another modern way, the haze of the carnival candles is the true atmosphere of art.”42 Gottfried Semper

42

33

Gottfried Semper, Mallgrave Harry-Francis, and Robinson Michael, Style in the technical and tectonic arts, or, Practical aesthetics (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2004) p.31.

In our current world, we conceive of tectonics in a narrow sense: the activity of building or of making objects of use, which as long as ethically suffused, seek to satisfy their mere needs by forming a volume in accordance with their material necessity.43 Yet, tectonic theory resides within a much deeper vein of complexity; it examines “the interwoven relationship between space, function, structure, context, symbolism, representation, and construction.”44 No single definition exists that conveys the full meaning of the word tectonic, primarily because the term has and is constantly evolving over time. In present architectural vocabulary, the term ‘tectonic’ is defined as “the science or art of construction”45 or also frequently used to describe material nature and intentions in construction solutions, as well as structural systems and principles of organisation. Tectonics derives from the Greek words “tekton” - carpenter, and “techné” - the act of making that is driven by both a predetermined goal and the existing knowledge necessary to achieve that goal.

Tectonics’ primary meaning is defined as the “conscious, wilful working or reworking of matter until it becomes not only what it was, but also what it was our intention that it should become.”46 Originally rooted in history through the ancient civilisations of Greece and Rome, tectonic expression has been reinvented over time - due to the constant evolution of the built environment leading to a shift in the understanding of the term. The original intent has been pushed and pulled, at times it has been simplified and at other times corrupted. However, the original soul of tectonic expression remains: the belief that the construction of architecture - the ontological core of the built environment - is worthy of being expressed in the design of architectural space.

43 44

34

45 46

Bötticher, Karl, Die Tektonik der Hellenen (Berlin: Ernst & Korn Gropius’sche Buch- und Kunsthandlung, 1874) p. 58.

Schwartz, Chad, and R Ford Edward, Introducing Architectural Tectonics (Taylor & Francis, 2016) p. 35.

Ibid., p. 35.

Ibid., p. 45.

In his book ‘Studies in Tectonic Culture’, theorist Kenneth Frampton discusses the “constantly evolving interplay of three converging vectors, the topos, the typos, and the tectonic.”47 Frampton believes this integration of place, typology and construction does not favour a particular architectural style, and further pursues the meaning of tectonics in contemporary architectural discourse, defining it as “poetics of construction”.48 As such, it implies a different interpretation of technology and construction, elevating this realm beyond simple instrumental definitions.

Although tectonic expression is rooted primarily in the aesthetic context within building construction, it is also deeply concerned with the physical, social, historical, political and economical discourses of its environment. Therefore, the physical qualities of a building - structure, materials, organisation, as well as its process of assembly and constructional technique - can be approached as a synthesis of its time and place. It is to be understood that tectonics has the capacity for a kind of nostalgia, that would result from the implicit story told by the tectonic expression of a building. Within modernity nostalgia has, and is often presented with a negative connotation in its contextual uses, which is due to the fact that “nostalgia counteracts even undermines linear notions of progress whether they are framed dialectical as philosophy of history or sociologically and economically as modernisation.” 49 In the context of tectonics, it is the indissoluble combination of spatial and temporal desires that trigger nostalgia. Through the body of tectonics “the past is both present in its residues and yet no longer accessible”,50 making the building an especially powerful trigger for nostalgia, thus, bringing the physical into the metaphysical.

35

47 48 49 50

Schwartz, R Ford, Introducing architectural tectonics, p. 41.

Ibid., p. 41.

Huyssen Andreas, Nostalgia for Ruins, (Grey Room 23, 2006) p.7.

Ibid., p. 7.

It is against this nuanced backdrop where the ongoing notion of tectonics is applied to the totalitarian regime of post-stalinist Bulgaria, at a time when the promise of the modern age had shattered, and a nostalgia for an earlier age had not yet lost its power to imagine other futures. Such nostalgia for the alternative imagined modern can be called reflective in Svetlana Boym’s sense, presenting the elaboration that: “reflective nostalgia cherishes shattered fragments of memory and temporalises space…[It] reveals that longing and critical thinking are not opposed to one another, as affective memories do not absolve one from compassion, judgement or critical reflection.”51 The strategic coupling of the abstract concept of nostalgia with the concreteness of tectonics and their imagery bases itself upon the idea that both tectonics, in its emphatic sense, and the notion of nostalgia are central to the understanding of the architectural development of post-stalinist socialist Bulgaria.

In this context, nostalgia plays a twofold position - the tectonic expression of a building has produced nostalgia in the viewer, whilst simultaneously having been designed in a nostalgic way.

In this light, it can be argued that Stefka Georgieva’s work can also be interpreted as the catalyst and trigger for change, rooted in a nostalgia for a better future.

51 Boym, The Future of Nostalgia, p. 49.

36

3. STEFKA GEORGIEVA AND THE TECTONIC SYMBOLISM OF THE TENNIS HALL

Figure 26. Stefka Georgieva, Residential Building, 1982, Sofia

37

Throughout her career Stefka Georgieva managed to excel in almost if not all her projects, from the numerous residential blocks, to sea resorts and even hotel complex’s for State residencies(fig.24-25). However, there is one project which encompasses all the notions mentioned earlier, both in terms of its tectonic expression and nostalgic reminiscence - the Tennis Hall in Borisova Gardens (fig 27). However, to understand the tectonic and social importance of the Tennis Hall, an outline must first be made of the peculiar face of the Bulgarian brutalism.

In Bulgaria, brutalism, like most things, was nurtured by a totalitarian government. Brutalism in its rawest form is characterised by grand shapes, lack of any decoration, emphasised functionalism and the use of natural building materials.52 Thus, while worldwide brutalism was flourishing as an architectural symbol of the post-war welfare state symbolising the egalitarian construction efforts of socially responsible institutions and producing a vast array of social housing and large public structures,53 in the People’s Republic of Bulgaria things were naturally - quite different. Although the country was a socialist state and brutalism was predominantly used for public buildings, it was used not for its symbolism but rather as a representational tool. It’s important to note that what was copied to a degree in Bulgaria was not the ethics, but mainly the notorious aesthetics of Brutalism.

The idea of social equality had nothing to do with the impressive concrete facades, which housed the high nomenklatura.54 It is here one can begin to understand the incredibly bold statement of the Tennis Hall in Borisova Gardens, where Stefka quite literally throws out the rule book on Brutalism and does exactly what it so utterly aims to reject - a pitched roof. However, what is striking about the Tennis Hall is that along with her expert eye for detail, her work evokes and provides fertile ground for a sense of liberation - a symbol of a cultural shift in a changing society.

52 Boyadzhiev Stefan, Bulgarian architecture during the centuries, (Sofia: Ed. of BAS, 1982) (in Bulgarian) p. 75.

53 Banham Reyner, The New Brutalism: Ethics or Aesthetics (London: The Architectural Press, 1966) p. 28.

54 Boyadzhiev, Bulgarian architecture during the centuries, p. 88.

38

39

Figure 27. Stefka Georgieva, Apartment buildings for the foreign diplomatic corps, 1968-72, Sofia

“Sofia” Tennis Hall (1965-1968) can be understood as an egalitarian building - open, accessible, respectful to the environment and with a clear social purpose (fig. 26).55 The indoor courts are located below the highest part of the triangular shape and the low parts opposite each other are designated for the visitors and athletes respectively - with a cash-desk, wardrobes, a buffet and access to a large open terrace on one side and with a row of dressing rooms, showers, coach and personal rooms on the other. Thus, functional flows are logically divided and clearly differentiated. In the tennis hall one finds the spatial organisation connected in many ways with the interaction between man and the environment - from the philosophical notions of space to the ideas of visual perception.56 Here, the mighty, and at the same time so primitive, geometric form of the hall is mediated by the symbolic experience of everyday life, cast through the memory of culture and its coded systems.

Figure 28. Stefka Georgieva, Indoor Tennis Hall, 1965-68, Sofia, Ground Floor Plan

55 56

40

Bulant-Kamenova, Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 1923-2004, p.57.

Ibid., p. 57.

Figure 29. Stefka Georgieva, Indoor Tennis Hall, 1965-68, Sofia, Front facade

Figure 30. Stefka Georgieva,

Indoor Tennis Hall, 1965-68, Sofia, front elevation

41

The structure for the Tennis hall is comprised of eight triangular reinforced concrete frames spanning thirty seven meters and reaching thirteen in height, also forming the symmetrical facades of the building(fig. 28). The selected raw materials of exposed concrete, untreated wood and walls of rough-hewn stone radiate great strength and command respect while appearing natural in the surrounding park (fig. 29-30) A postulate formulated by proponents of Brutalism is that materials should be used as found. To Stefka, this applied quite literally, where she personally selected every single stone from a stockpile for the front facade of the hall.57 The Tennis Hall in essence consists of an entirely new, contemporary interpretation of the national spirit and shows a playful treatment of the fold idiom. It is through the physical interweaving of the architectural elements, manipulated in order to fit the required proportions and scale of a tennis hall, combined with the architect’s desired artistic endeavour, that we experience a paradigm shift towards the immaterial contours of the mind, thus, elevating the physical into the meta-physical.

Figure 31. Stefka Georgieva, Indoor Tennis Hall, 1965-68, Sofia, exterior view

57

42

Bulant-Kamenova, Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 1923-2004, p. 81.

The key tectonic element of the building are undoubtedly the triangular reinforced concrete frames, which give the hall its pyramidical profile. The immediate understanding of their triangular shape is multifunctional, on one hand interpreting the sloped roofs of the vernacular architecture in Bulgaria subtly smirking at the rejected ethos of Brutalism and its fear of traditionalism - and on the other, blending the building with the surrounding park area avoiding unnecessary height domination, simultaneously solving all main structural problems of that kind of sports hall. Although the primary purpose and aspiration of the artistic act in the Tennis Hall is the satisfaction of certain utilitarian requirements and needs, it nevertheless manages to excel beyond any such simplistic categorisations. Therefore, the materials, technology and structural principle applied in the Tennis Hall also relate to the need for the ability to express the aesthetic ideals of its society (fig. 31-33)

Figure 32. Stefka Georgieva, Indoor Tennis Hall, 1965-68, Sofia, concrete frame detail

43

Figure 33. Stefka Georgieva, Indoor Tennis Hall, 1965-68, Sofia, construction detail

Figure 34. Stefka Georgieva, Indr Tennis Hall, 1965-68, Sofia, construction detail

Figure 35. Stefka Georgieva, Indoor Tennis Hall, 1965-68, Sofia, construction detail

44

It is here that it can be argued that the Tennis Hall begins to convey certain nuances of human emotionality. Due to its significant form and presence within the public garden, the hall evokes feelings in the viewer. On the one hand, it is a gentle reminder of the “golden”58 modernist past, and on the other its mighty and at the same time simple form radiates great strength and commands respect - a common characteristic of the governmental power at that time. In this vein, the tectonic expression of the Tennis Hall should not be seen only as a proponent of a certain architectural style but also as a developed artistic text. Subsequently, if we apply the notion that the overall architectural form acts as a sign or a message towards its current society, we must simultaneously approach the ‘signification’ (meaning) of the technology applied in the Tennis Hall. Danish architect and professor Anne Beim further elaborates this point and argues that without human action and intention materials and building construction cannot evoke signification (meaning) on their own, and thus their architectural significance is softened.59 One of the first attempts to define the question of signification in architecture was made by Vitruvius in his, ‘Ten Books of Architecture’, where he states that: “In all matters, but particularly in architecture, there are these two points: the thing signified, and that which gives it its significance. That which is signified is the subject of which we may be speaking; and that which gives significance is a demonstration on specific principles.”

Figure 36. Stefka Georgieva, Indoor Tennis Hall, 1965-68, Sofia, exterior views

58 59

45

Bulant-Kamenova, Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 1923-2004, p. 74.

Foged, Isak-Worre, and Hvejsel Marie-Frier, Reader - Tectonics in Architecture (Aalborg: Aalborg Unitersitetsforlag, 2018) p. 203.

Henceforth, if we are to define the visions and ideals for the tectonic expression of the Tennis Hall, one can construct a simple analogy. The thing signified refers to Georgieva’s own interpretation of both the Bulgarian vernacular as well as the modernist principles of the pre-war years, along with her own ideals and intentions which have been implemented into the methodology and aesthetic of the building’s fabric; whereas that which gives its significance is the literal application of how the Tennis Hall was made - its construction, tectonic expression, culture and historical setting - the constituting elements shaped by human activities and practices. This is then further stretched onto the user’s individual interpretation of the Tennis Hall where the tectonic, aesthetic and cultural expression all vary in its meaning. Hence it can be argued that it becomes a matter of perception and association. This notion is clearly presented in the essay ‘Questions of Perception - Phenomenology in Architecture’, where it is noted that architectural perception consists of both an ‘outer perception’ and ‘inner perception’ that relates respectively to physical and mental phenomena60: “Mental phenomena have real, as well as intentional existence.

Empirically we might be satisfied with a structure as a purely physical-spatial entity but, intellectually and spiritually, we need to understand the motivations behind it. This duality of intention and phenomena is like the interplay between objective and subjective or, more simply, thought and feeling. The challenge for architecture is to stimulate both inner and outer perception; to heighten phenomenal experience while simultaneously expressing meaning, and to develop this duality in response to the particularities of site and circumstance.”61

60 61

46

Foged, Hvejsel, Reader - Tectonics in Architecture, p. 210.

Ibid., p. 210)

In the Hall one can begin to see the architectural reality acting between sensory experiences and physical expressions, the bold pyramidal form gently asserts itself within the still landscape, yet one can’t help but hear its message loud and clear - that times are changing, that there is hope once more for a better imagined future. Ultimately, Georgieva unveils architectures’ poetry and logical structure, ideality and reality, its past and its future, processes of thought and action - a realm which the aforementioned Kenneth Frampton characterises as something that “must be constantly re-articulated in the creation of architectural form.”62 Alberto Péréz-Gómez further describes architecture as a world of both physical sensation and poetic representation: “If architecture can be said to have a poetic meaning we must recognise that what it says is not independent of what it is.

Architecture is not an experience that words translate later. Like the poem itself, it is its figure as presence, which constitutes the means and end of the experience.” 63

Figure 37. Stefka Georgieva, Indoor Tennis Hall, 1965-68, Sofia, interior staircase

62 63

47

Frampton, Kenneth, Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture.( Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001) p. 77.

Foged, Hvejsel, Reader - Tectonics in Architecture, p. 213.

Regarded as such, building technology and practices of construction can be characterised not only as pragmatic means, but also as entities charged with signification, provided by architectural intention.64 Through the Tennis Hall, Stefka Georgieva becomes not only part of reality, but a product of the notion of man and socially significant ideas and values in a particular situation. Indeed her work expresses the ability of its time to cast into material forms the feeling of the epoch in all levels of the living environment, whilst refuting to the extremely limited view of the narrowly utilitarian space-creating nature of architecture (fig. 36). In the Tennis Hall, Georgieva quite masterfully manages to reinterpret the modernist principle of post-war architecture. It is worth noting that, Georgieva never aimed for a direct imitation of the physical properties of the modernist aesthetic, but rather demonstrates an understanding of the pure methodology and spirit of that time, applied through the raw aesthetic of Brutalism. She understood the modernist principles of the post-war years, and through her work she allowed once more for modernism to make a comeback, to thrive and perhaps even realise its potential through a different lens.

Subsequently, if we once again relay the meaning of techné the accumulation, understanding and inspiration of general and particular knowledge - then Stefka Georgieva’s Tennis Hall unapologetically marks its ground as a progressively nostalgic symbol for a better imagined future.

Figure 38. Stefka Georgieva, Indoor Tennis Hall, 1965-68, Sofia, interior view

64

48

Foged, Hvejsel, Reader - Tectonics in Architecture, p. 217.

CHAPTER 3. ARCHITECTURE THE EVERYDAY MEMORY IN THE MONUMENTS AND PUBLIC SPACES OF THE POST-COMMUNIST FUTURE 1. MEMORY AND MONUMENTS Architecture has always been one of the biggest testaments to the passage of time, becoming a symbol of the visual representation of historical periods. Therefore, it can be argued that architecture cannot simply be classified only as a concrete and definitive form, as it goes far beyond any such simplistic definitions and resides not only within the visible, present and material world, but also within the memory, future and intangible concept of time. It is with this in mind where George Kubler further elaborates that: “An interference from visual images is present in almost all art. Even architecture, which is commonly thought to lack figural intention, is guided from one utterance to the next by the images of the admired buildings of the past, both far and near in time.”65 Thus, architecture can be seen as a synthesised object made up of the reality of the time that it was conceived in. Subsequently, any object (whether it be in the form of architecture or art) offers a direct record of humanity, and any attempt to disregard this object is an attempt to disregard that which makes us today.

It can be further argued that when a new work of art is created something simultaneously happens to the world of art which preceded it. It is this notion that T.S. Eliot explores when he states that: “No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead.”66

65 Kubler George, The shape of time, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1970) p.7 66 T.S. Eliot, Tradition and the Individual Talent, Perspecta, Vol. 19, (1982), 36-42

49

In this light, a work of art can never really be classified as finished as it is continuously reassessed by the future generations, who see it through different “lenses”67 shaped by novel pieces of art.

There will always be a permanent and continuous dialogue between the artist/creator and the tradition preceding him/ her “the dead writers are remote from us because we know so much more than they did. Precisely, and they are that which we know.”68 If architecture can unbeknownst to itself become a communicative element within any given context or time, it anticipates a set of interpretations and uses while resisting others. Italian critic and writer, Umberto Eco, argues that through specific design choices, designers can persuade users to interpret architecture the way they wish. Hence, architecture itself gives instructions on its “appropriate”69 use: “Architectural discourse is psychologically persuasive: with a gentle hand (even if one is not aware of this as a form of manipulation) one is prompted to follow the ‘instructions’ implicit in the architectural message; functions are not only signified but also promoted and induced.”70 Nonetheless, no matter of the initial intent, the architect/ designer can never fully dictate the interpretation of the built environment, for it can develop in ways that the author would not have anticipated. This is what Eco argues when he coins the term “aberrant decoding”71- when the interpretation of a message differs from what the authors had intended. He considers the messages of functional architectures such as buildings as being rather coercive and indifferent: “Architectural discourse is experienced inattentively […]. Buildings are always around and people percept them as a background. […]

Architectural messages can never be interpreted in an aberrant way, and without the addressee being aware of thereby perverting them. […] Thus architecture fluctuates between being rather coercive, implying that you will live in such and such a way with it, and rather indifferent.”72

67 68

50

T.S. Eliot, Tradition and the Individual Talent, Perspecta, Vol. 19, (1982), 36-42) Ibid., 36-42

69 Eco Umberto, The limits of interpretation, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990) p. 8.

70 Ibid., p.8.

71 Ibid., p. 9.

72 Ibid,. p.10

This, however, does not apply to monuments and the public spaces they occupy. A monument embodies a desire to preserve in time something as fragile as human memory, capturing it in solid material to fix it, so it can remain unchanged for posterity. A monument can also be used quite deliberately as the ultimate concrete manifestation of political power.73 This is especially true for the monuments from the years of Socialism, where almost every monument was included in a social ritual - a commemoration date, an anniversary, beginning or end of the school year, national holiday or simply an organised group visit (fig. 37-38). However, after the fall of Communism in 1989, monuments turned into the most visible vestibules of the past, becoming focal points for social unrest and places for manifestations.

Even until today there is an ongoing debate that rages over the fate of the communist monuments - some called for them to be “wiped of the face off the earth”,74 while others argued that they had become part of the city’s landscape, part of an undeniable lived past, and as such should be allowed to stand. This chapter will focus on the transition period in post-communist Bulgaria, and examine specifically the socialist monuments and the public spaces that housed them, which must be seen and understood not only as markers of the recent past, but also as an emblem of the countries’ ultimate expression and ongoing dilemma in its reconciliation with the memory of its modernist past.

Therefore, I argue that monuments can command us not merely to remember, but to remember a triumph, one that is not meant to be seen as a tragedy.

73 74

Mihov, Nikola, Communist-Era Monuments in Bulgaria. (Plovdiv: Janet 45, 2012) p. 12.

Esbenshade, Richard S., Remembering to Forget: Memory, History, National Identity in

Postwar East-Central Europe, Representations, No.49, (1995), p. 78

51

Figure 39. Memorial-House of the Communist Party, Bizludzha: inauguration ceremony, 23 August 1981

Figure 40. The Monument of the Soviet Army, Celebration event some time before 1989

52

2.THE EVERYDAY MEMORY OF POSTCOMMUNIST BULGARIA

“Memory is never shaped in a vacuum; the motives of memory are never pure.” 75 - James Young “In a land without history whoever supplies memory, shapes concepts, and interprets the past will win the future.” 76 - Michael Stürmer

No matter where, when or how, public spaces in the city are devised as an expression of a society’s idea of civilisation. It is the never-ending and mysterious interplay of public places and private feelings. Although we often consider them neutral - made to accommodate and please the general population they are always political - made to regulate behaviour, as they reflect how a particular regime chooses to manifests itself in the public domain, leaving very little for interpretation and rather asserts itself in clear presentation.77 It is with this in mind that the Bulgarian public space can only truly be understood and interpreted in the context of its recent past, which has shaped a large part of the contemporary architectural landscape.

53

75 Esbenshade, Richard S., ‘Remembering to Forget: Memory, History, National Identity in Postwar East-Central Europe, Representations, No.49, (1995), p. 74.

76 Ibid., p. 75.

77 Ibid., p. 81.

In the previous chapters, I have outlined two major transition moments within the Bulgarian architectural history, leading to the last, yet most confusing transition - the end of Communism in 1989. This particular transition did not involve a simple negation of the previous social order but rather a much more complex mixture of rejections, adaptations, collective nostalgia and narrating identity. To truly understand the polarised era of post-communism - not only as the ending of a previous political system and the transition towards the future - we must also situate the memory of its past in the time and space before and after communism, where ‘before’ and ‘after’ simultaneously merge and collide.78 As Jacques Derrida argues in his analysis of the connection between the end of communism and the future of Marxism, this is a sphere of “aporia”79 - “the everyday is still influenced by the past, but it is impossible to define with precision what past it is, or where it starts or ends in relation to the present or the future.”80 After the fall of Communism, the architecture and urban spaces that expressed the regime’s ideology occupied a disputable place in the collective memory and identity of post-socialist Bulgaria.

Buildings, public spaces and monuments of the socialist era, which were designed to foster its political order and society, became abandoned, depreciated and contested in the context of transition to democracy (fig. 39-40). It can, thus, be argued that these monuments, and along with them the public spaces, have suffered the most in this intricate point of transformation within the Bulgarian society. Perhaps this is the fate of any public place in the city: sooner or later, it will undergo a transformation, gradual or not, into a new public place, in order to accommodate someone’s new vision or needs. Yet, transformation is not a product but rather a process and as such, it happens not only in the physical contours of the city but also in the psychological outlines of the mind.81

78 79 80 81

54

Baring Edward, The Young Derrida and French Philosophy, 1945-1968.

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) p. 14.

Ibid., p. 15 Ibid., p. 15.

Caves, Roger W. , Encyclopedia of the city, (Oxon: Routledge, 2005) p. 48.

Figure 41. Monument to the Soviet army, Sofia: the soldiers from the relief on the west facade of the monument’s base - ‘The Patriotic War’, were painted over one night by anonymous graffiti artists. The message was simple these are not our heroes and they can easily change

Figure 42. Monument to the Soviet army, Sofia: the soldiers from the relief on the west facade of the monument’s base - ‘The Patriotic War’, were painted over in pink, “Bulgaria Apologies!’ written at their feet

55

It is in the mind that we try to negotiate between the old and new, sort through oftentimes conflicting feelings about either or both, and begin to understand how we inhabit our cities. The weight of the monuments from communism is still not completely lifted. The conflict of memories continues to oppose Bulgarian society and this is mostly observable in the heritage debate.

Through the examination of two controversial monuments in Bulgaria - the “despised” monument, “1300 Years of Bulgaria” in Sofia, and the “beloved monument”, “Founders of the Bulgarian State” in Shumen - I argue that the socialist art and architecture does represent a cultural heritage even in the absence of formal validation.Furthermore, they represent not only a historical evidence but rather go beyond the physical realm and are able to reminds us of a nostalgic feeling of a different time. They tell stories of the bad but also of the good for one cannot coexist without the other.82 Subsequently, if the socialist monuments were to be demolished and erased without a proper ‘digestion’ of their contemporary meaning, it would be as if to attempt to erase history. Following Eliot’s idea that : “the difference between the present and the past is that conscious present is an awareness of the past in a way and to an extent which that past’s awareness of itself cannot show.”83 Ultimately, we wouldn’t be able to read the works of the past, (in this case the breakthrough of modernism in Bulgaria) in a truly contemporary way, and therefore any work done in the present would be unavoidably lost, without memory, establishing an incomplete dialogue and complete disengagement of that which has shaped our world today.

82 Mihov, Communist-Era Monuments in Bulgaria, p. 18.

83 Eliot, T.S., ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent’, Perspecta, Vol. 19, (1982), p. 38

56

3. THE “DESPISED” MONUMENT - “1300 YEARS OF BULGARIA” - SOFIA

Figure 43. Monument ‘1300 Years of Bulgaria; after its completion;

57

The Monument ‘1300 Years of Bulgaria’ (fig. 41) in Sofia was created by a collective led by the sculptor Valentin Strachev in 1981. It commemorated the anniversary of the creation of the first Bulgarian State in 681, and represented the country’s “heroic past, (…) socialist present and communist future.”84 Thirty-two meters high, concrete and steel composition, it was a landmark in Sofia, and the source of strong emotion in its defenders as well as its detractors. The structure is a spatial spiral, ending with a bird wing (fig. 42) - symbol of victory and the infinite human desire for perfection.85 The spiral, an ancient symbol of eternal evolution and motion in life (life, death and rebirth) successfully represents the development of the Bulgarian state and its progress at the time. The feeling of this upward growth is further emphasised by the rhythmic alternation of triangular shapes (symbol of power of unification) deriving from the triangular base of the monument and developing in all the other elements that compose it in height.86 The monument not only keeps the memory of the era in which it was created but also “epitomises the creative forces of the late modernist tendencies in Bulgarian monumental art.”87 Svetlin Rusev, prominent Bulgarian artist from the socialist period, stated: “…with its spiralling volumes, emphatic architectonic and plastic richness, (it) demonstrated that Bulgarian plastic culture had escaped the resemblance-based approach and was already speaking the language of architectural-plastic symbolism.”88

58

84 Stoykova Svetlana, 25 Years Monument Founders of the Bulgarian State, tourist brochure, (Shumen: RIK – Viktor-S. Ilarionova, 2006), p. 44.

85 Ibid., p. 44.

86 Ibid., p. 45.

87 Trufeshev Nikolay, The Architectural and sculptural monument in Bulgaria, (Technika,1981), p. 22.

88 Ibid., p. 23.

Figure 44. Monument ‘1300 Years of Bulgaria; after its completion; Even if it is much smaller that ‘Founders of the Bulgarian State’, its scale is still imposing in the centre of the city

59

Figure 45. Monument ‘1300 Years of Bulgaria; In 2001 it became dangerous and so the gallery could not accessed and people were kept at safe distance from falling

60

Although the monument in its form and presence reflected a modernist aesthetic and was generally progressive for its time and context, it nonetheless was never truly understood nor appreciated by the public, both during and after the socialist regime. According to an urban myth, the Leader of the Bulgarian Communist Party at the time, Todor Jivkov, did not like the monument since its inauguration, which inspired the general public resentment, leaving no further comments about the monument from this time (fig. 43).

After the fall of communism in 1989, there was another spark in the debate about the fate of the monument and this attracted more attention to its aesthetics. With more arguments being voiced against the monument, due to the low quality of materials used and its progressive dilapidation, it was declared dangerous in 2009, further followed by the scaffolding of the structure and the removal the granite cladding (fig. 44). Since then, many organisations and public protests have been involved in the preservation of the monument, because of its historical significance, as well as its modernist and progressive appearance.

However, after many deliberations and oppositions from private cultural organisations, the monument ‘1300 Years of Bulgaria’ was finally deconstructed in 2014, and replaced with green space.89 Nevertheless, the sudden demolition sparked even more debate between the general public and artistic circles, as the removal of such an emblematic monument not only threatens to erase the specific historical moment in which it was created, but also goes beyond its own time and further threatens to erase the general perception of modernist architecture as being part of the Bulgarian cultural heritage (fig. 45).

89

61

Stoykova, 25 Years Monument Founders of the Bulgarian State, p. 54.

Figure 46. Monument ‘1300 Years Bulgaria’, 2011, behind the fence: the gallery was turned into a dumping ground in the 1990s

Figure 47. Proposal for the renovation of monument ‘1300 Years Bulgaria’, Prof Valentin Starchev (cover image), December 2012

62

Figure 48. Monument ‘1300 Years Bulgaria’ and the National Palace of Culture, 1980s

63

In a post-socialist country such as Bulgaria, most often than not, it can be hard to understand from the general public that socialism has had a major role in the redevelopment of the public spaces and the architecture which has shaped the current environment, and thus, any destruction of this recent past would also destroy a previous past, leaving an empty and confusing present.

To understand the conflict between old and new, or past and present, we must not think of it as “superimposition”90 of an old city image on a new one, as Boym suggests, but of layering, where each layer (old or new) can be superimposed on the other at any given time. Therefore, the notion of ‘layering’ suggests that both old and new exist at the same time and in the same place.91 ‘Layering’, much like a palimpsest, is paradoxical: both about memory and forgetting, creation and destruction yet very potent, as Kim Simonsen asserts - the palimpsest can be used to “tie together complex forms of public memory by activating images and metres”92- thus, helping to energise the connections among past, present and future. Mariana Markova further insists that “continuity”93 during transitional times deserves as much attention as “change”94 does. Yet when continuity does not exist in the landscape (there is no trace of the monument in the public square), one is left to create it from memory, by virtue of having inhabited both places, and though the two layers may never blend, they can at least attempt to communicate with each other through memory. In this vein, it can be argued that, the monument ‘1300 Years of Bulgaria’ should be remembered not only for being part of the modernist heritage of the country, but also precisely because of what happened to it, and the resulting gap it left in the cities’ cultural richness.

64

90 Boym, The Future of Nostalgia, p. 68.

91 Ibid., p. 70.

92 Huyssen Andreas, Present Pasts: Urban Palimpsests and the Politics of Memory (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), p. 44.

93 Boyer C.M., The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertainments (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1994), p. 63.

94 Ibid., p. 64.

4. THE “BELOVED” MONUMENT ‘FOUNDERS OF THE BULGARIAN STATE’ - SHUMEN In this light, if we can begin to differentiate between the old and new, or past and present, through ‘layering’, then to a certain degree this suggests a “strategic forgetting”95. Istvan Rev further elaborated on this notion that: “History writing is never born of only remembering; the forgetting, the discarding of elements that can’t be fit into the new history are just as much a part of the reconstruction of history as remembering…

Without forgetting, it is utterly impossible to live at all.... There is a degree of insomnia, of rumination, of historical awareness, which injures and finally destroys a living thing, whether a man, a people, or a culture.”96 It is important to note that forgetting is not the refutation of memory - something necessarily false and deceptive - but rather “remembering otherwise”97, another revision in a stream of constant revision and evolution. This is particularly the case of the second monument - “Founders of the Bulgarian State”(fig. 47) - where both the socialist and modernist heritage is perceived as a positive, valuable and uncontentious historical material. The idea for the construction of the monument initially appeared in 1977 during the preparation for the 1300th anniversary of the establishment of the Bulgarian state (681). The monument is located in the town of Shumen due to its close proximity to the first two historical capitals of Bulgaria, and is also the geographical centre of what was then the territory of the first Bulgarian state.

95 Esbenshade, Richard S., Remembering to Forget: Memory, History, National Identity in Postwar East-Central Europe, Representations, No.49, (1995), p. 94.

96 Ibid., p. 94.

97 Ibid., p. 95.

65

Figure 49. Monument ‘Founders of the Bulgarian State’, Shumen

66

Figure 50. Monument ‘Founders of the Bulgarian State’, Shumen

67

Figure 51. Monument ‘Founders of the Bulgarian State’, Shumen, ariel view

The monument itself is situated on top of a mountain on the outskirts of Shumen(fig. 49), where the specificity of the location was the main determinant for the materiality of the monumentconcrete, with sculptures of granite and mosaics. The monument undoubtedly played a significant role in the regeneration of the city, as renovations were done in the town centre simultaneously, and halfway through the design a decision was taken to add 1300 steps (fig. 50) - an eternal memory of the anniversary celebrated by the state - leading from the city centre to the monument.98 The main concept for the monument was a volumetric and spatial composition to represent the might of the foundation and establishment of the Bulgarian state. “The emotional impact of the memorial is sought in the representation of the centuries coming gradually one after the other.”99 The eight concrete bodies which form the two halls, represent a slow process, overcoming the resistance of nature and the obstacles in the historical evolution of the country.100

68

98 Stoykova, 25 Years Monument Founders of the Bulgarian State, p.34.

99 Ibid., p. 34.

100 Ibid., p. 35.

Architecturally the monument comprises two groups of dynamic concrete blocks one to the north and one to the south, inclined at different angles and forming spaces for the sculptural groups and mosaics. Aneta Bulant-Kamenova, one of the architects who participated in the design of the monument, stated that the monument lies in a transition point between Brutalism and Deconstructavism, with three key particularities: architectural plasticity, internal space, and connection to the environs and the city.101 What appears as a monolithic silhouette from a distance, is not its key quality, but rather what happens in its internal space. Its mighty concrete parts in the shape of the cut-up cube maintain a visual balance around a dramatic interior through which visitors stride and view the sculptures and mosaics. It is this particular space that is the monuments’s special feature, making it more an architectural than a sculptural edifice (fig.

51).102 The dramatic space created by the inclined concrete blocks, their fragile equilibrium, and the slits between them connecting inside and outside was intended, as Krum Damayanov says, to “defeat gravity”103. Aneta Bulant-Kamenova worked closely with the afore-mentioned architect Stefka Georgoieva, therefore it comes as no shock when the monument is declared an emblematic example of the raw exposed concrete aesthetic in Bulgaria.

Figure 52. Monument ‘Founders of the Bulgarian State’, construction works

69

101 102 103

Bulant-Kamenova, Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 1923-2004, p. 28.

Stoykova, 25 Years Monument Founders of the Bulgarian State, p.47.

Ibid., p. 49.

The monument “Founders of the Bulgarian State” for the first time celebrated the non-Slavic origin of the country. As a socialist monument it opposed the contemporaneous state ideology at the time which predominantly favoured the Slavic origin of Bulgarian nationality.104 Aside from the formal and aesthetically progressive quality of the monument, it also managed to transcend above its time, ultimately giving a new direction in the practice of monumental construction. A new form started evolving - the so called “memorial complexes”105, where instead of a clear story narrated from a pedestal the visitor was invited to interpret on his or her own the symbolism, to experience the monument and reveal for themselves the story within it.106 However, this shortly proved problematic given the specificity of the monument - open and accessible from all sides - it was considered that “the level of patriotic education and understanding of the monument is lowered”107, if tourists, especially in groups, visit it on their own without guidance, and proper digestion.

104 Stoykova, 25 Years Monument Founders of the Bulgarian State, p.58.

105 Trufeshev, The Architectural and sculptural monument in Bugaria, p. 19.

106 Ibid., p. 19.

107 Ibid., p. 20.

70

Figure 53. Monument ‘Founders of the Bulgarian State’, Interior space

Figure 54. Monument ‘Founders of the Bulgarian State’, Mosaics

From the first half of the 1980’s the monument flourished not only as an emblem used by teachers at school as a map on the wall to illustrate a history lesson, but in addition to organised or spontaneous visits it became a regular venue for different public events connected with activities of the communist party: student oaths, giving names to brigades, accepting new members in the party, etc. - in a place designed to inspire patriotic pride.108 The monument was finally completely accepted by the citizens and even referred to just as the ‘The Monument’, as if it was the only in Shumen. After 1989, comments in the media immediately began referring to it as a monument of a totalitarian regime, even though there was not a single symbol of this regime in it, and naturally still managed to come up in conversations of demolition in the post-communist society. However, in 2016 the Municipality of Shumen announced its intention to nominate the complex “Founders of the Bulgarian State” for UNESCO’S Natural and Cultural Heritage List.109

71

108 Stoykova, 25 Years Monument Founders of the Bulgarian State, p.60.

109 Ibid., p. 60.

It goes without saying that the monument has impressively asserted itself as an architectural and sculptural emblem on top of the mountain. Yet the question remains, whether what it stands for now is perhaps different from what it was built for, or at least it is variable from person to person. For many it still just tells the majestic story of the Founders. For professionals it is an achievement of art and architecture. For others it remains a representation of the regime that built it - on top of a hill with no utilitarian purpose. The inscription on the wall facing the two main entrances, which was originally found inscribed on a column dating back to the 9th century, during the rule of khan Omurtag, ‘The Builder’, reads: “A man, even if he lives well, dies, and another one is born. And let the one born later, when he sees this, remember those who had built it.”110 This message represents a twofold meaning today. One is left wondering who exactly is he meant to remember , the founders that ‘built’ the first state, or the communist regime that built the monument?

Figure 55. Monument ‘Founders of the Bulgarian State’, Granite statue of Khan Omurtag

72

110

Stoykova, 25 Years Monument Founders of the Bulgarian State, p.59.

Although both monuments were built during and convey communist and modernist principles, through a marked nationalist and traditionalist narrative, one can immediately begin to draw on the contrasting dispositions of the monuments within the contemporary Bulgarian society. Spatially, structurally and even methodically the monuments share similar principles, yet one is considered a “symbol of the oppressive socialist past”(fig.

56)111 whereas the other “an emblem of the eternal eminence of the Bulgarian state(fig. 57).”112 It is through this stark contradiction that we begin to see the fall of monuments and the public spaces around them. Although constructed for everybody’s use, they mean a different thing to every person who experiences them, both in the past and in the present - with love, hate, confusion, indifference. Rapid and radical changes in the public landscape, as is the case with post-communism, pose a particular challenge in understanding monuments and one’s feelings for them, as they require us to rewire our value system, but to “re-tool”113, Venelin Ganev assures us, is not easy.

Perhaps then, in transitional times such as these, it is helpful, though not necessarily pain-free, to accept the predicament that old and new places can encounter each other, if not in the physical landscape of the city then in the virtual landscape of memory. Therefore, I argue that we can also value two different incarnations or ‘layers’ of the same location. For example, the first monument can be remembered for its progressive form and interpretation of the modernist principles, but also equally as the power and struggle it took to overcome the ruling government of its time. The same goes for the other monument - people have the option to chose what to remember, to make their own story and memory. It’s important to note, that this is not a direct nostalgia for the past, be it communist or otherwise - I consider nostalgia in this case to be a tool, a lens into the past, through which one can access something larger than oneself. Ultimately, in this context, the monument in itself acquires a life of its own which goes beyond its intended purpose. Thus, any attempt at its direct removal not only fails to heal any collective traumas, but further threatens to change the natural narrative of history, leading to a complete disengamenet and emancipation of that which makes us today.

111 112 113

73

Stephanov Hristo, Contemporary Bulgarian Monumental Art 1944-1985, (Sofia, Peter Beron, 1986) p. 57.

Ibid., p. 57.

Ganev Venelin, Post-communism as a Historical Episode of State Building: A Reversed Tillyan Perspective, (Working Paper 289, 2001), p. 99.

Figure 56. Monument ‘1300 Yeas of Bulgaria’ 2008

Figure 57. Monument ‘Founers of the Bulgarian State’, Shumen

74

CONCLUSION

Architecture is a slow process, and as such is usually the last to be affected on the cultural front. Hence, when a new style emerges it takes time for it to assert itself truly, even one as ground-breaking as modernism. What happens when the ground it sets foot on is not ripe enough, when the climate is not ready to accept something new? As we have seen so far in this research, modernism and its many faces have played a tremendous role in shaping twentieth century architecture in Bulgaria. At times it has been ignored, at others praised and sometimes despised.

It can be stated, that in this case it is society that has dictated modernism and not the other way round - of course, architecture is not a singular thing - it is shaped through the prism of how we understand and equally understood our culture and context.

If we return once more to T.S. Eliots’ idea on tradition and time, it sheds light on the notion that one thing only truly gets meaning (signified) from its past and, subsequently, the past can not be understood without the lenses of the present. Thus, I argue that the buildings and monuments in Bulgaria are like chameleons, they only gain meaning (significance) because they give dimension to our gaze towards the past, activating both memory and feeling within the individual.

Memory straddles a deep river: accessing the constant feelings of a past self from the position of a different, more dynamic present self. Therefore, the process of remembering is not simply resurrecting the former self, with those former feelings, but rather also allowing the former self to feel the past through the lens of present feelings. In doing so, one connects its former to its current and perhaps even future self. Remembering is, above all else, reinvention. It is important to note that this is not reinvention of the fictitious kind, which Boym warns us about, but a tangible one, birthed by the multiplicity of feelings that have flooded the present self as the self feels the past. In this case, the nostalgia which has longingly been referred to in this thesis is progressive: it is a possibility, an extension to the places of the past that the self has experienced or felt.

75

Therefore, we cannot choose which parts of the past to keep and which to erase - we can choose how to redefine it but we cannot remove it. There is an inherent strive within humanity, specifically within art and architecture, to create or imagine a perfect narrative for an imperfect reality. Instead of letting this dissonance affect the individual or collective perception of past and present selves, it can be used to create a continuum for redefinition and re-exploration. This goes far beyond the bounds of this research and touches upon a truly universal momentum of our time. Different societies all over the world are in a constant loop of negotiating past experiences in the context of the present. Architecture is one of the direct mirrors of society and our development - a most solid, tangible testament to what has transpired. Thus, erasure, even though attempted in the past, never has been, and will not be a plausible narrative anymore. Only then can one begin to live in the present and perhaps truly imagine a better future. In this light, architecture must become a vestibule that carries the acceptance of ones history and identity. Followingly, David Lowenthal states that “who we were”114 is intrinsically connected to “who we are”.115 In particular, a commonly shared past contributes to the collective identity “among those who adhere to the past”,116 as it provides “validating comforts”117. Even the act of individual writing, such as this dissertation, provides an opportunity to remember and thus, know more about a place and oneself in it.

76

114 115 116 117

Yates Frank, The Art of Memory, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 45.

Ibid., p. 44.

Ibid., p. 45.

Ibid., p. 45.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. Banham, Reyner, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, (MIT Press, 1960) Banham, Reyner, The New Brutalism: Ethics or Aesthetics, (London: The Architectural Press, 1966) Baring, Edward, The Young Derrida and French Philosophy, 1945-1968, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) Bötticher, Karl, Die Tektonik der Hellenen, (Berlin: Ernst & Korn GropiuscheBuchund Kunsthandlung, 1874) (In German) Boyadzhuev, Konstantin, Classic and Romantic in Contemporary Bulgarian Architecture, (Arhitektura, 2000) (In Bulgarian) Boyadzhiev, Stefan, Bulgarian Architecture During the Centuries, (Sofia: Ed. of BAS, 1982) (in Bulgarian) Boyer C.M., The City of Collective Memory: It’s Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertainments, (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1994) Boym Svetlana, The Future of Nostalgia, (Basic Books, 2008) Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 1923-2004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, The Founders of the Bulgarian State, Shumen, (Abitare Bulgaria, 2009) Caves, Roger W., Encyclopedia of the city, (Oxon: Routledge, 2005) Childs Peter, Modernism, (Routledge, 2000) Curtis William J.R., Modern architecture since 1900, (London: Phaidon, 2013) Eco Umberto, The limits of interpretation, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990) Esbenshade, Richard S., Remembering to Forget: Memory, History, National Identity in Postwar East-Central Europe, Representations, No.49, (1995), 78-96 Foged, Isak-Worre, and Marie-Frier Hvejsel, Reader - Tectonics in Architecture, (Aalborg: Aalborg Unitersitetsforlag, 2018) Frampton Kenneth, Modern Architecture - A Critical History, (Thames and Hudson, 2007) 77

Frampton, Kenneth, Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001) Ganev Venelin, Post-communism as a Historical Episode of State Building: A Reversed Tillyan Perspective, Working Paper, 289, (2001), 99-108 Gottfried Semper, Harry-Francis Mallgrave, and Michael Robinson, Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts, or, Practical Aesthetics, (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2004) Huyssen Andreas, Nostalgia for Ruins, (Grey Room 23, 2006) Huyssen Andreas, Present Pasts: Urban Palimpsests and the Politics of Memory, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003) Kubler George, The shape of time, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1970) Lyudmil Andreev, The Western functionalism and Its Influence on Bulgaria, (LIK,1988) (In Bulgarian) Mihov, Nikola, Communist-Era Monuments in Bulgaria, (Plovdiv: Janet 45, 2012) Nedelcho Paskalev, Georgi Ovcharov, (Sofia: Technika, 1982) (in Bulgarian) Schwartz, Chad, and Edward R Ford, Introducing Architectural Tectonics, (Taylor & Francis, 2016) Stephanov Hristo, Contemporary Bulgarian Monumental Art 1944-1985, (Sofia, Peter Beron, 1986) Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, Arkhitektura, No.2, (1994) 2-14 (In Bulgarian) Stoykova Svetlana, 25 Years Monument Founders of the Bulgarian State, (Shumen: RIK – Viktor-S. Ilarionova, 2006) (In Bulgarian) Tonev Luben, Architecture in Bulgaria, (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Studies, 1962) (In Bulgarian) Trufeshev Nikolay, The Architectural and Sculptural Monument in Bulgaria, (Technika,1981) (In Bulgarian) T.S. Eliot, Tradition and the Individual Talent, Perspecta, Vol. 19, (1982), 36-42 Willett John, The new sobriety 1917-1933, (London: Thames and Hudson, 1987) Yates Frank, The Art of Memory, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996)

78

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Cover Image - Mihov, Nikola, Communist-Era Monuments in Bulgaria, (Plovdiv: Janet 45, 2012) p. 55 Figure 1 - Curtis William J.R., Modern architecture since 1900, (London: Phaidon, 2013) p. 185 Figure 2 - Curtis William J.R., Modern architecture since 1900, (London: Phaidon, 2013) p. 186 Figure 3 - Curtis William J.R., Modern architecture since 1900, (London: Phaidon, 2013) p. 186 Figure 4 - Tonev Luben, Architecture in Bulgaria, (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Studies, 1962) (In Bulgarian) p. 25 Figure 5 - Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, Arkhitektura, No.2, (1994) 2-14 (In Bulgarian) p.8 Figure 6 - Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, Arkhitektura, No.2, (1994) 2-14 (In Bulgarian) p. 8 Figure 7 - Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, Arkhitektura, No.2, (1994) 2-14 (In Bulgarian) p. 9 Figure 8 - Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, Arkhitektura, No.2, (1994) 2-14 (In Bulgarian) p. 11 Figure 9 - Curtis William J.R., Modern architecture since 1900, (London: Phaidon, 2013) p. 187 Figure 10 - Curtis William J.R., Modern architecture since 1900, (London: Phaidon, 2013) p. 187 Figure 11 - Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, Arkhitektura, No.2, (1994) 2-14 (In Bulgarian) p. 12 Figure 12 - Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, Arkhitektura, No.2, (1994) 2-14 (In Bulgarian) p. 12 Figure 13 - Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, Arkhitektura, No.2, (1994) 2-14 (In Bulgarian) p. 11 Figure 14 - Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, Arkhitektura, No.2, (1994) 2-14 (In Bulgarian) p. 13 Figure 15 - Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, Arkhitektura, No.2, (1994) 2-14 (In Bulgarian)p. 14 79

Figure 16 - Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, Arkhitektura, No.2, (1994) 2-14 (In Bulgarian) p. 14 Figure 17 - Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, Arkhitektura, No.2, (1994) 2-14 (In Bulgarian) p. 14 Figure 18 - Curtis William J.R., Modern architecture since 1900, (London: Phaidon, 2013) p. 188 Figure 19 - Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, Arkhitektura, No.2, (1994) 2-14 (In Bulgarian) p. 13 Figure 20 - Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, Arkhitektura, No.2, (1994) 2-14 (In Bulgarian) p. 13 Figure 21 - Stoilova Ljubinka, Modern Movement in Bulgaria through the Residential Buildings, Arkhitektura, No.2, (1994) 2-14 (In Bulgarian) p. 13 Figure 22 - Tonev, Luben. 1962. Architecture in Bulgaria (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Studies) (p.13) Figure 23 - Tonev, Luben. 1962. Architecture in Bulgaria (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Studies) (p. 13) Figure 24 - Boyadzhuev, Konstantin. 2000. Classic and Romantic in Contemporary Bulgarian Architecture. (Arhitektura) (In Bulgarian) (p. 37) Figure 25 - Boyadzhuev, Konstantin. 2000. Classic and Romantic in Contemporary Bulgarian Architecture. (Arhitektura) (In Bulgarian) (p. 41) Figure 26 - Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 144 Figure 27 - Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 6) Figure 28 - Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 144 Figure 29 - Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 144 Figure 30 - Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 120 Figure 31 - Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 121

80

Figure 32 - Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 121 Figure 33 - Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 122 Figure 35 - Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 122 Figure 36 - Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 124 Figure 37- Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 125 Figure 38- Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 126 Figure 39- Vassileva, Aneta, 2017, Recharging Socialism, Studia Entholofica Croatia, Vol. 29 (2017) p.175 Figure 40- Memorial-House of the Communist Party, <https://buzludzha-monument.com/archives/> [accessed on 17 April 2021] Figure 41- Monument 1300 Years Bulgaria after its completion, <http://nauka.bg/ forum/index.php?showtopic=13900> [ accessed on 8 April 2021 Figure 42- <http://www.lostbulgaria.com/?s=%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%BA&cat=10> [ accessed on 15 April 2021] Figure 43- Monument 1300 Years Bulgaria after its completion, <http://www. lostbulgaria.com/?s=%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%BA&cat=10> [ accessed on 15 April 2021] Figure 44- Monument 1300 Years Bulgaria ,<http://arhitektura.bg/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/21.jpg> [accessed on 15 April 2021] Figure 45- Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 23 Figure 46- Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 24 Figure 47- Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 24

81

Figure 48 - Bulant-Kamenova Aneta, and Adolph Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 19232004, (Architektur im Ringturm LV, 2019) p. 24 Figure 49- Monument ‘Founders of the Bulgarian State ,<https://www.someslashthings.com/online-magazine/2017/4/28/bulgaria> [accessed on 17 April 2021] Figure 50- Monument ‘Founders of the Bulgarian State , <https://www.someslashthings.com/online-magazine/2017/4/28/bulgaria> [accessed on 17 April 2021] Figure 51- Vassileva, Aneta, 2017, Recharging Socialism, Studia Entholofica Croatia, Vol. 29 (2017) p.178 Figure 53-Monument ‘Founders of the Bulgarian State, <https://www.someslashthings.com/online-magazine/2017/4/28/bulgaria> [accessed on 17 April 2021] Figure 54- Monument ‘Founders of the Bulgarian State ,<https://www.someslashthings.com/online-magazine/2017/4/28/bulgaria> [accessed on 17 April 2021] Figure 55- <https://www.someslashthings.com/online-magazine/2017/4/28/bulgaria> [accessed on 17 April 2021] Figure 56- Vassileva, Aneta, 2017, Recharging Socialism, Studia Entholofica Croatia, Vol. 29 (2017) p.179 Figure 57-Monument ‘Founders of the Bulgarian State, <https://www.someslashthings.com/online-magazine/2017/4/28/bulgaria> [accessed on 17 April 2021]

82