Lyudmil Andreev, The Western functionalism and Its Influence on Bulgaria, (LIK, 1988

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 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 Curtis William J.R., Modern architecture since 1900 (London: Phaidon, 2013) p. 193. 20 Ibid., p. 194.

Figure 9. Walter Gropius, Bauhaus, Dessau, 1926

Figure. 10 Bauhaus, Dessau, 1926, axonometric projection

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

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

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.

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

Figure. 15 The Stoynov House, Svetoslav Grozev, 1934, Plovdiv, Site plan Figure. 14 The Stoynov House, Svetoslav Grozev, 1934, Plovdiv,

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.

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

Figure 18. Bauhaus, Dessau, 1926, window detail

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

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 Curtis, Modern architecture since 1900, p. 197. 29 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.

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

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

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 Curtis, Modern architecture since 1900, p. 202 33 Andreev, The Western functionalism and Its Influence on Bulgaria, p. 42. 34 Ibid., p. 43