13 Luben, Architecture in Bulgaria

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

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

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 Bulant-Kamenova, Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 1923-2004, p. 74. 59 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 Foged, Hvejsel, Reader - Tectonics in Architecture, p. 210. 61 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 Frampton, Kenneth, Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture.( Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001) p. 77. 63 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

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

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 T.S. Eliot, Tradition and the Individual Talent, Perspecta, Vol. 19, (1982), 36-42) 68 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 Mihov, Nikola, Communist-Era Monuments in Bulgaria. (Plovdiv: Janet 45, 2012) p. 12. 74 Esbenshade, Richard S., Remembering to Forget: Memory, History, National Identity in Postwar East-Central Europe, Representations, No.49, (1995), p. 78

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

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.

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 Baring Edward, The Young Derrida and French Philosophy, 1945-1968. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) p. 14. 79 Ibid., p. 15 80 Ibid., p. 15. 81 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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 monument- concrete, 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

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

101 Bulant-Kamenova, Stiller, Stefka Georgieva 1923-2004, p. 28. 102 Stoykova, 25 Years Monument Founders of the Bulgarian State, p.47. 103 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.

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

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.

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

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

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 Stephanov Hristo, Contemporary Bulgarian Monumental Art 1944-1985, (Sofia, Peter Beron, 1986) p. 57. 112 Ibid., p. 57. 113 Ganev Venelin, Post-communism as a Historical Episode of State Building: A Reversed Tillyan Perspective, (Working Paper 289, 2001), p. 99.

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

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.

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.

114 Yates Frank, The Art of Memory, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 45. 115 Ibid., p. 44. 116 Ibid., p. 45. 117 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 GropiuscheBuch- und 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)

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)

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

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

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

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]