Slovenian Architecture

My Master thesis focuses on the mostly unknown life, education and work of the Slovenian architect France Tomažič. The thesis first presents his life and then the complex relationship between profesor
Plečnik and assistant Tomažič in the second decade of the 20th century. The next chapter
outlines Tomažič's independent work and in the last part a catalogue of his works is analysed.
Tomažič's work left an indelible trace in Slovenian modern architecture, especially in the
thirties, when he designed some of the first functionalist villas in Slovenia.

In the mid-seventies, stimulated by a climate of ever-increasing openness to the West, the Slovenian architectural debate was enriched with new nuances through the contribution of the journal "Arhitektov bilten". Born in 1964 as the bulletin of the Architects’ Association of Ljubljana, the journal went in 1974 under the direction of Janez Koželj. As a former student of Edvard Ravnikar, Koželj was among the main exponents of a generation of architects who strove to underline the autonomy of architectural language. While "Sinteza", the magazine animated by the historian and art critic Stane Bernik had already promoted the dialogue between the arts, design and architecture since the 1960s, AB was the expression of the point of view of the architects, making a clear break with Slovenian art historical school. Strongly supported by Ravnikar, the publication soon became the organ of ideas of the KRAS group, founded in 1977 and formed by Vojteh Ravnikar, Marko Dekleva, Matjaž Garzarolli, Egon Vatovec, which was joined by Koželj, Mladen Marčina, Irena Černič, Damjan Gale. Its best works, the commercial building with post office in Vremski Britof near Sežana, or the town hall in the same Karst town, which was the epicentre of the group's production, both designed by Vojteh Ravnikar in association with the KRAS group, highlighted the affinities with the Italian debate. A continuous attention to Rossi's work and theory also emerges through Aleš Vodopivec's writings. Vodopivec, in association with Koželj, was the co-author of a fundamental theoretical text, entitled Iz arhitekture. The strong interest in the Italian debate emerges from the writings by the sociologist Pavel Gantar, who praised Progetto e Utopia as “the most relevant essay on architecture ever written”. Tafuri himself gave a speech at the Klub delegatov in Ljubljana in 1981. Translations into Slovenian of Tafuri’s works were done by the architect and critic Janko Zlodre, like Projekt in utopija (1985). We should not forget Aldo Rossi’s L’Architettura della Città, whose text was partially translated in Slovenian by Nanča Kosmač- Kogej in 1980. Very relevant was also the exchange of ideas with Luciano Semerani and the historian Marco Pozzetto from Trieste, who had a strong presence in Slovenian debate. In an intellectually lively context, we can basically understand the role of Italian theory as an instrument of criticism and resistance to an American-style Postmodernism.

This article deals with the Neo-gothic architectural projects of Josip Vancaš in Croatia, Italy and Slovenia. Among the notable achievements of this segment of his entire production are: design for the church front in Buia, Italy, the chapel in Dragotin, and the parish churches in Krapina, Desinić, Oštarije, Bled, Prečna and Mirna Peč (partly restorations and partly new structures).

Po zaključku 2. svetovne vojne, ko je komunistična partija prevzela oblast, Jugoslavija pa je postala del vzhodnega, komunističnega bloka, je sovjetski družbeno- politični model prevladal na vseh družbenih področjih – od ustave do kulturne politike. Tako kot v drugih kulturnih dejavnostih se je tudi v arhitekturi v prvih povojnih letih sledenje sovjetskim modelom izrazilo v slogu, ki bi ga delno lahko opredelili kot socialistični realizem. Spor Jugoslavije z Informbirojem leta 1948 je vodil do njenega izstopa iz vzhodnega bloka. Prekinitve političnih in gospodarskih vezi s Sovjetsko zvezo so postopoma sprožile rahljanje kulturnih vezi. Petdeseta leta so prinesla zaton socialističnega realizma in ponovni zagon modernizma, ki je v ozadju vztrajal iz časa med obema vojnama. Prispevek poskuša opisanemu dogajanju slediti z vpogledom v sočasno slovensko arhitekturno publicistiko. Osredotoča se na izbrana besedila, ki se odzivajo na dinamične preobrate znotraj arhitekturne stroke, pogojene...

Reševanje delavskega stanovanjskega vprašanja med obema vojnama je v Sloveniji pogojeno z arhitekturo modernizma. V tem obdobju je v arhitekturni stroki stanovanje postalo osrednja tema, ob tem pa je arhitektura želela delovati tudi socialno in spreminjati družbo v skupnost enakovrednih posameznikov. Prispevek analizira predvsem, kako je arhitekturna misel obravnavala delavsko stanovanje s strokovnega vidika. Opazuje, kako se dojemanje in utemeljevanje potrebe po delavskih stanovanjih spreminja glede na pisca in naslovnika besedila. Opazni sta predvsem dve skupini: prva, filantropska, ki išče način, kako pomagati šibkejšemu sloju prebivalstva, druga, modernistična, ki zagovarja tezo, da mora biti nova arhitektura in z njo tudi stanovanjska gradnja vsem enako dostopna. V prispevku je analizi teoretičnih del dodan še vpogled v bivanjske razmere tega časa, v ureditev stanovanjske politike in v grajeno okolje. Slednje je vključeno predvsem zato, da bi osvetlilo problematiko, ne pa zaradi dejanskega pregleda stanovanjske gradnje.
Slovenian interwar architecture’s solution to housing problem of the working class was influenced by modernist architecture. Modern architecture considered housing to be its main task and obligation, while also acknowledging the social role of architecture, i.e. the power to change a society into a community of equals. The paper focuses chiefly on how architectural thought treated working class housing from a professional standpoint. It observes how the understanding and reasoning behind the need for workers’ housing changed according to the writer/reader. Two main groups appear to stand out – the first, philanthropic, looking for ways to help the lower classes, and the second, modernist, defending the hypothesis that architecture and housing should be equally accessible to all. Based on an analysis of theoretical works, the paper also contributes an insight into housing conditions of the period, housing policy, and the built environment, intended solely to shed light on the general problem, not provide a comprehensive survey of housing construction.

Po zaključku 2. svetovne vojne, ko je komunistična partija prevzela oblast,
Jugoslavija pa je postala del vzhodnega, komunističnega bloka, je sovjetski družbenopolitični
model prevladal na vseh družbenih področjih – od ustave do kulturne politike.
Tako kot v drugih kulturnih dejavnostih se je tudi v arhitekturi v prvih povojnih letih
sledenje sovjetskim modelom izrazilo v slogu, ki bi ga delno lahko opredelili kot
socialistični realizem. Spor Jugoslavije z Informbirojem leta 1948 je vodil do njenega
izstopa iz vzhodnega bloka. Prekinitve političnih in gospodarskih vezi s Sovjetsko
zvezo so postopoma sprožile rahljanje kulturnih vezi. Petdeseta leta so prinesla zaton
socialističnega realizma in ponovni zagon modernizma, ki je v ozadju vztrajal iz časa
med obema vojnama.
Prispevek poskuša opisanemu dogajanju slediti z vpogledom v sočasno slovensko
arhitekturno publicistiko. Osredotoča se na izbrana besedila, ki se odzivajo na
dinamične preobrate znotraj arhitekturne stroke, pogojene s spreminjajočimi se
družbenimi razmerami. Na takšen način lahko jasno spremljamo, kako se je v kratkem
časovnem obdobju od leta 1945 do začetka petdesetih let, glede na družbeno-politične
razmere, spreminjalo sprejemanje in razumevanje socialističnega realizma in sovjetske
arhitekture na eni ter modernizma in zahodne arhitekture na drugi strani.

Immediately after the end of WWII, when Communist Party took power, Soviet
models prevailed in every aspect of society, from the Constitution to cultural policy.
In architecture and other cultural activities there was a noticeable following of Soviet
models that was recognizable in use of the style which can be loosely defined as
socialist realism. Yugoslavia's dispute with Informbiro in 1948 caused her to leave the
communist bloc. The severing of political and economic ties also caused cultural ties
to wane. The 50's brought the decline of socialist realism and renewed momentum
for modernism, which persisted, though only in the background, from the interwar
period.
In the paper I try to follow these developments with insight into contemporary
Slovenian architectural publications. The content is focused on a selection of cases
which clearly show dynamic turns in architectural profession and which were
dependent on changing social conditions. This offers us an opportunity to see how
the perception and understanding of social realism and Soviet architecture on the one
hand and of modernism and Western architecture on the other changed with social
and political circumstances.

From 1945 onwards, the transition from avant-gardes and constructivism to socialist realism of the Soviet Union became a model for other socialist “brother countries”. Following this model defined geopolitical position of each country in the internal constellation of forces during the Cold War and generated their new political iconographies. Conventions of new “socialist style” were implemented in similar ways in different realms and in different socialist countries, among others in Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia.

Immediately after the end of the World War II, when the Communist Party took power and Yugoslavia became part of the communist bloc, Soviet models prevailed in every aspect of society, from constitution to cultural policy. Economy and culture became highly centralized, cultural production came under total control of the Communist Party's propaganda department, so called Agitprop,  which imposed the monopoly of socialist realism in visual arts and literature (Gabrič 1991, 479; Gabrič, 2008, 250). The doctrine favoured traditional methods of realistic representations and themes that celebrated socialism, condemning modernism as »bourgeois formalism«. Architecture followed other arts. Yugoslav architects focused on ideologically appropriate and politically desirable style of socialist realism. Despite strong ideological agitation and propaganda, Soviet examples remained mostly a theory. Projects that consistently followed their monumentality were rare and were realized principally as federative commissions for the foundation of the new capital in Belgrade. Outside Belgrade, especially in other Yugoslav republics where the need for visual representation of the new state was not so vital, the lack of those projects was even bigger, as was the case in the Socialist Republic of Slovenia. In literature on Slovenian architecture of the 20th century, it is often pointed out that socialist realism in Slovenian architecture never really made a serious impact. For this reason, it is rarely shown what was realised and how those examples could be discussed. Even more, the socialist realism in Slovenian architecture is most commonly illustrated as a short and almost inappropriate adventure in architectural history, only as a derailment from the track of dominant modernistic discourse.  Therefore, the majority of authors emphasized the importance of the year 1948, when Yugoslavia was expelled from Informbiro and fell outside the communist bloc and the Soviet sphere of influence. After that, when Yugoslav politics made a U-turn away from the Soviet Bloc towards countries of Western Europe, socialist realism was rejected and once again accepted modernism from the interwar period, based on the influence of Le Corbusier, Bauhaus and principles of CIAM.  Modern architecture as the dominant architectural style of the West became one of the most important visual statements of the separation of Yugoslavia from the Communist Eastern Bloc countries and her gradual integration with the West. In such a clear-cut transformation of styles, the decline of socialist realism and the revival of modernism is most commonly described in literature on Slovenian architecture. However, was this transition really so distinct? With answering this question, I would like to make an overview of this short but turbulent period around the year 1948, focusing mainly on certain remarks regarding the appearance and decline of socialist realism in Slovenian architecture.