Novi ulepšani svet - socijalistički estetizam i arhitektura

Abstract

U radu se razmatra odnos socijalističkog estetizma - specifičnog fenomena nastalog u jugoslovenskoj kulturi tokom druge polovine dvadesetog veka - i tada aktuelne arhitektonske teorije i prakse. Kao glavne osobine socijalističkog estetizma identifikovane su: neutralnost, kompromis pasivnost, samosvojnost i samodovoljnost. U okviru socijalističkog estetizma umetničko delo se nije više posmatralo kao 'odraz', optimalna projekcija realnosti, što je bilo karakteristično za prethodni period socijalističkog realizma, već je napravljen suštinski prelaz sa tematskog na plastičko, sa predmetnog motiva na estetski predmet. Osnovno pitanje koje se postavlja u radu jeste kako je arhitektura učestvovala u izgradnji tog novog ulepšanog sveta, zasnovanog na idejama socijalističkog estetizma.

The Yugoslav cultural space in the period after 1948 was in a unique situation which was the result of a special state politics which based the realization of its interests on a diffuse position between the East and the West Blocks. In accordance with that, it was necessary to find an adequate visualization of the new system. Architecture, as a privileged esthetic language, was one of the channels for accomplishing the established aims. After the period of socialist realism based on the premises of the cultural politics of the Soviet Union, the model had to be changed. Besides being a new state, Socialist Yugoslavia strived to be unique. In this cultural and political setting a special phenomenon was created in the Yugoslav artistic scene and it was called socialist esthetism. It was first noted in literature at the beginning of the 1960's. Soon the perception of socialist esthetism as a theoretical instrument was expanded to the fields of painting, graphics and sculpture, where the phenomenon was examined by influential Yugoslav art critics, historians and theoreticians of art. In architectural historiography, however, it would occur for the first time at the beginning of 2000 in the reflections on Serbian architecture of the second half of the 20th century. The main characteristics of socialist esthetism were identified as neutrality, compromise, passivity, independence and self-sufficiency. This was the source of two groups of implications. The first one refers to the position of art in social reality, therefore, to its sociocultural function, whereas the second one refers to the domain of autochthonous artistic expression, i.e. its ontological, semantic and structural aspects. These two components surely have a common denominator. What is indisputable is that the work of art is no longer observed as a 'reflection' of socialistic social reality, i.e. as an optimal projection of reality, as the principles of socialist realism demanded. An essential transition was made from thematic to plastic, from the topical motive to an esthetic object. The moment of divergence is, however, the semantic ending of an esthetic object. In the discourse of architecture the phenomenon of socialist esthetism is manifested as a starting concept but also as a product of architectural practice, so the relationship of socialist esthetism and architecture can be defined as bidirectional. The definition of one direction of this relation requires an answer to the question if there is a marked transition from thematic to plastic in architectural practice, i.e. from the topical motive to an esthetic object. The second direction is the search for the role of architecture in the construction of context in which the phenomenon of socialist esthetism is manifested. In other words, the first direction follows the elements of socialist esthetism in architecture and the second one the elements of architecture in socialist esthetism. Elements of socialist esthetism in architecture are manifested in a similar way like in other visual arts. They are recognized in the tendency for a non-conflicting morphology and visuality, i.e. in the creation of a structure whose semantic potential is exhausted inside itself. Elements of socialist esthetism bring into architecture an aspiration to avoid ideological and symbolic premises with the aim of a self-sufficient spatial system which can conditionally be called esthetical. On the other hand, the elements of architecture in the vision of socialist esthetism can be searched for in opuses of leading architects of this period (B. Bogdanović I. Antić, M. Mitrović). Because of its materialization and purpose, the building of the Museum of Modern Art in Belgrade, the work of Ivan Antić and Ivanka Raspopović, can be discussed as a very symptomatic example of the relationship of architecture and socialist esthetism. The building of the Museum of Modern Art in Belgrade surely represents a unique achievement of Yugoslav post-war architecture. This uniqueness is seen not only in the characteristic architectural idea, but also in the fact that this is one of the rare cultural objects, of the many that had been planned, which was actually realized. The very high degree of the esthetization of the Museum of Modern Art shows the esthetic vision of the socialist world in which the edifice was built. On the other hand, the non-realization of planned objects which would potentially follow this line of esthetization of social reality indicates that this world had different priorities.