Bauhaus Networking Ideas and Practice NETWORKING IDEAS and PRACTICE Impressum

Museum of Contemporary Art Zagreb Zagreb, 2015

Bauhaus networking ideas and practice NETWORKING IDEAS AND PRACTICE Impressum

Proofreading Vesna Meštrić Jadranka Vinterhalter Catalogue Bauhaus – Photographs ЈЈ Archives of Yugoslavia, Belgrade networking ЈЈ Bauhaus-Archiv Berlin ЈЈ Bauhaus-Universitat Weimar, Archiv der Moderne ideas ЈЈ Croatian Architects Association Archive, Graphic design Zagreb Aleksandra Mudrovčić and practice ЈЈ Croatian Museum of Architecture of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Zagreb ЈЈ Dragan Živadinov’s personal archive, Ljubljana Printing ЈЈ Graz University of Technology Archives Print Grupa, Zagreb ЈЈ Gustav Bohutinsky’s personal archive, Faculty of Architecture, Zagreb ЈЈ Ivan Picelj’s Archives and Library, Contributors Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb Aida Abadžić Hodžić, Éva Bajkay, ЈЈ Jernej Kraigher’s personal archive, Print run Dubravko Bačić, Ruth Betlheim, Ljubljana 300 Regina Bittner, Iva Ceraj, ЈЈ Katarina Bebler’s personal archive, Publisher Zrinka Ivković,Tvrtko Jakovina, Ljubljana Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb Jasna Jakšić, Nataša Jakšić, ЈЈ Klassik Stiftung Weimar © 2015 Muzej suvremene umjetnosti / Avenija Dubrovnik 17, Andrea Klobučar, Peter Krečič, ЈЈ Marie-Luise Betlheim Collection, Zagreb Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb 10010 Zagreb, Hrvatska Lovorka Magaš Bilandžić, Vesna ЈЈ Marija Vovk’s personal archive, Ljubljana ISBN: 978-953-7615-84-0 tel. +385 1 60 52 700 Meštrić, Antonija Mlikota, Maroje ЈЈ Modern Gallery Ljubljanja fax. +385 1 60 52 798 Mrduljaš, Ana Ofak, Peter Peer, ЈЈ Monica Stadler’s personal archive A CIP catalogue record for this book e-mail: [email protected] Bojana Pejić, Michael Siebenbrodt, ЈЈ Museum of Architecture and Design, is available from the National and www.msu.hr Barbara Sterle Vurnik, Karin Šerman, Ljubljana University Library in Zagreb under no. Darko Šimičić, Jadranka Vinterhalter, ЈЈ Museum of Arts and Crafts, Zagreb 000915608. Bogo Župančič, Isabel Wünsche ЈЈ Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb ЈЈ National Museum in Belgrade This project has been funded ЈЈ Peter Krečič’s personal archive, Ljubljana with support from the European For the publisher ЈЈ Public Open University Zagreb Archive Commission. The publication Snježana Pintarić ЈЈ Sanela Jahić’s personal archive, Ljubljana reflects the views of the authors, Translation ЈЈ Selman Selmanagić’s personal archive, and the Commission cannot be held Milena Baljak Berlin responsible for any use which may Janet Berković ЈЈ Stadtarchiv Dessau-Roßlau be made of the information contained Mirta Jurilj ЈЈ Škofja Loka Museum therein. Editor Marina Miladinov ЈЈ Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau / Bauhaus Jadranka Vinterhalter Mladen Šipek Dessau Foundation ЈЈ Zagreb City Museum, Zagreb ЈЈ Universalmuseum Joanneum / Neue Galerie Graz � Expert associate Language advisor ЈЈ Filip Beusan Vesna Meštrić Janet Berković ЈЈ Srećko Budek

4 Contents

01 Vesna Meštrić, Jadranka Vinterhalter Foreword 8 Contents 02 Tvrtko Jakovina The Germans, Germany, and the Slavic South (1919-1961) 18 03 Michael Siebenbrodt The Bauhaus in Weimar – A School of Invention / A prototype of a modern, twentieth century university 36 04 Regina Bittner Bauhaus Products: Life-changing Didactic Objects? 50 05 Isabel Wünsche From Vorkurs to Vertikale Brigaden: Visual Arts Education at the Bauhaus 60 06 Lovorka Magaš Bilandžić Theatre at the Bauhaus: A Testing Ground for a Theoretical and Practical Examination of the Performing Arts 80 07 Bojana Pejić bauhaus in 57 seconds - ivana tomljenović, the moving image, and the avant-garde film-net around 1930 94 08 Éva Bajkay On the Road (ÙT): the Hungarian Works of Pécs – Weimar – Novi Sad – Zagreb 120 09 Karin Šerman The Bauhaus Weimar in Zagreb: the Marie-Luise Betlheim Collection 136 10 Ruth Betlheim The Souvenir Portfolio / Illustrated letters from Lou Scheper to Marie-Luise Betlheim, Weimar – Dessau – Berlin, 1922-1936 146 11 Peter Krečič The Journey of Avgust Černigoj to the Bauhaus in Weimar, or Laying the Foundations of the Slovenian Historical Avant-garde 152 12 Barbara Sterle Vurnik A Brief Tale of a Long Search for the Nearly Lost Legacy of Avgust Černigoj 164 13 Peter Peer “Responsibility to oneself and society is even more important than expertise.” (Hubert Hoffmann) 182 14 Aida Abadžić Hodžić Architecture beyond Four Walls: Selman Selmanagić and the Bauhaus 200 15 Jadranka Vinterhalter Bauhaus Dossier: Zagreb – Dessau 226 16 Antonija Mlikota Otti Berger – Textile Designer, Theoretician, Educationalist, Innovator 238 17 Darko Šimičić Ivana Tomljenović 256 18 Karin Šerman, Dubravko Bačić, Nataša Jakšić The Croatian Architect Gustav Bohutinsky and the Bauhaus 266 19 Jasna Jakšić The Bauhaus in the Museum of Contemporary Art’s Library 286 20 Vesna Meštrić The Avant-garde Experiment – from the Bauhaus to EXAT 300 21 Maroje Mrduljaš Synthesis in Croatian Architecture: 1947-1965 314 22 Iva Ceraj Bernardo Bernardi and EXAT 51: From Avant-garde Activism to the Culture of Living 332 23 Ana Ofak Expo Lab / Pavilions between Art and Industry in 1950 344 24 Andrea Klobučar The Textile Department of the Crafts School and Academy of Applied Arts in Zagreb – an Example of the Bauhaus Educational Model 362 25 Bogo Župančič The B Course – the Slovenian Bauhaus of the Early 1960s 376 26 Darko Šimičić Chronology 1918-1961 392 27 Zrinka Ivković Bibliography on the Bauhaus and its Impact 410 List of exhibits 418 Lectures, conversations, book launches, events, workshops, exhibitions, as part of the Bauhaus - networking ideas and practice (BAUNET) project 428

6 21 Synthesis in Croatian Architecture: 1947-1965 Vjenceslav Richter, Pavilion of Yugoslavia at EXPO 58, Brussels, interior, 1958, Archives of Yugoslavia, Belgrade

Maroje Mrduljaš

Synthesis in After the Second World War, the international map of research trends in architecture was in the process of restructuring. Most of the leading figures in the European architectural avant-garde – including Bauhaüslers Walter Gropius, Mies van der Rohe, Marcel Breuer, and others – had emigrated to the USA. CIAM was dominated by the prominent partisans of modernism: Le Corbusier, Sigfried Giedion, and José Croatian Luis Sert. Behind the Iron Curtain, where some CIAM cells were still active, there was conflict between modernism and social realism. The main topics of CIAM included the new monumentality and synthesis of decorative arts, whose foundations had been laid in the pre-war period through the activities of Architecture: the Bauhaus and De Stijl. The issue of synthesis within CIAM was presented by Giedion at a post-war congress in Bridgewater in 1947, and the same subject was at the core of the Bergam congress working group in 1949, entitled Art and Architecture. The debate on synthesis was particularly vigorous in France. 1947 Nicola Pezolet has emphasised that the various approaches of individuals, groups, and institutions such 1. Nicola Pezolet in his doctoral as Le Corbusier, the Salon des Réalités Nouvelles, or the Groupe Espace did not only continue research into dissertation Spectacles Plastiques: ‘total art’, but were also part of the complex process of finding a role for modern art within the modern- Reconstruction and the Debates on the 1965 ‘Synthesis of the Arts’ in France, 1 isation processes of the post-war welfare state. Comparable tendencies in exploring decorative forms 1944-1962 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 21 could be observed in peripheral settings such as Finland or Brazil. 2013). 21 Synthesis in Croatian Architecture: 1947-1965

From the early 1950s, synthesis was also a central topic in Croatia in discussing new trends in architec- Richter: “The road to synthesis leads through ture and the visual arts in the turbulent cultural and socio-political context of the post-war reconstruc- abstract art” 2. The group’s members included tion of Yugoslavia. Discussions of synthesis were largely associated with the activities of EXAT 51,2 but in the architects Bernardo Bernardi, fact it was multifaceted and involved other protagonists and positions. In the architectural discourse of Zdravko Bregovac, Zvonimir Radić, the 1950s and 1960s, there was no accurate elaboration of synthesis as a concept, but the relationship Vjenceslav Richter, who enjoyed the strong political support of SKOJ members from 1939 on and bene- Božidar Rašica, Vjenceslav Richter, and Vladimir Zarahović, and the between various theoretical or critical texts and practice means two principal positions can be identi- fited from the fact that he had participated in the anti-fascist struggle, gathered young artists such as painters Vlado Kristl, Ivan Picelj, and fied. The first was promoted by EXAT 51 and it blurred the boundaries between architecture, design, and Ivan Picelj, Aleksandar Srnec, and the architect Zvonimir Radić around him, and collaborated with them Aleksandar Srnec. painting, and between the ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ arts. The problem was formulated universally, as a primar- on a series of pavilions for trade fairs and exhibitions, while still a student. These exhibition pavilions in- ily visual phenomenon. The aesthetics and interests of EXAT 51’s members were heterogeneous, but the cluded syncretistic references to various historical avant-gardes. Vladimir Kulić has accurately detected 3. For an analysis of trends in Croatian design during the 1950s, the concept of synthesis was most consistently elaborated by the architect Vjenceslav Richter. The activities these sources, which included the “constructivist reduction of the language of design to floating linear role of EXAT 51 and the Triennial, see of EXAT 51 had a crucial impact on the evolution of modernist design in Croatia, with Richter and Zvo- and planar elements... and biomorphic shapes reminiscent of Surrealism and Hans Arp. Some exhibitions Jasna Galjer, Dizajn predesetih u nimir Radić transposing the experiences of EXAT 51 into teaching during the short-lived activities of the even included solutions that looked like direct quotations from Frederick Kiesler: concave walls, flowing Hrvatkoj: od utopije do stvarnosti Academy of Applied Arts in Zagreb (1950-1954). Another stream consisted of research-oriented archi- curves, or unusual, inclined pillars.”4 4. Vladimir Kulić, “The Scope of [Croatian design in the 1950s: From Socialist Modernism: Architecture and utopia to reality] (Zagreb: Horetzky, tects, who understood synthesis as the experimental integration of ‘sciences and arts’ or ‘technical and In 1953, an EXAT 51 exhibition took place with a public reading of the group’s manifesto. The exhibition State Representation in Postwar 2004); Feđa Vukić, “Pojam itself included heterogeneous paintings and had practically nothing to do with synthesis, even though creative components’ in architectural design. The experiment was particularly directed towards redefin- Yugoslavia”, in: Sanctioning ‘oblikovanje’ u hrvatskoj kulturi ing architectural typologies and integrating new technological elements in architecture. This approach the manifesto explicitly stated that EXAT 51 “considered its main task to move in the direction of achiev- Modernism: Architecture and the pedesetih godina” [The term ‘design’ was cultivated at the Department of Architecture of the Faculty of Technology in Zagreb, through the ing the synthesis of all the visual arts, and further, to give an experimental character to our work, as no Making of Postwar Identities, eds. in Croatian culture during the 1950s], Vladimir Kulić, Timothy Parker, and in: Društvena istraživanja, 58-59 conceptual platform established by Vladimir Turina, who sought to complement his diverse designer progress in creative approaches to the visual arts can be conceived without experimentation.” Monica Penick (Austin, TX: University (Zagreb: Institut Ivo Pilar, 2002), practice with theoretical reflections. During the 1950s, Richter worked on several experimental projects. When designing the Naprijed book- of Texas Press, 2014), p. 45. p. 413-431. The positions of Turina and Richter, representing the Faculty of Technology and EXAT 51, were not op- shop, he focused on the visual coordination of all elements in architecture. The Museum of the Revolu- posed. However, they approached the issue of synthesis from different angles. Turina’s path was one tion was situated in Meštrović’s Art Pavilion, where Richter interpolated a ‘parasitic structure’ – a system of architectural experimentation; for him, the project served as a model for constructing a theory. On of staircases with a construction of floating platforms and exhibition terraces. In his restaurant/pavilion the other hand, Richter and the EXAT 51 circle aimed at developing a universal theoretical framework or in Slavonski Brod, he explored the fluid fusion of covered and open spaces. All these projects explored model for the decorative arts that could be applied subsequently to architectural design. established architectural concepts and procedures; however, they were technologically and functionally Both Turina and Richter were aware of the need to publish their ideas, and of the importance of theo- simple tasks, which allowed Richter to concentrate fully on pure spatial and visual articulation. retical elaboration and mediating projects and positions. Turina organised a series of solo exhibitions, At the same time, he was elaborating his theory of synthesis. After various discussions held during 1952 accompanied his projects with publications, and produced problem-oriented texts. Although largely at the Club of Academic Workers, he published a treatise on synthesis that would be published unal- focusing on his own work, Richter was even more active in the public domain: he was involved in pro- tered as the first part of his book Sinturbanizam (Synthurbanism) in 1964.5 Despite the belated date of 5. Richter’s statement from the fessional organisations, edited the journal Čovjek i prostor, and co-initiated and co-organised the 1st and publication, the hypotheses in Synthurbanism could be applied to understand the conceptual platform introduction to Sinturbanizam (Zagreb, 1964). 2nd Zagreb Triennials (the Zagreb Salon today), which took place in 1955 and 1958 respectively, and were of the circle around EXAT 51 and Richter. For Richter, synthesis meant erasing the differences between Vladimir Turina, based on the concept of synthesis in art.3 architecture, painting, and decorative arts, in which a crucial breakthrough had been achieved by the Zvonimir Radić, Bauhaus. Moreover, according to Richter, “The notion of the applied arts is incompatible with the idea Ninoslav Kučan, Ivan of visual synthesis, because in it, nothing is applied any more - everything is structurally formed.”6 The 6. Ibid, p. 17. Seifert, Combined Swimming Resort very autonomy of individual disciplines thus lost its meaning. “From the point of synthesis and everyday, Rijeka, project, vital contact between man and artwork, exhibitions of painting and sculpture are almost always abso- cross-section, 1949 lute nonsense.” Richter rejected the idea of ‘additive presence’ in architecture, painting, and sculpture, claiming that its main problem was the articulation of space. “At the very moment when we demand that a painting or sculpture be inhabitable and suitable for living, working, and pursuing interests, we have to bring this painting, hitherto unburdened by practical life, into a relation with construction, technology, and economy, and thus we arrive at architecture.”7 Of course, the opposite is also true: “If we 7. Ibid, p. 22. want (…) each architectural element to become a visual motif (...), if we understand the interior as a concave painting or sculpture, and if each element of our furniture seems like a sculpture... then we

Maroje Mrduljaš 316 21 Synthesis in Croatian Architecture: 1947-1965

EXAT 51 left practically no complete work of collective synthesis; instead, its architects applied refined compositional concepts, while its painters participated in an increasing number of interior decoration projects, enriching them with artwork. These acts also provoked debates on ‘genuine’ abstract art, such as the famous controversy concerning the Ritz Bar. The authors of the project were, paradoxically, repre- sentatives of two opposing sides: the ‘synthetist’ Vjenceslav Richter and the ‘lyricist’ Edo Murtić. Richter designed the interior by using the denivelation of the floor and the ceiling to create a fluid, partitioned, yet integrated space. As Ljiljana Kolešnik has observed, the debate was primarily about the nature of ‘genuine’ abstract art, rather than synthesis as such.9 In this debate, some parts of which acquired rather 9. Ljiljana Kolešnik, Između istoka i unpleasant overtones, Richter revealed himself as a tactician; however, in a later newspaper article, he zapada, umjetnost i likovna kritika 1950-ih u Hrvatskoj [Between East and emphasised that Murtić had imposed himself upon the investor and that he had not been Richter’s per- West: Art and visual arts criticism in sonal choice. Criticism of interventions in the interior was not only reserved for the debate on the Ritz Croatia during the 1950s] (Zagreb: Bar. An especially fervent critic was the architect Andrija Mutnjaković, who wrote for Čovjek i Prostor, a Institute of Art History, 2006). journal edited by Richter himself from 1958 to 1961. Mutnjaković’s target was a series of prestigious interiors in Zagreb, located on Republic Square: the bar on top of the Skyscraper, the entrance to the same building, and the interior of Centroturist, designed by Neven Šegvić, with artwork and artistic interventions by Edo Murtić, Vojin Bakić, Zlatko Prica, and others. Later, Mutnjaković also wrote about the com- mercialisation of synthesis, triggered by the regulation that 1% of all architectural investment in public Vjenceslav Richter, buildings should be designated for artistic interventions. Pavilion of Yugoslavia at EXPO 58, Brussels, An ideal occasion for synthesis was the Yugoslav pavilion for EXPO 58 in Brussels, designed by Richter. In exterior, 1958, a way, this pavilion owed some features to his previous experience - its open concept, as in the pavilion Archives of at Slavonski Brod, its exhibition platforms, as seen in the Museum of the Revolution, and its modular co- Yugoslavia, Belgrade ordination, as in the Naprijed bookstore. For the competition, Richter proposed a glass pavilion suspend- ed on a gigantic central column. Regardless of his unease with the revision and elaboration of the project following the competition, the central column was rejected and replaced with a conventional skeletal construction. This alteration made the project even more ‘synthetic’, with clearer, more precise ‘spatial painting’, since the simple steel columns became an integral part of the building’s visual construction and spatial organisation. The exhibition display was coordinated by the graphic designer Emil Vičić and the architect Đuka Kavurić, while the complex task of representing Yugoslavia was divided into four thematic units: the State and Social System; Science, Art, and Education; Economy, and Tourism. These topics were presented through a combination of original artefacts, artwork, photographs, and graphic have transformed the present-day notion of architecture into one just created by merging painting and art. Richter collaborated with two large teams charged with designing the exhibition: the ‘Zagreb’ and 8. Ibid. sculpture.” The road to “experimentation and the possibility of synthesis... leads through abstract art.”8 ‘Belgrade’ groups, who both relied on Richter’s concept of space and his instructions for further elabora- Eventually, this dual movement towards the abolition of individual arts led to the concept of ‘spatial tion.10 This experiment in communicating the social system and other features of Yugoslavia resulted in 10. For a detailed analysis of the painting’, the genesis of which Richter credited to De Stijl, especially Mondrian. In explaining what the an elegant exhibition display, in which a wide variety of exhibits - samples, machines, statistical charts, group’s work and the list of authors, see Jasna Galjer, EXPO 58 i jugoslaven- and artwork - were harmonised in an integrally designed system. Though a considerable number of qualities of ‘spatial painting’ should be, Richter stated that they could not be additive applications of ski paviljon Vjencesava Richtera [EXPO painting or neutral surfaces; however, in his proposals he did not manage to go further than demanding works were distributed throughout the pavilion, the two dominant visual elements were photography 58 and the Yugoslav pavilion by that the concept should be consistent and carried out by colourist interventions and analyses of sur- and graphic design, for example the panel depicting the opportunities for exporting electrical energy, Vjenceslav Richter] (Zagreb: Horetzky, faces, again referring to Mondrian. This generalising, yet primarily visual stance may have resulted from designed by Alesandar Srnec. The pavilion at EXPO 58 thus presented an ideal image of Yugoslavia and a 2009), p. 497. the fact that Richter’s idea of space originated in his practice of creating ambiences and communicating utopian vision of perfectly harmonious, planned social development, and was at the same time the pin- content through exhibitions, rather than solving complex functional tasks. nacle of Richter’s exploration of the collective synthesis of the decorative arts.

Maroje Mrduljaš 318 21 Synthesis in Croatian Architecture: 1947-1965

Turina – “On the road of overall social transformation”

Before the Second World War, Turina’s work was characterised by a functionalist, research-oriented approach that culminated in two prize-winning, yet unrealised competition projects - the State Opera in Belgrade (1939) and the Hospital in Zagreb’s Šalata district (1941).11 The Belgrade Opera had a completely 11. Certainly, Turina could rely on transformable central stage, in which it resembled Gropius’ idea of ‘total theatre’. The Hospital design two local precedents in these projects: Strižić’s prize-winning was based on accurate articulation into separate functional elements, interconnected in an efficient sys- design for the Cracow theatre and the tem. It represented a new type of architectural imagination, detached from static, composed structures, competition projects for hospitals in favouring a complex, technological, spatial organism that integrated modern, mechanical air-condition- Kraljevica and Zagreb by Ernest ing systems, movable platforms, elevators, lighting, and all sorts of equipment. These buildings were ide- Weissmann. al opportunities for Turina’s experimentation, as examples of complex projects that depended essential- Turina’s circle also included th 12. ly on technology and were also undergoing conceptual changes during the first half of the 20 century. collaborators from outside the In 1946, Turina became a lecturer at the Department of Architecture of the Faculty of Technology in Faculty of Architecture, such as Franjo Zagreb and gathered a series of young academics as co-workers: Radovan Nikšić, Mladen Vodička, Alek- Neidhardt. sandar Dragomanović, and Boris Magaš, with the occasional collaboration of Zvonimir Radić, Ninoslav After the Second World War, the 12 13. Kučan, Edo Šmidihen, and others. The atmosphere among the young teaching staff was research-ori- Department of Architecture at the ented and dynamic, with architects working together in various groups in order to participate in compe- Faculty of Technology became a hub titions. At the same time, Božidar Rašica acted as a link between the Faculty of Technology and EXAT 51.13 for the leading architects of different In those politically turbulent times, and in the midst of a debate on social realism and functionalism, in generations: Alfred Albini and Zdenko Strižić, who had gained fame before 1947 Turina created one of the most radical designs in Croatian architecture – the Combined Swimming the war, and lecturers who started on Resort in the Delta district of Rijeka. The working group led by Turina included several students about to their career immediately after the graduate in architecture under the mentorship of Radić (a future member of EXAT 51), Kučan, and Ivan war, such as Božidar Rašica, Neven Šegvić, and Vladimir Turina. The Seifert, with Franjo Neidhardt as the associate in charge of technological matters.14 The project explored academic staff implemented their the subject of transformability in architecture, in terms of programme and technology. The proposal en- projects through the Faculty’s visaged a sports park in a non-urbanised area of Rijeka city centre, with a huge, cylindrical hangar (50 Institute of Investment Documentati- metres in diameter) as its central building. A large, mobile terrace glided on rails from open-air pools, on and were thus not burdened by the need for productivity to secure a through the hangar, to an athletics field. The pools could be covered by movable flooring, to make the steady income, as was the case with Vladimir Turina, hangar usable for other sports and exhibitions. At that time, there were only a few international pro- commercial studios. Center for Mothers jects exploring the mechanical transformability of space, such as the Maison de Peuple de Clichy by Jean and Children , Prouve (1935-1937), but they were far smaller in terms of dimension and ambition. Turina rightly empha- 14. It developed a student project by Zagreb, ground Petar Kovačević. floor - waiting sised that the project was without precedent in both typology and technology. Even though it could be hall, entrance hall, associated with the ‘heroic’ proposals of the historical avant-gardes, its technological basis and rationale 1953-65 made it a unique research project, beyond the domain of visionary or utopian architecture, and it served as an example of synthesis between conceptual and technological research. The first version was exhib- ited in London in 1948, on the occasion of the Olympic Games, and then in Stockholm in 1949. An account of the project was also published in the prominent journal L’Architecture d’aujourd’hui. Turina continued to be involved with sports architecture, including part of the execution of the Dinamo football stadium in Zagreb; however, the research-oriented architects at the Faculty of Technology mostly focused on public buildings. In a series of competition designs and finished projects, strategies were developed that aimed at harmonising the relationship between new, modern institutions in public

Maroje Mrduljaš 320 21 Synthesis in Croatian Architecture: 1947-1965

education, health care, and sports, with individual experiences. A wide range of experts exchanged ideas during the 1950s, through a series of reform initiatives and symposia on education and healthcare, which resulted in establishing interdisciplinary services such as the Commission for the Construction of Edu- cational Buildings, Equipment, and Teaching Aids, founded in 1954, which involved architects, educators, and other experts. It was precisely this period of open debate on education and healthcare, combined with a lack of firm standards in urban planning or typological schemes, which allowed for an experimental approach and encouraged architects to interpret scientific achievements with relative freedom. In the wake of this application of synthesis, Rašica designed Zagreb’s Fire Fighting School (1951), a prima- ry school in Mesićeva Street (1953), and a secondary school in the district of Trešnjevka (1953), applying innovative concepts of space. In the spirit of the synthetic approach, he resorted to colourist interventions in the interior, while treating architectural and technical elements as visual phenomena. His most outspokenly experimental approach, in association with Nikšić and Georgij Nedeljkov, was his unrealised competition design for the Teachers’ School (1954), which was to have been one of the pillars of school reform. This vast project was elaborated as a complex system resembling an educational ‘town’, and some of the experimental teaching programmes were located in hexagonal pavilions. The school combined various types of ‘grouping’, ranging from smaller teaching groups to the entire school body, and spatial organisation was treated by the gradation of proportions and a capillary system leading from the ‘collective’ towards the ‘intimate’. After a series of projects which were never built, Turina finally won the opportunity to design the Centre for Mothers and Children (1953-1956) in Klaićeva Street in Zagreb, located in a block next to the Seces- sionist children’s hospital by Ignjat Fišer. The construction was co-sponsored through UNICEF’s aid for underdeveloped countries. The architectural concept was innovative and resulted from a new under- standing of the social role of healthcare. It was a polyvalent institution, intended for the education of lay people and for training and specialisation for healthcare workers, and it also included modern clinics. In 1953, at a time when the Centre was expanding, Turina held a lecture at the Faculty of Architecture, entitled Modulor, which was subsequently published in Čovjek i prostor. The starting point was his reaction to international criticism of Le Corbuiser’s Unité d’Habitation in Marseilles, but Turina used the occasion to propose his own definition of architecture. In his words, “As we are heading towards general social transformation (...), it must be stated that: 1. Architecture is a result of scientific and experimental analysis of given functional, technological, and economic elements. 2. Architecture is a reflection of the psycho-creative complex that accompanies this synthesis of elements...No arbitrary interpretations (...) can replace or change the scientific progress of architecture today. In this progress – as is appropriate for all sciences – the key role belongs to experimentation.”15 15. Vladimir Turina, “Modulor Le Turina assigned to architecture the task of overcoming the central cultural problem of the mid-20th cen- Corbusiera i marseilleski eksperiment” [Le Corbusier’s Modulor and the tury: the gap between science and society. In his opinion, architecture was not an isolated science, but Marseilles experiment], in: Arhitektura, a synthetic discipline functioning as a mediator, as it harmonised the demands and possibilities posited 2 (Zagreb: Croatian Architects’ by science and placed them in a ‘humanised’ spatial framework. Science and technology were simulta- Association, 1953), p. 39-40. Vladimir Turina, neously the source and the means: the source when creating a concept to define typological models Radovan Nikšić, Georgij Nedeljkov, and spatial organisation, and the means by which technological capacities could be used in the physical Teachers’ School, articulation of architecture. competition project, Turina applied this vision to the Centre for Mothers and Children, where he explored the spatial rela- 1952-53, Zagreb City tions of new functions while focusing on the psychological experience of space. As the plot was of very Museum

Maroje Mrduljaš 322 21 Synthesis in Croatian Architecture: 1947-1965

modest proportions, Turina built a low central structure and distributed the contents along the inner corridor connecting two streets, thus incorporating the building into the city’s morphology. All the clinics, lecture rooms, and other facilities opened directly into the grounds, while the corridor had overhead lighting and a spatial arrangement that created intimate and also emphatically open ambiences. The technological elements of lighting, heating, and air-conditioning were integrated in the interior compo- Radovan Nikšić, sition. However, Turina only completed the ground floor, while the skyscraper which was planned for the Ninoslav Kučan, northern side of the plot was never built, due to disagreements between the architect and the hospital Petar Kušan, management. Workers’and People’s University Upon completion of the project, Turina published a booklet about the building, in which he explained (RANS), entrance the project and also included broader theoretical reflections. He interpreted the development of archi- hall and exterior, tecture as part of the “general evolution of culture and technology,” which could be “reduced to the 1955-61, Public Open 16 Centre for Mothers and Child University Zagreb indispensable law of a permanent precedent.” Given the difficulties there had been in executing the 16. Care, special edition (Zagreb, 1957), Archive project, ‘economisation’ became an issue for Turina that was theoretical and utterly pragmatic at the quoted in: Rukopisi Vladimira Turine same time. Thus, he claimed that the synthetic approach necessarily led to rational architecture. “The [Manuscripts of Vladimir Turina], ed. architecture of the new era should be a unique set of values in both the technological and spatial-visual Vladimir Mattioni (Zagreb: senses, which are themselves based on sound economic foundations.” 17 UPI-2M Plus, 2007), p. 98. Turina’s notion of synthesis was primarily associated with functionalist-experimental integration. The issue of synthesis in the decorative arts, as discussed in the circles around EXAT 51, was only secondary. 17. Ibid. “One feels that something is stirring in terms of integration between the visual and decorative arts in the domain of architecture, which should serve as a cover for... experiential synthesis... However, architectural synthesis... depends on many factors beyond the visual-decorative domain and is therefore independent of it.” In his opinion, “Today’s architectural synthesis, which consists of familiar and scien- tifically defined elements... offers sufficient evidence that it will become and remain a living medium of high-ranking integration.” Moreover, Turina was critical of the often forced application of artwork in interiors, saying, this ‘total symbiosis’ should “be feared at any cost. I would, in principle, accept this symbiosis on condition that the coordinating activities of architects should not be sacrificed to a universal, visual divinity with a commercial halo.”18 Nevertheless, the Centre’s interior did not lack formal expres- 18. Ibid. sion richer than Richter’s module-coordinated spaces: the paving of the entrance hall, the staircase, and other details were lavishly designed in the spirit of the high-modernist aestheticism of the 1950s. Nev- ertheless, the functional spaces were ascetic and the psychological impact depended to a great extent on colour and light. The modestly proportioned Centre for Mothers and Children, and the Dinamo football stadium, were Turina’s only more complex achievements. However, they indicated the intentions behind his attempts at achieving a theoretical, vaguely defined ‘second’ synthesis. At the time, the Centre was praised as the pinnacle of modernism in Zagreb, both architecturally and as a healthcare institution, because it was a completely new architectural concept, articulated in an original spatial form without precedent. This ‘second’ architectural synthesis was not concerned with abstract topics, but rather emerged as a direct reaction to progressive, modernist currents in Croatia during the 1950s.

Maroje Mrduljaš 324 21 Synthesis in Croatian Architecture: 1947-1965

tive models of architectural modernism after the Second World War, endorsing the research-oriented approach as an answer to radical social change. Nikšić worked on the project partly during his stay in the Netherlands and partly upon his return. A rather playful, stereotomic composition took the place of a more concise solution, based on open spatial organisation and a precise tectonic system. Influenced by Nikšić’s Netherlands experience, the revised solution shows a convergence between the ‘spatial painting’ approach and typological experimentation. The very idea of establishing a new type of institution for educating and emancipating the working classes required an experimental typological concept, based on a complex network of extended com- munications, as places of informal education and socialisation. In the interior, the project avoided the mechanical application of artwork and the impressive ambience was achieved by creating an ethereal, open space. The decorative form was created by means of a Mondrian-like play of black lines, consist- ing of columns and window frames, and the white surfaces of the walls, following Richter’s concept of ‘spatial painting’. The furnishings were designed by Bernardi, under the influence of the Danish designer Hans Wegner, while the colourist interventions were Radić’s work. An almost reverent atmosphere was 19. Cf. Ljiljana Kolešnik, Između istoka created by the beautiful spatial proportions, prevalence of monochromatic tones, and careful coordina- i zapada: Hrvatska umjetnost i likovna tion between the details and the whole. Richter also praised the project as a rare realisation of synthe- kritika 1950-ih godina (see note 9), p. sis.19 Like Turina, with his Centre for Mothers and Children, Nikšić and Kučan envisaged a house that was 156. a catalyst for a new type of institution, and in the long run it also proved capable of accommodating a considerable range of adaptations. 20. “CIAM en reorganisation (1957), Nikšić encouraged his colleagues to engage in international networking and kept in touch with Bakema, Liste des noms propose comme with whom Turina and Radić were by then also in correspondence. In August 1957, Turina and Nikšić were membre individuel, 19.8.” / Cf. Eric included on a list of proposed members of CIAM, along with Aleksandar Josić, a partner in the Paris studio Mumford, The CIAM Discourse on of Candilis-Josic-Woods, and the architect Juraj Neidhardt from Sarajevo, who had worked with Le Cor- Urbanism, 1928-1960 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002), p. 337. busier before the war.20 What followed was the creation of a group within the Zagreb circle of architects, and the elaboration of a proposal for the reorganisation of CIAM, signed by Ibler, Nikšić, Radić, Rašica, and Turina. This rather vaguely formulated text, preserved in Turina’s personal archive, was probably a draft for a more precisely articulated proposal. It is entitled CIAM in Reorganisation21 and focuses on the 21. For the proposal, see “CIAM in generally posited issue of synthesis in architecture. Synthesis is defined succinctly as the unity of space Reorganisation” (August 1957) in: Rukopisi Vladmira Turine (as in note and decorative arts, leading towards ‘truth in architecture’. However, synthesis was far outside the focus 16), p. 253-255. of interest of CIAM’s reform group, later Team X. At that time, architectural discourse in Zagreb could The RANS project and international relations offer nothing more articulate. In further correspondence, late in 1957, the potential members of Zagreb’s Vladimir Turina, CIAM group were joined by Richter, and the group also included Bernardi and Bregovac, Dragomanović, Combined Swimming Srebrenka Gvozdanović, and Kučan - obviously it consisted of lecturers from the Faculty of Technology Resort Rijeka, project, Turina’s associates continued these typological experiments. Synergy between emancipatory social and members of EXAT 51. This group of potential members and associates was later reduced and the list 1948, Zagreb City Museum, Zagreb movements and research-oriented architecture was integrated in the building of the Workers’ and Peo- of participants at the last meeting in Otterlo mentions only Nikšić and Radić. As he was in London at the ple’s University (RANS) in the former Street of Proletarian Brigades, designed by Nikšić and Kučan, who time, Radić could not be present at the meeting, so the epilogue to this attempt to include Zagreb’s ar- won the competition in 1955. After working with Turina, Nikšić left for the Netherlands in 1956, to study chitects in CIAM’s reform was a lecture given by Nikšić at Otterlo on the subject of RANS, which probably and work in the distinguished studio of Jaap Bakema and Van den Broek. At the time, Bakema was among also represented most accurately the capacities of Zagreb’s architectural circle during the later 1950s, in the pioneers of CIAM’s reforms, which led to the foundation of Team X, a group that developed alterna- terms of both design and theory.

Maroje Mrduljaš 326 21 Synthesis in Croatian Architecture: 1947-1965

a separate discipline, and demanded its “full integration into the equivalent systems of complex produc- 24. Matko Meštrović, “Što je budući tion activities at the technological and conceptual levels of a higher organisational order.”24 However, put arhitekture” [The future path of Towards an extended field of synthesis architecture], in: Arhitektura owing to the obvious impossibility of realising such a utopian total synthesis and equivalence between Urbanizam, 19 (Belgrade, 1963), p. 39. social processes and constituting the built environment, individual research projects such as Richter’s From the early 1960s, Richter sought to extend the concept of synthesis to the field of politics. He kept the progressive horizons of architecture vivid.25 was aware of the need to redefine the social position of architects, for which the theory of Yugoslav Following the publication of Synthurbanism, Richter wrote an article for a thematic issue on Yugoslav 25. The active dialogue between Meštrović and Richter is important self-management Socialism – decentralisation and the weakening influence of the state, as well as the culture of the philosophical journal Praxis in 1965, entitled Assistance and Engagement: About Some Fun- because of the synchronicity of active participation of the population in all spheres of public decision-making – provided some hope. damental Questions of Our Architecture. He saw an obstacle to the humane development of the built Richter’s theoretical and practical At the symposium of the Yugoslav Architects’ Association in Ohrid in 1960, Richter emphasised that the environment in divisions between the roles of society as commissioner, designer, and constructor. extension of the concept of synthesis issue of expression was no longer crucial, as modern aestheticism had already been accepted in Yugo- Instead of these fragmented relations, a phase in social agreement could be reached in which “architec- and the emergence of the New Tendencies movement, which in a slavia: “Progressiveness... must be expressed in a more complex form... in the phase of creating pro- ture becomes identical with urban planning, and both become the organisational promoters of social series of five exhibitions held in grammes... The architect is no longer a hired agent for a task imposed by a sponsor, but an equal public progress (...) The process of synthesis must acquire broader social proportions in terms of the concep- Zagreb between 1961 and 1973 22. Vjenceslav Richter, untitled paper, partner with direct social responsibility.”22 In such a task, the concept of decorative synthesis was no tual and organisational unity of structure.”26 In this article, the only one on architecture ever published featured some of the leading in: Razgovori o arhitekturi, 2 (Ohrid: longer adequate. in Praxis, Richter developed his critique of architecture within a programme of social harmonisation, international artists and theoreticians 1960, Institute of Architecture and of research-oriented art. The While demanding the extension of the social role of architects, Richter’s own architectural practice was adopting a position similar to Meštrović’s. After the School of Catering Services in Dubrovnik, Richter Urban Planning of the Republic of theoretical platform of New Serbia, Belgrade 1964), p. 6. at a crossroads. In his prize-winning design for the Museum of the Revolution of Yugoslav Peoples in Bel- designed a number of less prominent, more eclectic pieces of architecture, and some interiors, but he Tendencies, based on the integration grade (1961), Richter continued the spatial concept that he had elaborated for the EXPO pavilion. How- dedicated most efforts to the utopian project of Synthurbanism, which should be assessed primarily as of sciences and arts, was envisaged ever, in the design and realisation of the School of Catering Services in Dubrovnik’s Ploče district (1961), an illustration of the potentially extended field of synthesis, as presented in the Praxis article. by Meštrović in a programmatic, untitled article published in 1963 in his architecture acquired an outspokenly urban character. The Museum of the Revolution and the School Turina and Magaš designed the Theatre in Zenica (1961-1962), a competition project that concluded the the catalogue for the second of Catering Services seem not to be products of the same era - the Museum belonged to the phase of series of radical neo-avant-garde experiments. Whereas Richter, in his proposal on Synthurbanism, oc- exhibition. According to Meštrović, EXAT 51 and its syncretistic reconstruction of neo-avant-garde concepts, while the School of Catering casionally ended in a sort of techno-utopian escapism, Turina and Magaš tried a formal and functional social progress required the abolition of differences between sciences, arts, Services corresponded to the contemporary international trends in systemic art and structuralist archi- concept that was without precedent, by proposing a transformable hall with bilateral auditoria situated and society. Art could no longer retain tecture, anticipating the New Tendencies movement. Here, Richter surpassed the format of an individ- in a ‘heroic’,triangular cross-section. The project failed at the competition stage and Turina turned to- its privileged position; what was ually composed building, developing a non-hierarchical systemic approach applicable to a wider field. wards criticism. Without touching on the possibility of influencing political grounds in developing the needed was an “increase in the social The project was based on the generative model; by adding equivalent spatial units, it could be adapted built environment, Turina expressed his disappointment concerning the impact of architecture on mod- usefulness of science” and both domains were to disappear as to different topographies, leading to growth and change. It was followed by the large, unfinished pro- ernisation, and even the potential of synthesis, in a series of three articles published in Telegram during separate social phenomena. ject for the Student Hall of Residence (1962) situated on the neighbouring plot, which was supposed to 1963. In one of them, indicatively entitled Humanizam i antihumanizam novovjekog urbanizma (Human- develop the urbanisation of Ploče’s slopes according to the same generative code. As for the School of ism and Anti-humanism of Modern Urban Planning), Turina stated that “everywhere in the world there Catering Services, here Richter solved a complex architectural task, which was also his first investigation are drafts for technocratic plans of ‘modernist’ tendencies. Properly speaking, this means that the tech- 26. Vjenceslav Richter, “Asistencija i of three-dimensional systems, anticipating the decorative work of Centra and Centrija in 1963-1965. His nological and rational component has been absolutely triumphant in contemporary urban architecture, angažiranost – O nekim fundamen- 27 talnim pitanjima naše arhitekture / interest in systemic architecture, which he applied so convincingly to the School of Catering Services in prevailing over the living human being.” Assistence and Engagement: About Dubrovnik, later evolved in his proposal for an ideal city, Synthurbanism, presented in the book of the From the end of the Second World War to the mid-1960s, the concept of synthesis permeated archi- Some Fundamental Questions of Our same name published in 1964. tectural discourse in Croatia as the sole attempt at establishing the theoretical foundations of archi- Architecture”, in: Praxis, 4-5 (1965), While individual executions during the 1950s showed that the idea of synthesis could be applied suc- tecture. The actual term ‘synthesis’ was used in various ways and served several purposes. Thus, EXAT p. 577-578. 23. Matko Meštrović, “Iznimno ka općem (Uz izložbu inž. arh. cessfully by both schools of thought, including the influence of architects on building projects, the in- 51 presented its programme as ‘socially engaged’, although in terms of architectural realisation, this Vjenceslava Richtera u Zagrebu)” tense rhythm of urbanisation did not yield satisfactory results. In an article published on the occasion of engagement actually referred primarily to representing Yugoslav Socialism: for example, through Vjenc- Vladimir Turina, “Humanizam i [From the exceptional to the universal 27. Richter’s exhibition in 1962, the theoretician and critic Matko Meštrović stated that these individual ex- eslav Richter, beginning with his exhibition pavilions in the late 1940s, the pavilion for EXPO 58, and the antihumanizam novovjekog (On the exhibition by the architect periments in architecture were a temporary opposition to regressive processes in constituting the built Museum of the Revolution of the Yugoslav Peoples in Belgrade, to the pavilion for the Milan Triennial urbanizma” [Humanism and Vjenceslav Richter in Zagreb)], in: anti-humanism in modern urban Arhitektura Urbanizam, 27 (Belgrade, environment. “By using the synthetic way of thinking and clever, non-schematic observation, [Richter] (1961) and the exhibition of his work in Turin (1963/64). Parallel to these ideologically charged projects, planning], in: Telegram (Zagreb, 22 1964), p. 22. establishes connections between crucial information (...) surpassing practical thinking and operative the debate on synthesis focused on the relatively ephemeral tasks of designing mostly prestigious urban March 1963), quoted in: Rukopisi urban planning that erases or obstructs the deeper interests of the living community through reckless interiors. On the other hand, modernisation and the reform of social institutions presented opportu- Vlaidmira Turine (as in note 16), moves...”23 Meštrović was of the opinion that architecture (or any other activity) should be abolished as nities for exploring new typological concepts. Research-oriented architects like Turina were searching p. 224-229.

Maroje Mrduljaš 328 21 Synthesis in Croatian Architecture: 1947-1965

Vladimir Turina, Clinical Hospital Šalata, 1941, model of competition project, Zagreb City Museum, Zagreb

Vjenceslav Richter, School of Catering Services in Dubrov- nik’s Ploče district, 1961, Croatian Arc- hitects Association for new organisational forms suitable for complex projects; for them, synthesis meant integrating the or the many hotel lobbies on the Adriatic, where Murtić, Raul Goldoni, Zlatko Prica, Dušan Džamonja and Archive, Zagreb knowledge needed for the interpretation of programmes, technological possibilities, and new concepts others realised many projects that have not survived to the present day. The typological experiments of space. and efforts of architects to become actively involved in the sensitive task of designing buildings corre- By the late 1950s, it had become clear that neither of the two currents had a decisive influence on the sponding to the social standards of the time remained isolated enterprises in a domain that was becom- rapid urbanisation of Yugoslavia, and that the scope of exploratory architectural culture was limited. ing less and less suitable for research, owing to the introduction of stricter norms in urban planning and Despite the theoretical potential of self-management Socialism, applying the extended field of synthe- reduced budgets for education and health care. Nevertheless, both aspects of synthesis have remained sis to the built environment remained utopian. The much criticised practice of ‘additive’ collaboration present up to the present day as essential components in the Croatian modern architectural tradition. between architects and artists in interior decoration would continue its intriguing development during */ Translated from the Croatian by: the 1960s and 1970s, in a wide variety of situations: from buildings for political organisations, to banks Marina Miladinov

Maroje Mrduljaš 330