journal of ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM ISSN 2029-7955 print / ISSN 2029-7947 online

2014 Volume 38(1): 24–38 doi:10.3846/20297955.2014.891561

Theme of the issue “City as political space” Žurnalo numerio tema „Miestas kaip politinė erdvė“

architecture competitions – a space for political contention. socialist , 1950–1956

Ioana Cristina Popovici

School of Architecture, Design and Environment, Faculty of Arts, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, PL4 8AA, Plymouth, UK E-mail: [email protected]

Received 18 November 2013; accepted 29 January 2014

Abstract. This is an account of the relationship between architecture and power in Romania during the Stalinist period. A cursory glance at Arhitectura – the only specialist magazine to resume publication after the change in regime – suggests compliance with political direction, and professional interest in translating the theoretical method of Socialist Realism into a specific, culturally localized architectural language. Architecture competitions are a medium of intersection between theory and practice, power and the profession, ideology and economy – a space where political contention based on professional knowledge becomes possible even in totalitarian regimes. Between 1950 and 1956, Arhitectura published several competitions which, far from reinforcing Socialist Realism as the dominant architectural discourse, exposed the method’s internal contradictions and utopianism. In the ensuing confusion, there emerged a creative, practice-based counter-discourse centered on previously hegemonic dialects (the ‘national’). Based in equal amounts on the pre-established dynamics of professional culture, and on the willingness and ability of the architecture field to speculate the rules of the political game, this counter-discourse gradually led to the dismantling of Socialist Realism into alternative readings of Socialist architecture. Keywords: Socialist Realism, Romanian architecture, Stalinist architecture, architecture competitions, architecture practice, pro- fessional culture. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Popovici, I. C. 2014. Architecture competitions – a space for political contention. Socialist Romania, 1950–1956, Journal of Architecture and Urbanism 38(1): 24–38.

Introduction Something inherently heterotopic is coded into the the a-contextual, and – despite a purported receptiv- breakdown pattern of utopias. Transcription into a ity to interpretation – tends to lose internal coherence reality ruled by contention between a multiplicity of when faced with the peculiarities of local adaptation constraining factors leads to the gradual disintegration and professional culture. Best understood as a process of their internal logic. This is the space of alternate, hy- of translating theory into practice for a specific, cultur- brid interpretations of utopias stripped of the pretence ally localized artistic discipline, Socialist Realism un- of totality. Socialist Realism is no exception. der interrogation reveals a fragmentation independent Socialist Realism is a perpetually indefinite struc- of political dictum, and the alternatives thence derived. ture – a method, style, tactic of social reform via politic- This is an account of the space of political conten- ally-defined cultural orientation – it is manifestly uto- tion created in Romanian architecture through com- pian in nature, but curiously dogmatic in application. petitions attempting to develop a local translation of Rife with contradictions, it casts itself in the role of a Socialist Realism (roughly 1948–1956). The study high- doctrine enabling stylistic freedom for the arts (Cooke lights relationships of negotiation, mutual manipula- 1993: 86), while setting up a highly restrictive frame- tion, oppression and subversion between the regime work of implementation. It works best in the abstract, (embodied by State institutions involved in construc-

24 Copyright © 2014 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU) Press Technika http://www.tandfonline.com/ttpa Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 2014, 38(1): 24–38 25 tion) and the profession’s locus of power (Arhitectura apparent in the attempt to reconcile an ideological magazine, the Society of Romanian Architects, the basis of political inception (far stricter when exported University of Architecture in ), reflected onto to USSR satellite states1) with the demands of practice practice and reinforced by the competitions published and the pre-established dynamics of local professional in Arhitectura. culture. These points of conflict are the seeds of a space Drawing from the works of Michel Foucault, of political contention based on professional discourse, Katherine Verdery, Mikhail Bakhtin and Alexei which will prove destabilizing enough to trigger the Yurchak, the analysis tracks disruptions in the discurs- breakdown of utopian absolutism and encourage the ive exchanges between power and the profession on the emergence of alternative readings. subject of Socialist Realism in order to examine archi- tecture as a tactic of governance and cultural product. Pre-war competitions – national exclusivism, A Foucauldian reading of power and architecture en- international connectivity courages a less reductive take on socialist architecture. Architecture competitions have been a staple of Power is understood as a network permeating the social Arhitectura since the magazine’s inception. Featured in fabric, equally coercive / restrictive and productive / most issues published between 1906 and 1944, articles creative. Outside aesthetics, architecture is read as focusing on architecture competitions cover design potential for transformative action affecting the built briefs, announcements of results, analyses of projects environment and social processes alike, crucial to the submitted and attempts to define legislation applicable implementation of utopian projects based on absolute to architecture competitions. The frequency, subject social reformism. Verdery’s (1991) study of national range and the evident professional preoccupation with ideology and cultural production in the Romanian transparency, clarity and fairness suggest a thriving socialist system serves as a basis for understanding liberal practice. This apparent freedom, however, ap- architecture as a professional culture with a pattern of plies to a rather narrow (and politically and economic- interaction with power slightly divergent from that of ally well-connected) segment of the professional body. non-visual disciplines. Bakhtin’s (1981) concept of het- In essence, Arhitectura magazine was conceived eroglossia and Yurchak’s (2005) analysis of the trans- as the official publication of the Society of Romanian formation of authoritative discourse through social Architects (S.R.A.), founded in 1891 by 24 of the coun- practices help reveal the unexpected, creatively liber- try’s most prominent professionals: Alexandru Orăscu, ating effects stemming from the subversion of Socialist Ion N. Socolescu, Ion Mincu, Grigore Cerchez, Realism via architecture as practice. Alexandru Săvulescu, etc. (Tabacu 2005: 31). Quickly In architecture, public competitions facilitate in- established as the de facto authority in all matters ar- tersection; theory and practice, the profession and chitectural, the S.R.A. kept itself just out of reach of the political, ideology and economy are drawn into a the legal bounds applicable to nation-wide professional dialogue on the nature, scope and role of architecture, organizations. In nearly six decades of activity, the demanding, if not resolution of these issues, at least Society remained at the apex of professional culture an ongoing effort of definition and boundary tracing. and practice, but even an extensive membership of ap- As Catherine Cooke (1993: 93) remarks, matters are proximately 230 of the 340 architects eligible for State- further complicated in socialist systems by the use of approved practice in 19322 did not transform the S.R.A. competitions as means to translate the ideologically into a legalized national professional body (Tabacu appropriate methods of creation outlined by Socialist 2006: 30–42). The society’s disinclination to become Realism into actual architectural language. Moreover, more politically and socially active suggests that one they double as a pedagogical device outlining a cor- of its aims was to create such a comprehensive organ- rect process of translation, from the development of an ization, tacitly subordinate to the S.R.A. but legally and ideologically sound professional mindset to the critical application of Soviet experience and knowledge gained through extensive documentation. But if the body of 1 Åman (1992: 53–57), Tarkhanov and Kavtaradze (1992: 54) works dedicated to architecture theory in widely-cir- and Udovički-Selb (2009: 467–495) emphasize the variety of Socialist Realism within Russian borders, where modernist-clas- culating professional media is governed by a serene, sicist cross-pollinations continued into the late 1930s, driven scientifically justified certainty, post-competition ana- by an energetic architectural practice. This subtle multiplicity extended to Stalin’s rule – see Langman’s corporate-style STO lyses published in the same periodicals inadvertently , Zholtovsky’s classical Sadovaya street building, and expose – by addressing the shortcomings of submitted the exuberant eclecticism of Moscow’s Seven Sisters. entries – the state of widespread confusion inherent 2 According to the history of the S.R.A. published on the official website of the Union of Romanian Architects (the post-war to this process. Multiple fallacies and contradictions restructuring of the S.R.A.) http://www.uniuneaarhitectilor.ro/ between Soviet dogma and local idiosyncrasies become istoric.html 26 I. C. Popovici. Architecture competitions – a space for political contention. Socialist Romania, 1950–1956

administratively enmeshed in State decision-making time when the need for affordable social housing in forums, enabling professional participation in previ- Bucharest had become stringent enough to attract the ously inaccessible processes, such as the initial stages attention of private development companies seeking to of social policy and urban strategy development. partner the authorities in providing this service. Arhitectura was, nevertheless, the country’s most Arhitectura’s intended audience was a limited pro- authoritative specialist magazine, precisely because the fessional segment: the core of the S.R.A., who could wide scope, overall quality and critical depth of the gain access to and benefit from the mechanism of com- material published – from theoretical considerations3 mission attribution through almost cliquish competi- to urbanism, monument conservation, graphic design, tions. A resolute professional focus on high commission legislation and construction techniques – served to dis- also translated into reduced concern for the study of guise its connection to and enforcement of the field’s more banal architecture programs, regardless of their locus of power. For the better part of the pre-war beneficial impact on the lives of broader segments of period, the magazine’s editorial team was practically the population. This is not to say that architecture con- identical to that of the S.R.A. committee, with most sidered banal or utilitarian (by competition standards) members also teaching at the School of Architecture did not form a sizable portion of the practice. Rather, in Bucharest4. From these key positions, the core of the that it was relegated to the peripheral field of dominant S.R.A. was able to prolong the dominance of a neo-tra- architectural concerns – outside theoretical debate, not ditional architecture discourse into the 1930s, when the target of innovation, nor the grounds for architec- the balance started to tip in favor of modernism. At tural experiment. Therefore, it was often the remit of this point, the field of architecture was more or less civil engineers enlisted in public service, rather than hermetic in Romania, as intense, in-field discursive architects, who would continue, with a few notable ex- contention for professional power and control left little ceptions6, to disregard its critical importance for social time or energy for political and social engagement. and urban development, as well as not acquire the ease Caught between the introversion of professional cul- (and knowledge background) of its design. ture, the disinterest of the authorities and the bolstering For all its national hermeticism, the field remained short-term effects of a rapidly developing construction remarkably well-connected to the architecture cul- market5, Romanian architecture remained adrift for tures of Western Europe throughout the pre-war era, the first half of the 20th century. As Gabriela Tabacu focusing particularly on France, Italy, and remarks, the inconsistency of the S.R.A. (as dominant Germany. This receptivity did not diminish after professional organization) – in terms of goals and their modernism rose to discursive prominence at the be- strategic pursuit through sustained action – did great ginning of the 1930s, although the change did en- disservice to the profession, ultimately preventing its gender an increased tendency towards synthesis and access to the State’s decision making forums, much adaptation of the modernist agenda to local condi- to the detriment of society (Tabacu 2006: 57). In this tions, and hybridizing with conceptual models of dif- context, the apparent variety of public competitions ferent origins7 in a non-discriminate stylistic manner. was merely programmatic. Competitions generally tar- Pre-war Romanian modernism, writes architect and geted large-scale, unique urban programs – churches, theorist Ana-Maria Zahariade, is elegant but prag- headquarters for State institutions or major private matic, with minor inclinations towards experiment- companies (Tabacu 2006: 255–58) – and favored in- ing, mostly confined to the expressionist branch of stances of erudite architecture most associated with the the movement. Closer to a merge between portrayal and perpetuation of institutional power. The and the subtle, Parisian version of the modernist aes- undeniable professional thoroughness and critical at- thetic during initial stages of inception, it later be- tention with which they were addressed in Arhitectura came heavily influenced by Italian fascist architecture constitutes further proof of the magazine’s exclusive (Zahariade et al. 2003: 16). Of particular relevance to nature and narrow professional focus, especially at a post-war developments is the fact that, through tailor- ing to a socio-cultural context dominated by the tradi- tionalism vs. modernity dispute, Romanian architec- 3 Albeit in a traditionalist framework. ture dispensed with the progressive, socially-oriented 4 Lists of the teaching staff can be found in Ionescu, G. 1973. 75 years of higher architectural . Bucharest: “Ion Mincu” University Press, 69–90. For lists of the S.R.A. council and Arhitectura editorial team over the years, see Tabacu 6 Radical low-income housing experiments include Ferentari (2006: 21–55). neighborhood (Bucharest, 1945–1947) and the urban expansi- 5 Engendering a false sense of security with regard to the urgent on of into a ‘Labor City’ (designed 1947–1948). For need to develop a solid administrative and legislative basis for further details, see Zahariade (2011) and Mărginean (2008). the future practice of architecture. 7 Haussmannian Paris, the Garden-City. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 2014, 38(1): 24–38 27 agenda of the Modern Movement, and refocused the privileged core of the profession through duplicitous ideology of local modernism on aesthetics and con- action. On one hand, he subscribed to a modernist ceptual rationalism (Zahariade et al. 2003: 17). take on architecture which would continue to inform The professional milieu tasked with casting Socialist his work; on the other, he became a virulent critic of Realism into architectural form was forged in a pre-war ‘cosmopolitan’ architecture and a vocal supporter of modernist paradigm, and stretched across two genera- Socialist Realism and Soviet architectural dogma. tions. The first comprised the initial wave of modernist During Socialist Realism, he occupied increasingly architects, those who shaped the movement’s theoret- more important functions in the etatized architec- ical basis: Marcel Iancu, Horia Creangă, Duiliu Marcu, ture system: director of the Institute of Construction Octav Doicescu – highly cultured, widely traveled, and, Design (I.C.D.) (before 1950), representative of the with few exceptions, recipients of a double architecture State Committee for Architecture and Construction training combining traditionalism (at the University of (1955), etc. (Mărginean 2008). Architecture in Bucharest) and modernism (in various Graduating in 1946, Ion Mircea Enescu represents schools in France and Switzerland, but mostly through modernist architects of the second generation, who practice in architecture offices abroad). The second -gen built successful careers without becoming manifest eration, trained in Bucharest under the first and begin- advocates of an ideology to which they remained op- ning practice just after WWII or at the beginning of the posed. Through a combination of irrefutable profes- 1950s, shifted the focus of Romanian modernism onto sional skill and determination doubled by a strategic more radical, reformist issues. Influenced to a great focus on programs less given to ideological debate, and extent by CIAM, Le Corbusier, Bauhaus and the prin- more dependent on technical and structural innova- ciples of the Athens Charter, they were concerned with tion (sports, industry, etc.), Enescu circumvented most the social aspects of architecture clustered around the hardships of practice under the new regime, especially idea of housing in the context of post-war reconstruc- for someone under continuous suspicion for harboring tion. Despite a homogeneous professional milieu (in American sympathies (Enescu 2006). terms of the social background, upbringing, education Another member of the second generation, Virgil and professional mentality of its members), architects Niţulescu was the voice of professional disgruntlement, navigated the transition to a practice legally bound to and endured systematic persecution throughout his ca- Socialist Realism in a number of different ways. Of the reer: public shaming in Arhitectura for practicing a dec- five most common, summarized below, three are il- adently bourgeois architecture, denied access to certain lustrated by practitioners involved in the competition projects, relegation to low-pay, minor positions during analyses to follow (Gusti, Enescu, Niţulescu). employment in Design Institutes, and a ban from en- Octav Doicescu was one of the key figures of pre- tering architecture education as a tutor (Enescu 2006: war Romanian modernism. A talented and active prac- 318–331). According to his colleagues, Niţulescu was titioner, he responded to the change in political regime perhaps the most forward-thinking, radical architect by recasting himself as an academic, out of genuine of their generation8. interest in matters theoretical as well as in a bid to safe- Eugenia Greceanu falls somewhere between overt guard a privileged situation. In fact, his involvement subversion and tacit dissimulation of discontent. In a in education – as a studio tutor, lecturer and theorist way, hers was the default position adopted by the ma- at the University of Architecture in Bucharest – had jority of Romanian architects, who, unwilling or un- an important role to play in the reception of Socialist able to become enmeshed in politics to gain access to Realism in Romania. Part of a teaching staff espous- privileged commission and higher professional status, ing modernism – but a subdued, non-confrontational, devoted themselves to niche areas of architecture less almost anti-technicist version – Doicescu’s legacy to exposed to political influence, such as restoration. In the second generation of architects consisted of a solid addition, her profile is that of the typical Romanian core of modernist principles disguisable at will through architect: a solid intellectual upbringing (not neces- aesthetic flexibility, and a lesson on the importance of sarily coinciding with financial affluence) steeped in cautious silence or non-committal discursive engage- exposure to Western culture and art; a fundamentally ment with ideology. pro-Western mentality reinforced during the years Of the same generation, Gustav Gusti epitomizes the type of political engagement practiced by archi- tects during the Stalinist years on an individual, rather 8 Ion Mircea Enescu recalls that Niţulescu’s entry for the com- than collective professional basis. A competent archi- petition for the Romanian Opera (1946) – an aluminum egg containing the hall and foyer, set against the prismatic volume tect with an already solid pre-war professional stand- of the stage and annexes – created quite a buzz due to its radical ing, Gusti managed to preserve his position within the concept, predating Utzon’s Sydney Opera House. 28 I. C. Popovici. Architecture competitions – a space for political contention. Socialist Romania, 1950–1956

spent at University; a framework of architectural ref- concrete results are paramount. With entries not only erence sourced from Western Europe and America ineligible for further study at the I.C.D. due to subpar through periodicals such as Architectural Review quality, but also eschewing the core challenge of the and L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui (Greceanu 2005: brief – redefining workers’ housing from a socialist per- 113–142). spective through sustained dialogue between architects and beneficiaries – the competition had failed. This Ideological convictions versus letdown stemmed from three factors: a problematic professional inadequacies brief, technical and restrictive in terms of planning, but tenuous as to the ideological issues at play; poor organ- Launched in November 1949 by the I.C.D., the first ization by the Ministry of Construction and the I.C.D., public architecture competition organized after the including dismissal of competition improvement ideas communist take-over was a bid to secure ideas for the forwarded by the Architecture branch of the S.A.T.11; development of typified housing projects to be built professional shortcomings, mostly inexperience with 9 in 1950 . Half a year later, the competition made the the more banal subset of architecture, and the inabil- pages of Arhitectura’s first post-war issue, re-con- ity (or reluctance) to make the transition to a Socialist figured as a guide to the logic of Socialist Realism. The Realism method of creation. brief called for the design of workers’ housing focused For Gusti, these deficiencies came from a lack of on living standard improvement and construction cost familiarity with Soviet documentation, ineffective reduction. Built areas of 45, 65 and 85 m² combined ideological (re)education, and the still prevalent bour- 10 with 9 hypothetical family types into a total of 25 geois mentality of a professional culture just recently housing options per entry, submitted at construction divorced from liberal practice and adverse to changes scale, fully detailed. With only two months to com- mandated from outside its sphere of interests. Found plete at the end of the year – the busiest time for archi- by the jury to differ little from the ‘cheap housing’ tects employed in Design Institutes – the competition schemes developed in pre-war Bucharest, submitted gathered only 16 complete projects. projects combined severe design flaws (dysfunctional The article written for Arhitectura by jury mem- layouts, under-dimensioned rooms, scant natural ber, academic and Socialist Realism enthusiast Gustav lighting) with a disregard for standardization based Gusti combined project criticism with a sketch of the on mass-produced construction materials. Even the ideal socialist competition, used to highlight the defi- winning entries dispatched the program in a utilit- ciencies of this first application. In a socialist system, arian, inexpressive manner, with little concern for the reflection of ideological principles, performance in the socio-cultural complexities of housing design. The framework of planned economy and the immediacy of article did feature the prize recipients, with the caveat

Fig. 1. Four of the winning entries. Source: Arhitectura, 1950, 2–3: 72–73.

9 Arhitectura, 1950, 2–3: 69–75. 11 Scientific Association of Technicians of the P.R.R., created in 10 These hypotheses referred exclusively to family composition 1948 after the dissolution of the Society of Romanian Architects, (number and gender of children), ignoring crucial data like grouped architects, urbanists, engineers of all denominations, social background, urban or rural origin, lifestyle, and the type technicians and workers in one massive, State-controlled pro- of work family members would be engaged in. fessional organization. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 2014, 38(1): 24–38 29

Fig. 2. Left – Virgil Niţulescu’s project. Right – the architect’s project for the National Opera. My sketch after a drawing by Ion M. Enescu. Sources: Arhitectura, 1950, 2–3: 75; Enescu 2006: 319. of their falling short of brief fulfillment in terms of utable resource accumulation (Verdery 1991: 126), it is ideological content or professional standards. paradoxical that an architecture practice under strict, Gusti’s analysis ended with a virulent critique of politically-mandated economic constraints for quick cosmopolitan architecture pursued against the in- delivery of decent mass housing would be banned for terests and aspirations of the working class, illus- doing so outside the more resource-consuming and trated by a project whose author was publicly vilified. financially-taxing political enforcement of a nebulously Paradoxically, Virgil Niţulescu’s project, if somewhat defined Socialist Realism. deficient in contextuality and social profiling12, came The competition results indicate that, despite public closest to improving living conditions for the nascent calls for a professional clarification of Socialist Realism Romanian proletariat13. in the local context, attempts to merge socialist ethos With pre-war urban policies of relegating worker and non-classicist architecture languages were summar- communities to the quasi-urbanized outskirts of cit- ily discouraged. This added to the general professional ies still visible in the individual housing schemes de- apathy towards political action. Throughout the gradual veloped by the winners, a four-level apartment building subordination of the architecture system to the State and suitable for most urban contexts as either stand-alone planned economy, architects were minimally engaged in or street-front insertion went beyond the provision of normalizing, on a broader social level, the visual repres- shelter and amenities. In a modest design with min- entation (Socialist Realism) of the regime. For Foucault imal constructive complication, Niţulescu’s re-imaging (1986b: 64), the State is a metapower stemming from of the proletarian dwelling offered quasi-central, col- “multiple and indefinite power relations” (including lective housing, access to a wider variety of services knowledge), based on which it operates. In modern so- and a semi-open, decently-sized apartment plan with ciety, power is exerted through heterogeneous exchanges ample natural lighting and flexible furnishing. Given between a sovereignty discoursing through law and a the relative cost of construction versus the percent- “polymorphous disciplinary mechanism” whose dis- age of workers provided with decent urban housing, cipline-specific discourses normalize it (Foucault 1980: Niţulescu’s proposal may have been the more eco- 106). Legally enforced14 in too short a time-frame to nomically viable choice – even more aligned with the allow critical assimilation through discipline-specific aims of the socialist project. For an economy of en- discourse (architecture), Socialist Realism remained on demic shortage reliant on State-controlled redistrib- uneven footing between 1945 and 1952. Furthermore, the Party jostled in-field equilibrium by propelling a peripheral sector (social housing) to the 12 Insufficient knowledge of the target demographic. The apart- center, forcing it into coexistence with the previously ments seem to be designed with a more financially modest type of urban intellectual in mind. 13 At the beginning of the 1950s, Romania was still an agrarian economy, with around 80% of the workforce engaged in 14 Ana-Maria Zahariade makes a note of Social Realism becoming agriculture, and the figure only fell to 65% by 1960. http:// legally enforced through the Constitution, at the end of the countrystudies.us/romania/55.htm 1940s (Zahariade et al. 2003: 21). 30 I. C. Popovici. Architecture competitions – a space for political contention. Socialist Romania, 1950–1956

dominant focus of discursive concerns (privileged ar- have been unmanageable. Instead, control was exer- chitecture) and dictating their equal treatment in the ted through institution, bureaucracy and legislation, same method and language. Insufficient training in dismantling the unity of professional bodies and the the practice of affordable architecture for a previously complexity of practice through relegation to minor un-profiled beneficiary thickened the haze of confu- roles in gigantic hierarchical structures. sion. Privileged architecture would retain a crucial Despite political infiltration, the connections role in visually representing the new regime’s ideology between the entities forming architecture’s pre-war through urban networks of markers – and reminders – nucleus survived this breakdown. While the school of its legitimacy, but access to high command would wavered between undeclared resistance enduring be henceforth conditioned by political involvement. through the inertia of the apprenticeship system, and Outside the internal coherence and unity of ex- curricular adherence to Party-sanctioned education, pression of styles contending for discursive dominance Arhitectura became the scene of struggles for profes- before the socialist takeover, even radical modernist sional preeminence. As a result, critiquing and review- practitioners had failed to reduce the disparity between ing on the basis of a still unclear Socialist Realism aes- banal and high-brow architecture, especially in terms thetic enjoyed greater visibility in printed media than of their theoretical underpinnings. The strategy of actual architecture production. splitting the central focus of discourse into divergent Still, incipient political involvement of architects halves to be addressed through a single, yet undefined on an individual level did not signal the emergence of creative method backfired, temporarily plunging the an adequate, architectural response to challenges of profession into inaction. With the added difficulty of the socialist project. If permeable, the field remained translating said method (linking politics and aesthet- silent on the matter. This absence of a counter-dis- ics into a rigid cluster of ideological tenets) into archi- course15 (understood as creative dialogue, not antag- tectural language, the hesitant re-definition of archi- onistic critique) ensued from a political ban on national tecture as etatized activity would stretch well into the discourse and the obligation to develop Romanian 1950s, accounting for the wildly varying quality of the Socialist Realism on the unchallengeable theoretical works produced during this time. and practical bases of the model16. During the consolidation stage, the shortage eco- In an effort to subdue previously hegemonic forms of nomy of Romanian socialism also redefined conten- discourse, the national was forced underground dur- tion for professional authority in cultural production. ing the Stalinist years, depriving intellectual groups Through tentative, ideology-focused dialogue with of their default form of self-definition and interaction State institutions, practitioners made cultural fields (Verdery 1991: 303). Without access to the repertoire permeable to political discourse in exchange for mater- of national symbols and values shaping cultural pro- ial, professional and social gain. Political activism now duction across discipline boundaries, and unable to conditioned participation in the production of culture, challenge an authoritarian Soviet canon, architecture but this did not necessarily imply that, from this point could not have devised a culturally-specific adaptation onward, cultural activities were entirely subdued by the of Socialist Realism principles outside immediate prac- State. Architecture deployed a dual discursive mode – ticality and disappointing utilitarianism. textual and visual – complicating in-field dialogue and The underlying issue, however, was one of diver- intra-field communication with exclusively textual dis- gence between power’s concept of space – tactic of gov- ciplines. Competitions entries, for instance, displayed ernance, population control and social relationships a variety of ideologically inappropriate professional coding – and architecture’s focus on objects-in-space interpretations of briefs based on political text. (Foucault 1986a: 241–244). Foucault considers the 19th Although similar to other arts in this respect, ar- century political idea of society to have generated a chitecture had other facets inseverable from the aes- model of space informed by socio-economic processes thetic – scientific, economic, socio-cultural – already extending “far beyond the limits of urbanism and ar- engaged in visual/textual competition for the discurs- chitecture”, subsequently developed by engineers and ive upper-hand, making professional authority diffi- cult to bring under a political control whose predom- inant mode of address was text. To some extent, this 15 For a discourse to be socially relevant – instrumental in for- ming consciousness, animating civil society or implementing peculiarity preserved the in-field focus of professional change – it must generate counter-discourses and engage them power and authority – the University of Architecture, in dialogue (Verdery 1991: 126). Arhitectura and the professional association – since the 16 In addition to translations from Russian architecture theorists, the 1950–1952 issues of Arhitectura repeatedly published articles effort needed to attain control based on professional on a few iconic developments of Muscovite architecture: the standards in each sub-branch of discourse would Seven Sisters, the Metropolitan, Lomonosov University. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 2014, 38(1): 24–38 31 polytechnicians (1986a: 244). For the socialist project Boris Groys draws attention to the imaginist side aiming to create a new society by radically altering of Socialist Realism: an objective rendition of ex- the space-power relationships architecture had diffi- ternal reality still in the making, shaped according to culties grasping even in the capitalist paradigm, this Party objectives at the time of production (1992: 51). was quite the setback. Conversely, early Socialism’s Expanding this idea, architecture was the ‘visual obdurate determination to create this fundament- manifestation’ of a perpetually emerging, unend- ally new built environment in a neo-classicist dialect ingly redefined notion of the perfect society. Bound already imbued with the space-power relations of the to convey the social force of the dominant order, it past proved equally hindering for progressive-minded remained the one artistic domain where, given the architects, who saw their way into the new paradigm considerable resources involved and the long-lasting through architecture languages making a clean break effect on the built environment, failure to conform to from previous ones. (or anticipate) changes in Party directives had drastic Together, competition entries and Gusti’s critique consequences for practitioners and beneficiaries. Once reveal a Socialist Realism operating on a double defin- applied, Socialist Realism subdued previous discourses, ition different from the clear-cut Soviet theory pub- stripped away agency, controlled the knowledge and lished in Arhitectura. Positive in theory, it combined instruments used in ideologically-correct cultural Party-mindedness, class-consciousness, delivery of production, but demanded creativity and innovation Marxist-Leninist ideological content, clarity and sig- impossible to obtain through institutional application nificance for the masses. It pursued a creative synthesis of a politically-designed method. between traditional and contemporary progressive elements, drawing upon a variety of styles to produce In pursuit of the untranslatable character the meaningful imagery needed to shape a collective psychology focused on social progress (Cooke 1993: Calling for submissions for the V. I. Lenin hydro- 86–89). In practice, the definition was recast in the neg- electric plant, the second architecture competition 17 ative, through opposition to and exclusion of manifold reviewed in Arhitectura shifted the focus to grand- instances of Western architecture either contemporary scale industrial architecture. With a similar institu- or sourced from times of monarchic authoritarianism. tional affiliation and jury (led by Gustav Gusti, who In other words, opposition to the tares of capitalism also penned the review), it brought to the forefront made ideologically-correct form more important than of architectural debate the question of a tripartite performance in service of the socialist project, disqual- character: socialist, industrial, national. The first two ifying early attempts (like Niţulescu’s modernist take aspects were easily reconciled in a socialist paradigm on collective housing) to channel the method into al- equating the struggle for a better society with the ternative architecture languages. transformative effect of industrial architecture over Another aspect detrimental to the emergence of a nature. Moreover, the hydroelectric plant, essential to counter-discourse to the early, monolithic version of putting electricity – light and power in a literal and Socialist Realism was the disastrous effect of Party- figurative sense – at the disposal of the proletariat, specific time on disciplines mobilizing significant -ma epitomized ‘socialist accomplishments’. Expressing terial and economic resources. Politically-mandated two elements with a history of pre-war antagonism stage-skipping robbed architecture programs recently through a single method and one cohesive architec- moved to the center of field preoccupations of enough ture language complicated matters for the national time to mature through the usual feedback between and industrial aspects of character. With the industri- professional practice and society. If Western architec- alization of Romania until WWII depending largely ture had undergone a long process of transformation on foreign investments, industrial architecture leaned since the first attempts to address the crisis of the indus- towards modernism. In turn, architecture classifiable trial city and post-war reconstruction, Romanian ar- as ‘national’ was inevitably traditionalist, and gen- chitecture had just begun, during the 1940s, to explore erally belonged to neo-Romanian stylistic variants. the social aspects of architecture through the efforts Before the socialist era, national and industrial archi- of a more radical generation of modernist architects tecture scarcely crossed paths, and were regarded as (Zahariade 2011: 25–28). Regardless of preparation, antithetic, if not mutually exclusive. With the addition know-how, even resource availability, Socialist Realism of Socialist Realism’s propensity towards the neo-clas- drove architecture towards implementing stages logical sical, architects were hard put to reconcile all three in an ideology-fueled chronology, but difficult to sus- aspects of said character. tain in terms of in-discipline discursive coherence and current economic conditions. 17 Arhitectura, 1952, 1–2: 40–45. 32 I. C. Popovici. Architecture competitions – a space for political contention. Socialist Romania, 1950–1956

Part of the country’s electrification plan, the tressing inability of architectural design to reflect the V. I. Lenin hydroelectric plant was the first major ideological core of the socialist project, while also re- industrial development subject to a public architec- maining true to local context and program specifics. ture competition. According to Gusti, the competi- This suggests that significant disparities between the tion initiated by the Ministry of Electric Energy and regime’s demands – voiced through a select number of Electrotechnical Industry partnered by the I.C.D. un- politically-active architects – and their broader profes- folded along disappointingly similar lines to the pre- sional interpretation still endured half a decade after vious one. Though slightly better organized (coherent the official instatement of Socialist Realism. brief, on-site research visits, availability of specialist en- As for the organizational aspects of competitions, gineering advice), it suffered from the same drawbacks. Gusti’s valid demands for increased cooperation, com- The low participation rate was inevitable considering munication and visibility unwittingly exposed a grave the Stalinist tradition of institutionally-mandated ‘vo- flaw of the institutionalized architecture system – an lunteering’ for tasks additional to the workload, but for inability to manage complex aspects of practice requir- which no extra time or resources could be dispensed. ing active coordination of several institutions and in- Once again, overall project quality bordered on the un- dividual holders of specialist knowledge. The system’s derwhelming. At fault, the same inadequate ideological modus operandi – breaking down complex processes training, nescience, and inconsistency of organizers into disparate tasks for a number of inefficient struc- and contestants alike. A niche event held in a ‘narrow, tures with narrowly-focused departments, subordinate highly professional setting’, the competition failed to a central super-structure designed to re-assemble to reach the public and trigger an exchange of ideas and interpret the work thus produced – made it im- between architects and beneficiaries. Communication possible to arrive at the desired results, much to the between participant institutions was minimal, as was frustration (and half-articulated protest) of the profes- the involvement of other professional organizations18 sional body. The malcontent over the poor handling of with expertise on the subject. competitions – by Ministries, no less – reached such Gusti rehashed the ideal competition profile from heights that, by 1952, their organization was handed his previous review, adding a few points on ideological, to the newly instated Union of Romanian Architects. conceptual and organizational matters to be observed Gusti expedited the three featured projects rather for future improvement. Consistency was vital: from summarily, alarmed by their “inability to deliver an launch to submission and evaluation, organizers had to architectural image national in form and adequate prevent departure from the brief and tenets of Socialist to the ideological content of the hydroelectric plant” Realism. Beyond the provision of professional support (1952: 40). Leaving aside the unintentional hilarity of and ample Soviet documentation, this carried an ele- architecture critique steeped in political jargon, the ment of error-correction concomitant with design, review hinted at a fruitless pursuit of the tripartite meant to ensure the production of advanced, progress- character resulting from the combined resurrection ive, error-free solutions. In Gusti’s view, the implied of the ‘national’ as a concept indispensable to design policing of the design process to weed out deviations19 – with professional attempts to infuse some semblance of mimicry of national forms, gratuitous ornamentalism, discipline-defined standards20 into the application of the fetishist overemphasis of technique – in no way Socialist Realism. Since the brief included strict tech- impinged on the “enthusiastic development of archi- nological constraints for the master-plan, building lay- tectural expression… clarifying the conceptual and out and volume, the conceptual pursuit of a national creative method of Socialist Realism” (Gusti 1952: 42). form to convey the desired ideological content was re- Probably intuiting the complications involved in the duced to a lackluster manipulation of façade collages. careful ‘monitoring’ outlined above (mostly dealing Two of the projects emulated Soviet architecture with subjectivity), the author did not delve into the at opposite ends of the spectrum: megalomaniac, ex- particulars of how this procedure might be organized. cessively ornate, with gratuitous gestures devoid of From an ideological perspective, Gusti bemoaned functional purpose; and understated, monotonous, the misreadings of Soviet canon and the disparity uninspiring. Both projects fell short of expressing the between the grandeur of the historical moment and essence and grandeur of the industrial, or, paradox- the results of architecture practice, as well as the dis- ically, “merging with the landscape” (Gusti 1952: 43).

18 Arhitectura, the architecture branch of the S.A.T., the University’s 20 For example, the insistence on a connection between archi- department of industrial architecture design, etc. tectural expression and program functionality, which is, in the 19 Process to be undertaken by the jury, as holders of professional Romanian context, an idea sourced from modernism. authority and representatives of the institutions involved. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 2014, 38(1): 24–38 33

Fig. 3. Left – two versions of the 2nd prize entry. Top right – 1st mention and 3rd prize recipients. Bottom right – Tymliansk hydroelectric plant – project illustration. Source: Arhitectura, 1952, 1–2: 43–45.

A variant in a national style by the recipients of the 2nd coded in said acts). Supported by the disappearance of prize, the third project analyzed did strive for the ‘na- an external editorial figure evaluating the accuracy of tional’, but garnered critique for lack of industrial pro- representations (Stalin), this performative shift nor- gressivity, as it almost literally referenced the Gothic malized authoritative discourse at a structural level. language of religious Moldavian architecture. Gusti With the constative dimension rendered indetermin- closed the argument with an illustration from a Soviet ate, irrelevant even, professional practice reorganized project epitomizing socialist industrial architecture: around visible engagement in ritualized reproduction Tymliansk hydroelectric plant. Judging by the picture of indistinguishable instances of authoritative dis- provided, the characteristics attributed to a successful course. Far from restrictive, the increased importance synthesis – a fair balance between architectural and of performativity “… actually enabled the emergence technical requirements, pleasing proportions in detail of diverse, multiple, and unpredictable meanings… and ensemble, attention afforded to perspectives from including those that did not correspond to the con- afar and up close – hinted more at architecture which stative meanings of authoritative discourse” (Yurchak was simply competent, rather than socialist, and tended 2005: 25–26). towards a pre-modernist industrial aesthetic. For a Romanian architecture twice-edited – through The projects, however, illustrate the beginnings of the canon of Soviet architecture reviewed against the authoritative discourse subversion through practice, Stalinist version of Marxist-Leninist discourse – the shift latent though it may have been at first. Authoritative came sooner. In this context, Nicolae Nedelescu’s21 sub- discourse, writes Bakhtin, makes artistic representa- mission observed the ritual form, but not the meaning tions impossible without inventive subversion through of socialist architecture production: his design could the social practices of the quotidian or professional support both Moldavian neo-gothic and Muscovite practice (1981: 342–344). Moreover, Yurchak’s study neo-classical without spatial alterations. Together with of Soviet authoritative discourse reveals an increasing other projects tepidly mimicking a Soviet aesthetic with imbalance between its performative dimension (ritual- ized participation in acts perpetuating discourse) and 21 Nedelescu worked in Horia Creangă’s studio between 1935– 1939, constative dimension (engagement with the meanings and was an enthusiast of functionalist architecture. 34 I. C. Popovici. Architecture competitions – a space for political contention. Socialist Romania, 1950–1956

little care for local contextuality, Nedelescu’s attitude to- agonistic components (national styles and industrial wards Socialist Realism suggests a refuge from mean- architecture) resulted in either failure or mediocre ing into form, signaling the dissolution of the method’s collage exercises. Moreover, in the context of pre-war ideological hold on the socialist project. Romanian culture, concepts such as national, identity, This competition heralded the second stage of character implied an element of belief. The intellectu- Socialist Realism (roughly 1952–1955): a resurgence als (re)writing them through cross-discipline cultural of national discourse in architecture22. In an effort to dialogue were sincerely animated by their respective nullify a flagrant contradiction – insisting on national credos, and thought themselves in possession of pro- form to convey socialist content during Stalinist re- fessional and intellectual freedom24. Furthermore, the pression of national values – or perhaps to regain the tangible ‘national’ character of applied arts and archi- allegiance of an alienated professional culture and tecture developed in a feedback loop with its philo- kick-start dormant cultural production23, the State sophical counterpart and, despite inevitable struggles lifted the embargo on the national. Henceforth, ar- for discursive dominance between factions, was char- chitecture shifted focus from emulating the Russian acterized by plurality. For Verdery, the premature re- model to exploring identity, character, and devis- turn of national discourse in a Stalinist climate, later ing an architectural expression to best convey them embraced by political action and cultural production without clashing with the still-invoked Soviet canon. alike, turned the national monolithic and unshakeable Regaining an irreplaceable instrument of discursive enough to subvert and eventually indigenize Marxist- experimentation seemed liberating, but was not im- Leninist discourse (Verdery 1991: 66). During the mediately effective. Architecture remained isolated in Stalinist years, however, architects had to render ma- terms of access to the national. Without support and terial a politically-defined, singular character, using inter-discipline dialogue – in particular, with the arts, a partial form of national discourse redefined by the history and philosophy, disciplines in relation with same exclusion intrinsic to Socialist Realism: nobody which Romanian architecture had always situated and could quite agree on anything except what it wasn’t and (re)defined itself – the profession found it difficult to couldn’t look like. channel it into creative architectural production. The Architecture competitions held during the ‘national’ now accessible was, in essence, problematic, Stalinist period were under institutional monopoly not only through obligation to function in a paradigm and strict control. Treated as time- and money-sav- of Soviet origin, but also due to its treatment as a com- ing resources available with minimal expense (pro- pound element of ‘character’. fessional recognition, remuneration for prizes), they With most practitioners coming to professional ma- discouraged the initiative and creativity which might turity in a pre-war climate where national discourse have resulted in a concrete definition of the national included matters of identity and character, moderated character. Architect Ion Mircea Enescu recalls their access to the previously dominant cultural dialect un- double falsification: institutional, through strict, der a new political order only prolonged confusion. limiting design briefs and a process of evaluation Despite earlier incorporation into political strategies, dominated by (often) non-specialist Ministry rep- these constructs had traditionally been forged through resentatives; professional, by participants who would exchanges between the disciplines engaged in cultural develop their designs based on the known aesthetic production. Socialist logic operated a reversal of terms, preferences of the jury (2006: 232). But even in times prompting cultural production in response to a politic- of destabilizing systemic changes and frustrating ally-defined ‘character’ based on the previously domin- institutional obstruction of professional practice, ant discourse, designed to lend structural strength to architects intuited the potential of competitions to the political system without destabilizing it. open up a productive form of dialogue with the polit- In architecture, such a character proved simply un- ical. The disciplines, writes Foucault, can also be the translatable. Without permitted dialogue on national origin of local, discontinuous criticisms able to work discourse between the fields involved in redefining the against “the inhibiting effect of global, totalitarian ‘character’, the forced cohabitation of parallel or ant- theories”. While his assertion focused on research,

22 Verdery’s study of national ideology in Socialist Romania focu- 24 Regardless of the fact that both action and belief result from sed on history, philosophy and literature. For these fields, the interlocking social processes and events. The difference between ban on national discourse was only lifted in the 1960s, sugges- this dynamic and that prevalent during the Stalinist years hinges ting that, in architecture, it was reintroduced slightly earlier. on belief in intellectual autonomy and sincere adherence to the 23 The absence of national discourse severed the past-present link, values promoted. depriving disciplines of controlled continuity with the previous hegemonic form needed to maintain cultural production levels (Verdery 1991: 109). Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 2014, 38(1): 24–38 35

Fig. 4. Official Socialist Realism (top left, Casa Scînteii) and its subversion through practice: Emilia Irza Hospital (G. Ionescu, top right), Hunedoara Sanatorium (H. Delavrancea, bottom left), Casa Radiofoniei (T. Ricci, bottom right). Sources: Arhitectura, 1952, 1–2: 8–9; Arhitectura, 1952, 8: 10; Arhitectura, 1952, 9–10: 11.

the idea of viable alternatives for social change based a real site25 followed by a public debate led to a first “on the condition that the theoretical unity of these public confrontation between State and profession. Re- discourses was in some sense put in abeyance, or at formed in 1952 as the Union of Romanian Architects, least curtailed, divided, overthrown, caricatured, the professional organization had polarized enough theatricalised” (1980: 80–81) can easily be extended collective professional authority to be perceived as to the relationship between Socialist Realism and ar- semi-institutional. From this strengthened position, chitecture. the U.R.A. challenged the institutionalized embod- Effective subversion also emerged from the pass- iment of power over the lack of professional agency ive existence of a multitude of individual professional and the failings of organizations involved in archi- voices, privately unaligned with the official discourse tectural practice. Requesting the development of a on architecture. Architect Mircea Alifanti, co-author legal framework for public architecture competitions of the most iconic Socialist Realist edifice in Romania disguised the call for a more coherent interpretation (Casa Scînteii), worked surrounded by examples of of socialist architecture – since Socialist Realism had modernist logic: sectioned radio lamps and brakes been proved, by practice, more hindering than con- from a Delage automobile (Enescu 2006: 221). As a re- ducive to the goals of the socialist project. Beyond the pository of alternative discourses gradually converging practical advantages of connecting competitions to around the national, professional culture set in motion planned production through building codes mandat- what Bakhtin called the de-normatizing, centrifugal ory for design, devising an assessment method might forces working against the centripetal, hierarchizing have triggered the revision of a paradoxical method drive of dominant discourse. Multiplicity of meaning still far from translation into architectural language. stems from the locus of collision between these forces – Foucault considers discursive intervention, no matter in a word, heteroglossia – a state of creative tension how subtle, as political: “to speak on this subject, to counteracting the homogenizing logic of authoritative force the institutionalized networks of information to discourse (Bakhtin 1981: 262–273). listen, [...] to point the finger of accusation [...] is the

An open-ended conclusion 25 The competition brief called for the redesign in a Socialist Aggravation over institutional deficiencies continued Realist key of the Central Army House Square (Bucharest, at the intersection of Calea Victoriei and Regina Elisabeta Boulevard). to rise until 1955, when an urbanism competition on Arhitectura, 1955, 4: 9–22. 36 I. C. Popovici. Architecture competitions – a space for political contention. Socialist Romania, 1950–1956

first step in the reversal of power and the initiation debate in competition analyses, the transition from the- of new struggles against existing forms of power.” ory to practice cast Socialist Realism as the never-ful- (Bouchard 1977: 214). fillable dream, a method able to disqualify, through too This gradual reclaim of professional status and in- strict a mix of utopianism, economy and ideological hy- fluence mobilized the field’s pre-war locus of power: per-correctness, applications based thereon. Moreover, the U.R.A., recently separated from the profession- the place highlighted the theatrical aspects of privileged ally-homogenizing S.A.T., Arhitectura (publishing Socialist Realist architecture. Concerned with regime increasingly less censored, ideologically-skewed ma- legitimation and the portrayal of political and institu- terial), and the University of Architecture (on the tional power, it transformed space into a scene displaying rebound after politicization in the late 1940s). Still, and eliciting power-consolidating social practices. After the profession remained impassive to social commit- this confrontation, the profession called for the political ment, prioritizing the recovery of advantages lost in reconsideration of the yet unmatched values of pre-war the post-war transformation of its relationship with Romanian architecture production (Petraşcu 1955: 17). power. Consequently, the field became selectively per- By 1956, Socialist Realism had nearly slipped into meable towards the apex of the social structure, re- oblivion. Following intense professional debates ig- maining hermetic towards broader social strata. With nited by Khrushchev’s speech27 – published at a time of dire consequences for social progress, this prevented tacit political distancing from Moscow and absence of the post-war re-shaping of a cognizant public linking clear directives concerning the new orientation – archi- intellectual elites and society at large by disseminating tecture gravitated towards modernism. When the Party knowledge made accessible through dialogue (Verdery decided, in 195828, to fall in line with Khrushchev’s 1991: 197–198). Architecture’s pre-war cognizant public call for an architecture that was, essentially, modern- had been exclusive and restrictive. Curiously, it was not ism couched in terms of rationality, a hybrid type of recreated in Socialist Romania as an agent for wide- modernist discourse (plurivalent and experimental) spread social development. Instead, the field split into was well underway, illustrated as early as 1956 by a a specialist cognizant public (the architect-employees competition for single-family housing29. With compet- of State Design Institutes) and an elite-within-the-elite: itions tentatively exploring architecture along slightly the select council of the U.R.A., the editorial team of divergent lines from the official direction, post-com- Arhitectura, University teaching staff and practitioners petition analyses now promoted critique dominated by with access to the privileged sector of architecture for professional standards, addressing politically-induced State apparatus and Party nomenklatura. With little dysfunctionalities too long ignored. Issues of particu- time and interest for social reform, the effect of this lar concern were the professional ignorance deriving split on architecture’s new-found propensity for dia- from the Party’s scientific monopoly on knowledge of logue confined it to professional circles or circulation ‘the masses’, and the need to reconnect with disciplines between holders of decisional power. As a result, the providing complex data regarding beneficiaries (soci- social progress desiderata of Socialist Realist architec- ology) or cultural dialogue and symbolic exchanges ture remained, regrettably, utopian. (the arts, history, philosophy) (Caffé 1956: 28–31). Intended as a safe urban design exercise, the 1955 While critique roughly followed a consistent agenda, competition revealed, through entries and the sub- practice during the breakdown of Socialist Realism’s sequent discussion, an unplanned confrontation utopian unity was more diverse, hinging, once again, between Socialist Realism and a place of strong charac- on national discourse. ter. Already destabilized after the resurgence of national discourse, Socialist Realism was exposed by this en- counter as dependent on a-contextuality for the upkeep of discursive coherence, and possessed of an utopian al- 27 “On the extensive introduction of industrial methods, improving lure dispelled through confrontation with the realities the quality and reducing the cost of construction”, delivered at the “All-Union Conference of builders, architects and workers of place. Practical applications preserved a semblance in the construction materials industry, in the machine-buil- of logic as autonomous objects or self-contained urban ding industry, in design and research organizations” in 1954. Khrushchev’s speech, readable as a pre-emptive, oblique attack ensembles with minimal connections to (an irresolute) on the ideology behind the architecture (Stalinism), did indeed context. But its overlay onto spatially-compelling, func- trigger Socialist Realism’s demise. His choice of allegory was 26 not arbitrary, however, but based on the increased infeasibility tional, plurivalent spaces triggered the breakdown of of Socialist Realism in the Soviet socio-economic and political this isolationist, homogenizing logic. A topic of frequent system. Arhitectura, 1955, 2: 30–42. 28 Speech given by Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej in November, at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the Romanian Worker’s 26 In terms of social practices, collective memory strata, archi- Party. tecture languages, etc. – e.g., Calea Victoriei, Bucharest. 29 Arhitectura, 1956, 3: 21–27. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 2014, 38(1): 24–38 37

Fig. 5. Social housing, 1957–1958. Top left: Căţelu cvartal, architect Tiberiu Niga. Top right, bottom row: Băneasa housing estate, architect Octav Doicescu. Sources: Arhitectura, 1957, 2: 11; Arhitectura, 1959, 6: 32, 34–35.

Two factions emerged, one advocating a modernism interest” (2011: 112) – supports a Foucauldian view of centered on the national, and the other, a reconnec- Socialist power in Romania as a simultaneously re- tion with Western architecture and the ‘international’ strictive and permissive network traversing the so- modernism thought to have been disrupted by Socialist cial body to produce, create, enable knowledge and Realism. It is not evident whether the former was a discourse (1986: 61). In the end, power’s duplicitous genuine attempt to rewrite a contradiction-free ideolo- treatment of the modernist aesthetic contributed to the gical agenda of Socialist Realism, or simply a strategy to speedy development of a post-war hybrid with local ensure the permanence of modernism through a con- , and inadvertently facilitated nection with the formerly hegemonic discourse. In a an easier switch to rationalist architecture after the of- tolerant atmosphere similar to the pre-war diversity ficial dismissal of Socialist Realism. of architectural discourses, these groups revitalized For Foucault, utopian schemes dependent on spatial architectural production, each focusing on a particu- distribution have the potential to enforce oppression lar sector. The more creative hybrid between modern- or enable freedom, depending on the coincidence of ism and the popular vernacular, naturally given to the initial intent with ”the real practice of people in the small-scale and to housing, was channeled into mass exercise of their freedom” (1986a: 246). The utopianism architecture. Modernism of an international ilk – the of Romanian Socialist Realism claimed totality, but was domain of avant-garde, quasi-Bauhausian aesthetics – in fact partial. Its use of architecture as a technique suited privileged architecture for the nomenklatura. of power deployed for the government of individuals The persistence of an international modernist aes- and the purpose of complete social transformation thetic in what Zahariade defines as ‘occult’ architec- only extended to mass architecture. Translated into a ture – “the area of building activity […] somehow ex- restrictive framework for the practice of banal archi- empt from the Communist planning […] maneuvered tecture, from which privileged architecture continued by the members of the ‘inner circle’ in their own private to be exempt, the incongruities of Socialist Realism 38 I. C. Popovici. Architecture competitions – a space for political contention. Socialist Romania, 1950–1956

gave rise to a professional confusion expressed with Greceanu, E. 2005. Sovietizarea învăţământului de arhitectură unexpected honesty – for instance, in discussions fo- [The sovietization of architecture education], in V. Iuga- Curea (Ed.). Arhitecţi în timpul dictaturii [Architects during cusing on competitions, which helped undermine the the dictatorship]. Bucharest: Simetria, 113–143. overarching authority of the discourse. Groys, B. 1992. The total art of Stalinism: avant-garde, aesthetic According to Yurchak, the demise of Soviet au- dictatorship and beyond. Princeton: Princeton University thoritarian discourse was disguised by the unanimous Press. participation in its reproduction which, in fact, en- Gusti, G. 1952. Consideraţii asupra concursului de arhitectură abled “diverse and unpredictable meanings and styles pentru hidrocentrala Lenin [Reflections on the architecture competition for the Lenin hydroelectric plant], Arhitectura of living to spring up everywhere within it” (2005: 1–2: 40–45. 28–29). This paradoxical structure of mutually con- Mărginean, M. 2008. Aesthetics of Stalinization in Romanian stitutive immutability-predictability and creative-un- architecture. The case of Hunedoara 1947–1954. Master’s predictability also characterized Romanian Socialist thesis [online], [cited May 2013]. University of Saskatchewan. Available from internet: http://ecommons.usask.ca/ Realism. Using permeability, deflection and select- bitstream/handle/10388/etd-04252008-160317/marginean_ ive engagement, Romanian architecture weathered thesis.pdf?sequence=1 Socialist realism through the creative use of practice, Petraşcu, G. 1955. Note În Legătură Cu Concursul Pentru securing a place in the uncertain terrain of confront- Sistematizarea Pieţei Casei Centrale A Armatei din ation between architecture and power whence plural, Bucureşti [Reflections on the competition for the system- atization of the Central Army House Square in Bucharest], alternative modes of discourse could emerge under Arhitectura 4: 6–22. favorable circumstances. Tabacu, G. 2005. Fapte şi întreprinderi fondatoare pentru breasla arhitecţilor Români [Founding facts and actions of the architecture profession in Romania]. Bucharest: “Ion Acknowledgements Mincu” University Press. I gratefully acknowledge The Union of Romanian Tabacu, G. 2006. Revista arhitectura. Studiu monografic şi in- Architects and the Editorial Board of Arhitectura dici 1906–1944 [Arhitectura magazine: monographic study magazine for granting me permission to illustrate this 1906–1944]. Bucharest: “Ion Mincu” University Press. article with images published in Arhitectura between Tarkhanov, A.; Kavtaradze, S. 1992. Stalinist architecture. 1950–1959. Singapore: Lawrence King. Udovički-Selb, D. 2009. Between modernism and Socialist Realism: Soviet architectural culture under Stalin’s re- References volution from above, 1928–1938, Journal of the Society of Åman, A. 1992. Architecture and ideology in Eastern Europe Architectural Historians 68(4): 467–495. during the Stalin era. An aspect of Cold War history. Verdery, K. 1991. National ideology under Socialism: identity Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. and cultural politics in Ceauşescu’s Romania. Berkeley: Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The dialogic imagination: four essays by University of California Press. M. M. Bakhtin, in M. Holquist (Ed.). Austin, TX: University http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520072169.001.0001 of Texas Press. Yurchak, A. 2005. Everything was forever, until it was no more: Bouchard, D. F. (Ed.). 1977. Michel Foucault. Language, counter- the last Soviet generation. Woodstock: Princeton University memory and practice. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Press. Caffé, M. 1956. Discuţii pe marginea concursului de locuinţe Zahariade, A. M. et al. 2003. Teme ale arhitecturii din România unifamiliale [Discussions on the single-family housing în secolul XX [Themes of Romanian architecture of the 20th competition], Arhitectura 3: 28–31. century]. Bucharest: Editura Institutului Cultural Român. Cooke, C. 1993. Socialist Realist architecture: theory and practice, Zahariade, A. M. 2011. Arhitectura în proiectul comunist: in M. Cullerne Bown, B. Taylor (Eds.). Art of the Soviets: paint- România 1944–1989 [Architecture in the communist pro- ing, sculpture and architecture in a one-party state, 1917– 1992. ject: Romania 1944–1989]. Bucharest: Simetria. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 86–105. Enescu, I. M. 2006. Arhitect sub comunism [Architect under communism] Bucharest: Paideia. IOANA CRISTINA POPOVICI Foucault, M. 1980. Two lectures, in C. Gordon (Ed.). Power/ Trained as an architect at the “Ion Mincu” University of Archi- knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. tecture and Urban Planning in Bucharest, and is currently a doc- Brighton: Harvester Press. toral candidate at Plymouth University, Drake Circus, PL4 8AA, Foucault, M. 1986a. Space, knowledge, and power, in P. Rabinow Plymouth, UK. (Ed.). The Foucault reader. An introduction to Foucault’s E-mail: [email protected] thought. London: Penguin. Her research interests include architecture theory in totalit- Foucault, M. 1986b. Truth and power, in P. Rabinow (Ed.). The arian regimes, the urban development of modern Bucharest, Foucault reader. An introduction to Foucault’s thought. and industrial architecture. London: Penguin.