TWO REGIMES, TWO UNIVERSITY CITIES Architectonic language and ideology in Lithuania and Portugal: 1930-1975 Neringa Sobeščukaitė Dissertation of the Integrated Master’s Degree in Architecture supervised by Professor Nuno Alberto Leite Rodrigues Grande Department of Architecture, FCTUC, July 2013 TWO REGIMES, TWO UNIVERSITY CITIES Architectonic language and ideology in Lithuania and Portugal: 1930-1975 The author would like to thank numerous persons for their varied help, advice and encouragement, without whom research on this subject would have been impossible, if not at least much less comfortable or entertain- ing. These persons include but are not limited by colleagues from Kaunas Art Faculty of the Vilnius Academy of Fine Arts and Department of Architecture of the University of Coimbra. In particular, the author would like to thank: Miguel Godinho, Pedro Silva, João Briosa, Theresa Büscher, Monika Intaitė, Joana Orêncio, Lara Maminka Borges, Vânia Simões, Nuno Nina Martins, Magdalena Mozūraitytė, Jautra Bernotaitė, and Andrius Ropolas, for their support, and helpful hints along the way. The specificity of this work would not have been possible without the personal experience and academic for- mation in two institutions: Kaunas Art Faculty of the Vilnius Academy of Fine Arts, the university where the author finished its Bachelor degree, and Department of Architecture of the University of Coimbra, the current place of studies of the author. In this contex, the author would like to express the deepest gratitude to all pro- fessors and colleagues, for their help and support, for their brief discussions to deep, sometimes all night long conversations, that helped to feel at home, even when being half-way across the world. In particular, the author would like to thank to Professor Nuno Grande, for the guidance, wisdom, motivation and help. Professor has devoted considerable time and energy in reviewing this work, to an extent which could never be fully compensated. Finally, the author would like to thank her sisters, Kristina and Indrė, for their love and encouragement, and also her parents, Birutė and Leonidas, for their unconditional love and support. This work is dedicated to them. TABLE OF CONTENTS: 4 Acknowledgments 7 Introduction 21 Historical context Historical and political context of Europe: 1920-1960. Totalitarian art. The avant-garde which opened the way for totalitarianism. Retour a l’ordre. Reactionary modernism. Final considerations. 59 Modern versus Traditional: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany Communist Russia: Russian avant-garde 1917-1932, Socialist Realism 1932-1955, Socialist Modernism 1955-1980. Fascist Italy: 1922-1945. Nazi Germany: 1933-1945. The city as political stage. The urban renewal of Moscow: 1935. The urban renewal of Rome: 1931. The urban renewal of Berlin: 1937. 125 Lithuania. The University of Kaunas Historical and political context of Lithuania. Architectural context of Lithuania: 1920-1940. Kaunas is a new university city. First case study: Chamber of Physical Culture. Second case study: Kaunas Polytechnic Institute. 179 Portugal. The University of Coimbra Historical and political context of Portugal. Architectural context of Portugal: 1920-1960. Third case study: University of Coimbra. Fourth case study: Students’ Association of Coimbra. 259 Conclusion 279 Bibliography & List of Illustrations 0| INTRODUCTION ARCHITECTONIC LANGUAGE AND IDEOLOGY Introduction This thesis relies upon the assumption that “unlike science and technology, which have conventionally been presented as being free of ideological connotations, architecture is both a practical tool and an expressive language, capable of carrying highly specific messages.”1 Thus, it is not surprising that throughout the history architectonic production has been manipulated by politics. The function of architecture was to materialize, embody, reflect the dominant social, political or religious system and its ideology, it also acted as a propaganda tool, the aim of which was to impress, intimidate the spectators by the power of those who built it. The first half of the 20th century was one of the most dynamic periods in the history of architecture and politics. It raised powerful and charismatic leaders: Stalin in Soviet Union, Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Salazar in Portugal, Franco in Spain, and Smetona in Lithuania. The close relationship of “architecture and politics” was most visible under these totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. All of them used art and architecture to implement their “revolutions” and to consolidate their image in history. In the late 1930s, monumentality, grandeur, axiality, symmetry, order and hierarchy were the aesthetical principles used by all regimes, - Marxist, fascist, or nationalist, - no matter of their political orientation. Yet the difficulty in establishing the precise political meanings of buildings led to believe that irrespective of vernacular expressions, direct national iconography and political symbols such as swastika, hammer and sickle or fascine, there is no such a thing as overtly “political” architecture, and buildings cannot be named as fascist, democratic, or Stalinist. However, due to its revisionist socialist roots, the avant-garde modernism has traditionally been more often presented as the personification of social democracy and 1 Sudjic, Deyan - The edifice complex: how the rich and powerful shape the world, 2005, p. 7. 9 ARCHITECTONIC LANGUAGE AND IDEOLOGY the liberal left. This is why the flat roofs, the white walls and the aesthetics of the machine, typical to the avant-garde modernism, are often associated with leftist ideologies in popular perception. In contrast, the architecture of the dictatorships, as it evolved in the 1930s in the Soviet Union, Germany and Italy, was seen as an inseparable link between monumental neo-classicism, stylistic conservatism and totalitarianism. But it is interesting to note that abstract language of avant-garde modernism and its unconditional honestly about the materials was never totally removed from totalitarianism vocabulary. So is there, in fact, such thing as totalitarian, or a democratic, or a nationalistic building? And if they do exist, what is it that gives architecture such meanings? Is there any specific architectonic language for political ideology? Can classical columns or white walls be described as the signs of totalitarian or democratic building? Are these fixed and permanent meanings, or can they change over the time? The study addresses itself to the investigation about the developments in European design, mostly from the 1930s to 1970s, on the architectural practices under the dominance of totalitarian regimes. It reveals how these political, social and cultural factors had caused an urban and architectural development in the context of Lithuania and Portugal. The aim of this thesis was to find the main points and reasons of the change, which made the architects to create in one or another style. To answer the question whether the architectural language is dependent on political power (totalitarian, authoritarian or democratic environment in which it was created) and if so, how this was reflected in urban design and architectonic expression. The author chose to approach this widely discussed theme “the relation between architecture, power, and national identity” or “traditionalism versus modernism” to a detailed discussion on the four specific case studies – the universities built in Lithuania 11 ARCHITECTONIC LANGUAGE AND IDEOLOGY and Portugal during the period of 1930-1975. Choosing the functional typology for the case study became an important aspect of this thesis. University complexes are classified as typological group of public buildings, but it can be said that they stand out from other public buildings due to their polemic nature. On the one hand, university complexes have a very clear and even pragmatic function which is followed by a well-defined and even rational spatial structure. However, at the same time, it is a place where “the intelligentsia of the country” is educated. This clearly defined ideological aspect makes this typological group of buildings so unique. Therefore, it is not surprising that politicians, particularly dictators of totalitarian and authoritarian states, saw university space as an important political and propaganda tool to express their political and ideological beliefs, and educate the “future elites” through urbanism, architecture and applied arts. Not forgetting the fact that university facilities usually occupies an important place in the city’s urban landscape and considerable attention is paid to the architectural quality and representational importance. Because of all these factors the universities served as a strong example to illustrate the architectonic and urban achievements in Portugal and Lithuania under the authoritarian regimes. The two countries, Lithuania and Portugal, have much more in common that one could ever imagine. Situated at the opposite ends of the Europe in the 20th century were peripheral countries in comparison with powerful and economically strong ones as Italy, Germany or Soviet Union. Although, both saw the importance to participate in European community by adapting the current architectonic trends and new technologies, nevertheless, seeking to keep their own identity and local traditions. Both in Lithuania and Portugal the search for the style to match the spirit of the age and at the same time to keep the national identity were