On the "right to truth" in Arhitectura 4/2011

Not only because on the anniversary date, the inappropriate response ("The right to truth. Octav Doicescu the Architect") to the anniversary article by arch. Alin Negoescu's article in the magazine "Arhitectura" no. 3/2011, generated indignant reactions from readers. The vast majority condemned the insinuation that OD had collaborated with the communist dictatorship, willingly and without anyone's knowledge implementing "socialist-realist architecture" in Romania. Leaving aside the fact that such a serious allegation necessarily remains to be proven (a bona fide conclusion not only of any professionally done textual analysis), the almost general indignation sins by adopting a similar philosophy.

A number of questions could be extracted from the interventions received, addressed either to the editors of the magazine or to the management of the Union of Architects, or both: How was it possible for such a disqualifying text to be published in "Arhitectura" magazine? What is the position of the members of the UAR with regard to the circulation of the new thesis (above) in their own publication? What explains the author's continued presence in the UAR leadership? Why are such architects still tolerated in that professional organization? Why is the allegedly blasphemous author not prosecuted under the 'delicto de facies'?

If one accepts the right to free speech as one of the major conquests of the events of December 1989, the basis of a state governed by law, then some questions are not justified and others need to be qualified. From the outset, the magazine "Arhitectura" specifies the limits of the right of expression, in the sense that the responsibility for the content of the texts lies with the authors (in this case, Alexandru Panaitescu, who is a simple member of the UAR by fulfilling the statutory conditions). It should be checked whether, submitted to the attention of the Editorial Board (which did not function), the discussed text could be refused on the grounds of exceeding those limits on the basis of legal or statutory provisions.

The refusal of publication could possibly have been justified if the consultation of a large number of architects, readers of Arhitectura, had resulted in a majority rejection (a subjective but statistically objectified rejection.) Another equally time-consuming and subjective alternative could have resulted from a court ruling finding the author guilty of the "delicto de facies" mentioned by one of the readers who reacted negatively to the statements in the text. It was only through this (much prolonged) administrative procedure that the wish of a part of the protesters (i.e. the statutory exclusion of the author of "The Right to Truth" from the UAR) could be realized.

It remains to be clarified the position of the members of the UAR on the "circulation of the new thesis circulated through their own journal", possibly coupled with the suggestion to hold the challenged innovator legally responsible. Architects, like student-architects, might recognize that, despite all appearances, their guild has reformed little since 1989. In this context, discussing their situation under the communist administration in good faith and in good faith could bring elements to validate or not the aforementioned thesis. But are architects capable of debating the "new wooden philosophy" in carrying out such a complex and delicate endeavor, on which the author's legal responsibility may depend!

Dr. arh. Dr. Peter Derer, President of the UAR.