Thematic file

On Criticism in the Socialist Era

It is to be appreciated that the 110th anniversary of the first issue of "Arhitectura" magazine has prompted us to formulate some points of view on the stages covered by this "memoir" - with its limits - of the existence of the architectural profession, in intentions and deeds. While accepting that the path has not always lived up to expectations, it should not be forgotten that many factors - from the orientation and demands of the level of training to the socio-economic order and the political context - have left their mark on the concept and product of the creation.

On Criticism in the Socialist Era

Even today architecture criticism is a tricky subject, lacking contributions and method. The author starts by looking at the criticism activity of the magazine between 1945 and 1989, saying that "it wasn't always up to the expectations," but then adds that there were "many factors - ranging from the level of professional education to the socioeconomic and political context - that left their mark on the production of architecture."

The author places the magazine in the context of architecture publications of that time, noticing that Arhitectura was the only architecture magazine that set itself the task to "reflect the multi-faceted aspect of architecture creation, from conception to construction, that is from formulating the brief to calculating prices, defining technical specifications, obtaining building permits and dealing with the constraints of the construction industry." Arhitectura was indeed the "diary of architectural practice", but also the "messenger" of related disciplines such as urban planning, interior design and graphic design.

The new spirit brought by the editor-in-chief Mircea Lupu in 1971 created the conditions for a novel and critical approach, which gave priority to Romanian modernist architecture from the Interbellum and architecture theory, and at the same time opened to influences from Western thought. New magazine sections were introduced such as Bibliography, Criticism and Bibliography, Chronicle of Ideas, Display, Convorbiri cu... [complementing Marcel Melicson's 'Notes on the history of contemporary architecture thinking' established in the 1960s. Thus, authors that had 'something to say' had the possibility to express their opinion.

It was only in 1987 that the Union of Architects aimed at creating a section of architecture theory and criticism. Two years later, the [1989] Revolution triggered a paradigm shift. Nevertheless architecture criticism did not find a place of its own inside the magazine.

Given that the magazine's publications have been confronted with three political regimes with unmistakable features, I believe that, for the sake of objectivity, the opinions can also be based on an assessment of one stage only. Starting from this idea, I would focus on the period 1945-1989, emphasizing a theme that preoccupied me then, as it does now. I believe that the period I am focusing on has been fairly faithfully reflected - as far as the political system allowed - in the pages of the magazine. In fact, it was the only publication until the Technical Information Bulletin - B.I.T. (published by the Documentation Centre for Construction, Architecture and Systematization - C.D.C.A.S.), a sort of "up to date chronicle" both internally and - to a lesser extent - externally. As the publicity organ of the Union of Architects, the editorial staff strove to reflect as many facets of architectural creation as possible, from concepts to materialization in the field, occasionally inserting the constraints to which the project was subject (see the interventions such as "A project manager told me"¹⁾, starting with the formulation of the order/theme of the design, to the inclusion in the technical-economic indexes, the standardization of directives, the hierarchical approval, the constraints of the industry and the constructor (supply, available technology), etc.a. As a "chronicle" of achievements (often organized by theme) necessary for architectural history or current information, the magazine has become even more useful since the change of regime in 1989 resulted, in most county design institutes, in the condemnable disappearance of archives, subject to degradation or "substitution"... It should also be noted that this information effort also took into account: the presentation of U.A. prizes; comments on competitions; commemoration of ancestors; technical documentation ("technical files"); technical education (presentation of diploma projects); the debuts of young architects; "snippets" from the media on architecture; a permanent attention paid to reviews of specialized foreign architecture, etc.a. By commenting on exhibitions in the field of fine arts and design, a link (admittedly weak compared with the 1930s and 1940s) was maintained with other creators. Nor should the attention paid to the 'escapades' of some architects into the realms of painting, graphics or caricature be overlooked. Nor should it be forgotten that the magazine also gave a place to a "messenger" from the field of urban and spatial planning.

It is also worth noting the regret of the editor-in-chief Mircea Lupu (who brought a new spirit to the magazine's layout), who in ¹⁹⁷²² noted that "... the magazine [...] has not yet found a way to address the general public". But would such a task not have fallen primarily to the Union? We hope, however, that the emergence in recent years of several publications in this field will nevertheless bring us closer to the beneficiaries of architectural production and, moreover, will stimulate the interest of other art creators.

Returning to the specialized ^CRITICA3 in ¹⁹⁶⁹⁴, arh. Ion Mircea Enescu observes that "... although architecture employs structures of thought and representation that we can also identify in the other arts", it was (and still is - n.n. - n.n..) in a certain state of isolation within society, but also from the "great dialogues on art", and the need for architectural criticism is obvious: "For while in the other arts the mediocre product, the maculature and kitsch are easily removed by time, uninformed judgment does not have as many consequences and implications as in the built environment, for many, too many years of failed architecture". And the lack of this warning "tool" has caused Romanian architecture to experience the "anachronism" of the watershed between the 19th and 20th centuries, to fail in defining a true national school (which "... did not bear the expected fruits"), to miss the effects of the "Bauhaus school" and to be absent in supporting the steps taken by Horia Creangă, Marcel Iancu and others towards a contemporary architecture. This desideratum, the emergence of a high-profile criticism, especially in the context of a rigid and doctrinaire political system, was to be found in the pages of the magazine, even if it took various titles such as "bibliography", "criticism and bibliography", "Chronicle of Ideas", "Dial", "Conversations with....", the presentation of the concerns of international ^creators5, etc. Marcel Melicson (from the 1960s onwards) will open the door to the concerns of the 20th century - theory and practice - with his "Sheets for a history of contemporary architectural thought". An almost constant presence will be that of Gheorghe Săsărman (who will also be found in the daily press), who in addition to "chronicling ideas" will also be involved in some theoretical issues, and he will not be the only one in this ^field6. In 1981, I proposed to the U.A. leadership the creation of a section for criticism, in the hope that such a body could stimulate by various means (including a prize awarded periodically) the continued presence of a "critical apparatus", useful to professionals as well as in the relationship with other arts or in the awareness of the general public. In 1982, one of the five "working groups" set up was to include "theory and criticism". At the plenary session of the U.A. committee in February 1982, I emphasized that "...the purpose of criticism is not to "control" and give "verdicts", but to "question"/radiograph, both within the profession and in dialogue with the general public, what has been achieved in the field of architecture, systematization and in the specialized literature in our country, that is to say to outline some stages in relation [....] also in relation to the achievements of other countries (which I did not find in the "Histories" of 1981 and 1982), in order to know where we stand within a reference system [...] to identify values - works, authors -, to point out factors that are holding us back or trends worthy of being embraced, to highlight everything that can define us morally and spiritually [...] to overcome moments of uncertainty on a theoretical or practical level more quickly...". It went on to list ways of creating an "...informed/ "informed" audience as widely as possible, but also of making our works and opinions known outside the country. We also believed that the critic's concerns should not neglect professional training ("assuming that he is able to grasp the commandments of each stage") and why not the creation of a "Museum of Romanian Architecture", even if international examples were very ^few7.

In May 1987 an office of the Theory and Criticism section (a bit late...) of the U.A. appeared and we considered that it was already time to attract "sympathizers" from the fields that architectural creation involves and "in this way, the angle of approach would be closer to 360° [...] and public opinion would be much easier to sensitize and win over". But... during a debate in 1988 on the "analysis of the most representative groups of residential buildings and cultural centers", arch. Cosma ^Iurov8 noted that neither the U.A. Architectural Criticism and Theory Collective nor the journal "Arhitectura" had sent their spokesmen. And the author of the article continues, among other things, that: "For their professional ethics and for the fair shaping of their critical opinions, they (the critics - ed.) are required to know the position of the authors, the beneficiaries (commissioners - ed.), the builders and, last but not least, the direct users, as well as the constraints encountered, etc.", emphasizing that "...the critical analysis concerns the architectural work and not its author (or authors). Cosma Iurov further asks: "1/ Do we have architectural critics? 2/ If we don't, then who does the necessary criticism of architectural creation/production? Art critics? Sociologists? Economists? Or do we improvise, with occasional criticism [...] when subjectivism will then be in flower!". This situation would not be significantly alleviated after 1989, even though the context was quite different. Of course, it is not the role of the journal to "school" critics, nor is it the role of the Union or specialized education, but together they can contribute in various ways to ensuring emulation for the formation of militants of a pervasive criticism that will become a major player in the diagnosis of various internal and external trends and in the process of discerning values not only as a cultural act, but also as a social contribution to the becoming of the human condition.

NOTES

1 Revista "Arhitectura" 1987, p. 36; arh. Dan Budică, with a diversified contribution.

2 "Arhitectura" no. 5/ 1972, p. 3.

3 A more detailed analysis of the contents of the magazine is presented in "Arhitectura", no. 2/ 1976, p. 36-37.

4 "Arhitectura", 5-6/1969, pp. 27-28.

5 A series of conversations, presentations of contemporary architectural personalities, reviews and opinions, by dr. arh. Adrian Mahu.

6 'Arhitectura' magazine, op. cit.

7 Revista "Arhitectura", no. 6/ 1987, p. 46-47.

8 Revista "Arhitectura", no. 1/ 1988, pp. 7-8, "Architectural Criticism and the Condition of the Critic".