*Architectural Representations in Eastern Europe
In the mid-1960s, a distinct and palpable enthusiasm for interweaving architecture with various forms of artistic expression — to give tangible form to forward-looking projects and a kind of utopian representation of society — emerged in the professional milieu of Western and Central European countries. This phenomenon was also visible in the experiences of avant-garde movements such as Constructivism in Russia, Futurism in Italy, and Metabolism in Japan during the 1920s and 30s. In Eastern Europe, at roughly the same time, we encounter a relatively similar phenomenon, the origins and characteristics of which we shall explore in due course.
The Beginnings of Modern Architecture in Eastern Europe and the Avant-Gardes. Between the 1920s and 30s, an avant-garde movement emerged at the hands of Russian Constructivists. This movement arose in alignment with the policies of the revolutionary Russian government following the 1917 Revolution, producing images and projects that profoundly influenced subsequent architectural currents in Europe. During these same years, projects born of this radical movement — spanning architecture, graphics, film, and photography — were created with a forward-looking vision and these characteristics: for them, "design" was not a personal, emotional, or individual expression by the author, but rather a political, public act and an instrument for creating an ideal society aligned with the ideology of the Soviet Union. In fact, this movement prioritized attention to the socio-political context over the form of the work or its personal expression. Although many buildings were constructed in the former Soviet Union under the banner of this movement during this decade, the most noteworthy characteristic lies in the unbuilt works — their dreamlike quality: manifestos, theories, designs, and forward-looking, utopian plans that were never realized. The influence of the Constructivists' visual style — known for its clean, clear lines, pure volumes, and rigid order — is identifiable in the works of the Bauhaus school and later in the International Style. This movement believed that "design" entails a systematic process in which problems and challenges are addressed and resolved. It was, in fact, the first step of avant-garde architecture, whose influence is traceable even in contemporary projects. Figures such as Lissitzky, who had a significant impact on the expansion of the Suprematism movement, and Malevich are among the prominent figures of this movement.
From Modern Architecture in the West to Experimental Architecture. After the experience of modern architecture, critiques and differing viewpoints regarding this movement gradually emerged in America. The modern architecture movement, which had been the dominant mainstream and influential force in the profession of architecture between the 1920s and 50s, was challenged by postmodern architects, and its staunch adherence to austere and rigid functionalism was condemned. The main criticisms pointed to the fact that in the wake of the modern architecture movement, the professional space of this discipline had been barred from gaining new experiences, and at the same time, the users of
modern spaces had been condemned to experience and live in soulless environments. In the wake of these debates, and in the mid-1960s, a particular and palpable interest in blending art and architecture emerged in the professional milieu of Western and Central European countries. This interest was increasingly visible in the depiction of forward-looking projects that often had an artistic appearance and offered a utopian representation of society. These mythical images of future cities or strange, sculptural buildings, which were roughly contemporaneous with Pop Art and Conceptual Art movements, were called by various names such as Radical Architecture by Germano Celant, or Experimental Architecture by Peter Cook. Among the most famous examples of these projects are the works of Archigram in England, Superstudio in Italy, Yona Friedman in France, and the projects of groups associated with the construction magazine Bau in Austria. The primary focus of the architects and artists in this arena of forward-looking architecture was on producing conceptual and formal projects, with solving functional requirements not being a priority. Moreover, these projects were in a sense advocates of the relationship between art and societal issues. At the same time, in Eastern Europe, projects with similar characteristics — such as attention to form, the importance of the idea, and a disregard for the conventions and common frameworks of modern architecture — were also being created. Notable examples include the projects of various architectural groups named SIAL from the Czech Republic, Elmer Zalotay from Hungary, and Pawel Jan Gluszek from Poland. In addition to architects, many Eastern European artists also produced influential projects in this field. These artists used architecture as a tool for expressing their views and critiques regarding the socio-political milieu of the time, and simultaneously for redefining public space.
Lissitzky, Moscow, 1925. Lissitzky, Moscow, 1925.
The works of these artists and architects, like their counterparts in other countries, have been described as unrealizable forms. These projects were the result of expanding their experiences in employing new technology, generating ideas, and expressing novel concepts. Unlike the dominant and prevailing trend of architecture focused on designing and constructing durable projects, this group of radical architects and artists, using different methods of representation such as collage, photomontage, model-making, and hand drawings, presented projects that were often prototypes
and therefore temporary in nature and oriented toward the concept of time. The ultimate result was that these individuals, by challenging the traditional and dominant definitions of the architecture profession — which emphasized stability, permanence, durability, and comfort as fundamental principles — envisioned projects that were mobile, temporary, flexible, and even mortal. Such experiences, by transcending the conventional boundaries and concepts defining architecture, led to the expansion of
enduring frameworks and consequently the broadening of architectural and urban thought.
Formal Representations. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, two important books on forward-looking and experimental architecture were published in Czechoslovakia, which to some extent also addressed the relationship between architecture
VAL Architecture Group, Istroport project. Comb House project, Milan Knizak.
and the themes of the visual arts. The first source was a translation of the book Where Will We Live Tomorrow by Michel Ragon (an art critic and architecture theorist), and the second was a book by a Czech architect and planner named Jiri Hruza, titled Utopian Cities. Ragon's influence can be observed in the works of the VAL architecture group. The VAL group, consisting of one artist and two architects, is among the experimental and radical groups whose projects between 1968 and 1993 can be regarded as a balance between architecture and art. This group adopted Ragon's theories as the foundation of their activities. Their works are successfully expanded examples of what Michel Ragon calls "futuristic" projects: representations that include flexible megastructures, space cities and temporary structures, moving volumes, or suspended cities, and pneumatic structures. The forms of these futuristic projects have a fixed, legible, and distinct geometry. Moreover, these projects are responses to the problems and challenges of dense future cities, such as traffic, energy resources, and the relationship of urbanites with nature and climate. The use of everyday objects or human body parts with dramatic scale changes also appears in the experimental and futuristic architectural projects of Eastern Europe, particularly in depicting public and monumental buildings. Some scholars believe that Oldenburg's projects influenced the works of this period in Eastern Europe. For example, Tadeusz Kantor (Poland) and Milan Knizak (Czech Republic) were influenced by this current between 1965 and 1969. Tadeusz Kantor's projects, titled "Impossible Architecture" for the city of Krakow in Poland, use objects unconventionally at unfamiliar scales — a chair project in the main market square of the city — a place of intense interaction between people and the city — to reference the stopping and expanding of architectural ideas of creating public spaces. Milan Knizak also has a collection titled "Architectural Dreams," comprising several houses and monuments.
Like Kantor's works, Knizak also used objects at unconventional scales as buildings depicted in mountainous landscapes. Among these is the Comb House. These designs are mostly sculptural buildings, free of decoration but somewhat playful. The objects used by the Eastern Bloc artists — unlike their Western counterparts — have an old, non-luxurious appearance with everyday use. Placing these objects at unconventional scales in urban spaces initially astonishes the viewer, while they reference the expansion of social relations and the creation of informal public spaces (as opposed to state-controlled public spaces).
Eastern and Western Experimentalism. Limited sources have examined experimental or radical architecture, and most resources and research concern groups or projects that emerged in the West beyond the Iron Curtain. Although a formal similarity exists between the futuristic projects of the Eastern Bloc and those of Western Europe, in some cases these two currents had fundamental and even contradictory differences. The first notable major difference is that the projects from the Eastern side of the Iron Curtain were often produced by architects and artists who opposed the prevailing conventions and functional norms of the architecture preceding them, operating outside those defined boundaries. Although on both sides of this border, projects were always a synthesis of art and architecture, the influence of Pop Art is more evident in Western works and Conceptual Art in Eastern works. In many sources and exhibitions, the projects of this period from the Eastern Bloc have been presented as a kind of manifesto on conceptual art. Another major difference between Eastern and Western European output lies in the nature of their activities, collaboration, and the characteristics of their productions. Unlike the West, where the production of works was often the result of artists and architects joining together and forming experimental groups, Eastern Bloc productions were mostly carried out individually.
VAL Architecture Group, Heliopolis project. Paul Neagu, Romanian artist. Paul Neagu, Romanian artist. Bridge, Tadeusz Kantor.
Although exceptions exist, such as the VAL and Sigma groups. Some scholars believe that a significant portion of Eastern European futuristic architecture projects were produced by artists. Given the existing political pressures and the strict control of cultural space by the government at that time, architecture was in a sense the best tool for expressing the ideas, questions, thoughts, and social and political critiques of these artists regarding social and individual conditions. Since deciphering the architectural images created by these artists and architects was only possible for those familiar with avant-garde art, its concepts, and its language, at first glance these images did not directly constitute acts of protest. Many artists at the time were monitored and interrogated by security forces, but due to the absence of overt and direct evidence of transgression in these representations, the authors of the works were kept safe from the government's reach. In fact, what made this type of expression a relative source of security was that architecture, by its very nature and within the framework of communist ideology, was regarded as a positive and productive process and product. These iconic representations seemed to point to development, construction, and prosperity. Therefore, at first glance, they appeared to some extent as tools for promoting the slogans of the totalitarian communist regime, which insisted on development and the display of power.
Works by Joseph Jankovic titled Future Cities.
For example, when Slovak artist Joseph Jankovic was barred from artistic activity — to the point that even the purchase of sculpting materials was denied to him — he turned to architectural representations. In one place he states: "The fundamental root of my inclination toward architecture is the prohibition imposed on me against sculpture and other activities by the government."
The Context of the Representations. The socio-political context of the Eastern Bloc countries played a crucial role in the crystallization of futuristic, radical, and consequently architectural representations in these countries. While socialist realism was the official mainstream of the era, many radical and experimental projects in this region took shape apart from the concepts of this movement. Experimental architects and artists of the Eastern Bloc even distanced themselves from some of the dominant concepts and achievements of modern architecture — such as standardization, affordable housing, and mass production of architecture — that aligned with communist ideology. In Eastern Europe, architects and artists endeavored to distance themselves somewhat from the propagandistic aspect of architecture, which served as a tool for promoting the communist regime and brainwashing citizens. For example, Jankovic, in his designs, consciously sought to distance himself from and critique the official aesthetic principles established and promoted by the government. In some of his designs, he made
absurd transpositions between Stalinist architectural imagery and the palaces of the Soviet government (Project for a Monument to the Unknown Politician). In some of his designs, he used existing monuments and repositioned them in different contexts. Like many Western avant-gardes who were influenced by thinkers such as Herbert Marcuse, who declared the death of utopia in 1967, some Eastern European artists and architects also, under his influence, refrained from proposing utopian and avant-garde projects. Instead, what was depicted were critical and protest-laden projects regarding the instrumental use of architecture by the government to display power and ideological slogans. Stefan Muller's X Tower project was a superstructure with a height of approximately 2,000 to 2,500 meters above ground level, dedicated to all daily human activities. In this way, the entire ground surface was freed and devoted to recreational activities. Productive and manufacturing sectors were moved underground. Muller considered his project a remedy for the militaristic urbanism of the land and believed it was technically feasible but contrary to the political, moral, and social issues of its time — since dedicating the main ground surface to recreation and moving productive spaces to hidden areas did not align with the government's ideology. The urban planning projects of the VAL architecture group are also recognized as models of social critique. These projects are often designs that inherently contain a reassessment of how cities are managed and, consequently, how power is exercised. The megastructures designed by this group were spaces specifically devoted to consumption, social interaction, and even the pursuit of pleasure and recreation — deeply at odds with the general policies of the communist government. These projects were always responses to the needs of society and ultimately different, critical responses to the specific, predetermined conditions.
Heliopolis, VAL Architecture Group. X Tower, Stefan Muller.
Conclusion: A Different Expression. Experimental architecture in Eastern Europe and the architectural representations in this region, from the 1960s onward, possess distinctive characteristics. The artists and architects of this area, while aware of the contemporary movements in Western countries, created works similar in form yet different in meaning. These differences were born of the specific historical and cultural conditions of the region, its socio-political fabric, and the artistic traditions of these countries. These projects were presented as responses to the needs and issues of their contemporary society, and are therefore somewhat different from the projects of Western countries. Eastern practitioners, by intelligently employing the tools of representation and by transforming the manipulated architectural strategies that the government used to promote its ideology, engaged in critiquing the socio-political conditions. Of course, some also created artistic or architectural works in compliance with the ruling authority. By distancing themselves from the enduring concepts used to define utopia, they not only declared their criticisms of the avant-gardes of the 1920s and 30s, but also in a way expressed their opposition to the utopian concepts and ideologies of the socialist powers. These projects often presented different perspectives on society, power, and even the art of their time, and not only did they not promote a revolutionary process or spaces, but, as Tafuri put it, they can be regarded as projects for the critique of society rather than utopia.
*The focus of this article is on the movements of the 1970s.
Heliopolis, VAL Architecture Group. X Tower, Stefan Muller.