History and Theory of Architecture

The aim of this paper is to propose possible future actions regarding the
management of the Bulgarian megalithic heritage. They are based on analysis of the current state of the monuments and the actions taken regarding their use as a resource. The proposed actions take into account the recent guidelines in preservation of archaeological heritage and good practices from other European countries.

Abstract: A new and bold architectural movement, New Brutalism gained momentum in the 1950s across the world. At the same time, in Bulgaria in the wake of the April Plenum of 1956, architecture was let free to protest against the imposed until then Communist party line of nationally reframed socialist realism. This paper would try and show as to whether architecture in this country really felt free to experiment with forms and models so that to achieve the visual and ideological aesthetics of English Brutalists or Japanese metabolists. To provide evidence, some of the works of architect Stefka Georgieva would
be dealt with. She was a government’s architect, who, however, designed buildings in a distinctively “pro-western” manner with increasingly formal, ironic and unceremonious citing of Bulgarian building tradition. And though her buildings have been interpreted either as an ingenious reading of this tradition or branded as formalism for the formalism’s sake, they are now the most vivid example of the universal architectural language, used by architects of the second half of the twentieth century.

SPANNUNGSFELDER Tendenzen in der zeitgenössischen Architektur Bulgariens Das Land im Südosten Europas hat viele hervorragende Bauten der Moderne hervorgebracht, in den letzten Jahren ist allerdings wenig Bemerkenswertes entstanden. Das hat unmittelbar mit den politischen Umwälzungen zu tun: Als zur Jahrtausendwende in Bulgarien ein kapitalistisches Wirtschaftssystem eingeführt wurde, hatten die bulgarischen Architekten keine Antworten parat. Ein von Investoren losgetretener Bauboom an der Schwarzmeerküste brachte lediglich Junk-Architektur mit kitschigen Zitaten hervor und ist zudem schnell wieder verebbt. Trotzdem stechen aktuell Projekte heraus und zeigen, dass die Architekten in Bulgarien eine wichtige Tradition wieder aufnehmen: globale Trends mit der eigenen Architekturgeschichte in Einklang zu bringen.

The typical Bulgarian building constructed in the past decade is rectangular, with glass balustrade balconies with tube top rails, built of cheap materials and an abundance of imitation of wood. The 1990s kitsch and the pseudo-postmodernism are gone. The buildings are the result of an aspiration to measure up to the rest of the world, but there is no unique hallmark to make them appealing on an international level while remaining distinctively Bulgarian and recognisable in Europe.

In the summer of 2017 a socialist monument was destroyed in downtown Sofia amidst heated debates. It was built in 1981 to celebrate 1300 years of the foundation of Bulgarian state in line with the prevailing communist nationalist rhetoric at the time - a Bulgarian version of the phenomenon related to a late 1970s shift in the country’s cultural policies. The socialist monument is to be replaced by a war memorial - a reconstruction of a previously existing at the same place one, built in 1934, partly destroyed by WWII bombings of Sofia and later fully dismantled by the communist regime. That memorial was part of the Heimatkunst in pre-WWII Bulgaria, commemorating the fallen soldiers in the wars for the nation state in the 1910s. The “battle of the monuments” uncovered a realm of disturbing conflicts hidden behind the seemingly monolithic European identity of the ex-socialist country. Bulgaria still preserves the image of an optimistic and reliable EU member without far-right or far-left political excesses, with modest and balanced international behaviour. Yet two monuments managed to reveal a number of identity clashes: communism vs anti-communism, nationalism vs universalism, “left” vs “right” nationalism, modern architectural heritage vs tradition. That’s the reason why the debate on the destruction of one monument is actually a debate on the future of Modern Heritage in the country. And the clash of nationalisms is in fact a battle for the post-socialist identity of the Bulgarian city, taking place on the Modern Heritage battleground.

Eines sollte vom Anfang an klar sein. Die deutsche Experimentalschule für Architektur und Design Bauhaus ist das Antlitz des 20. Jahrhunderts. Sie kleidete die Welt in abstrakt gemusterten Damast, beschriftete sie mit Grotesk, baute die funktionalen hellen Kästen, in denen wir wohnen und arbeiten, entwarf die Rohrstühle, auf denen wir sitzen, die Gläser, aus denen wir trinken. Sie schuf die Plakate, die wir sehen, das Spielzeug unserer Kinder in Grundfarben und Formen. Sie änderte für immer die Kunst- und Architekturausbildung. Kurz gesagt: Bauhaus ist die einflussreichste Designschule, die je existiert hat. Und in den kurzen 14 Jahren ihrer Existenz (1919 – 1933) brachte sie jene Epoche hervor, die radikal die Welt veränderte, in der wir auch heute leben.

Cultural heritage is generally accepted recognized as a universal good which is indispensable for the development of human civilization and is connected to primary values and indisputable human rights. Yet, there are cultural areas in which there seems to be no mutual understanding of their “universal value”. On the contrary, neutral acceptance is non-existent and social unrest prevails. These are the areas where conflicts arise and where so-called “dissonant heritage” (or “contested heritage”) claims its presence.
Today we are witnessing the re-emerging of a strong anti-modernity trend which rejects all achievements of the 20th century (with special emphasis on its failures) and affects the perception of modern architectural heritage as such, putting it slowly but surely in the position of dissonant heritage. This “new architectural conservatism” is not only an architectural, but also a cultural and political trend, and, as it seems for the moment, is here to stay.
In a rapidly changing world, preservation should be an agile and competitive discipline which is able to adapt to new realities. The notion of heritage in itself should be reconsidered in a broader sense, including all groups of contested, burdened and troublesome cultural valuables.
Contemporary preservation should ask itself and attempt to answer a number of urgent questions:
- Can we assume that the already achieved consensus on preserving the heritage of the 20th century is irreversible?
- Should we preserve only the unique or also the generic?
- If we assume we are entering a new cultural phase of architectural conservatism which defines modernist architecture as aesthetically and socially inappropriate, how do we advocate the preservation of contested 20th century modern heritage and prevent its demolition?

The architectural brutalism of socialist Bulgaria has two distinct faces - one for the masses and one for the elite. And they are both best embodied by the work of a stubborn female architect with great command of béton brut, expressive construction and elaborate spaces - Stefka Georgieva (1923 - 2004), one of the most obscure figures serving the communist regime.

By the end of WWII Bulgaria was a mostly agricultural country with less than 35% of its population living in the cities. The country was spared severe war destruction and only the capital Sofia was seriously hit by Allied bombing in 1943/ 1944, though not to the extent of many other European and Asian cities which lost over 80% of their urban fabric. After the war, though, Bulgaria fell within the Soviet sphere of political influence and was subjected to rapid modernization including industrialization, urbanization, development of public facilities along with post-war reconstruction and redevelopment. Dimitrovgrad was the ultimate propaganda showcase to outline this transition from rural to urban society and a flagship example of the rapid modernization efforts which coincided with the official introduction of the aesthetic doctrine of socialist realism in 1948 and thus formed a specific genre of proletarian luxury.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. continuous social reactions and inspire spectacular newspaper front pages. It appears that such monuments have infinite potential for dividing people, not only on political, but also on aesthetical or emotional bases. Nowadays in particular, the monuments have even greater social importance as the keepers of dissonant public memory, while their public appreciation reflects different posttotalitarian processes in Bulgarian postsocialist society.