Споруда як річ (на прикладі київських будівель 1920–1930 рр.)
Loading...
Date
2019
Authors
Собуцький, Михайло
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Статтю присвячено долі споруд 1920–1930 рр., котрих чимало є в Києві. Розглянуто різні можливі дискурси щодо них, зокрема стилістичний, ідеологічний, семіотичний. Особливу увагу приділено можливим критеріям пам’яткозбереження, оскільки споруди цього часу ще менш захищені від руйнування, ніж, скажімо, зведені на самому початку ХХ ст. Запропоновано підхід до споруди як до матеріальної речі, яка, незалежно від належності до однієї з численних тогочасних архітектурних стилістик (конструктивізм, ар-деко та ін.), заслуговує на збереження через свою дотичність до практичної діяльності попередніх поколінь.
This article is an attempt to situate the so-called constructivist and post-constructivist buildings in the context of contemporary Kyiv. There are many tens and dozens of them all over the city, and their existence is very precarious. We can expect those buildings to be reconstructed or simply torn down at any moment. Most of them are not protected by the law, and the very grounds of possible protection are uncertain. If we try to specify them, we may use such discourses as stylistic, aesthetic, ideological, or semeiotic, every one of which will give different results and evaluations. Most of the houses built in the 1920s – 1930s cannot be regarded as truly constructivist, showing some features of art deco or late modern (not modernism). Neither do we respect their ideological connotations, even if any intentions of the kind existed at the time of their emergence. Here we propose to carefully weigh the aspect of material continuity every building preserves, or does not preserve throughout its long existence and functioning. People live there or do their jobs, and bring inevitable changes, such as plastic windows instead of authentic wooden, or colour painting instead of grey plaster. Some clubs and cinemas changed their planning and exterior many times. It is difficult to say whether they are still authentic. If we regard only one discourse, we shall always fail. There are some remnants of old bricks, even in a new reconstruction. Moreover, we must take it into account if we try to remember the previous generations who built it. No one can decide what is to live and what is to stay. As to my opinion, every building which survived the WWII deserves a very careful preservation just because of its material provenance. We can reproduce the style, but we cannot recreate the spirit and the body of all who lived and struggled here. Wish we could. I hope that you do not associate those buildings with the soviet, perhaps any, ideology. They are just survivors of their time. Irretrievable, and all over the world the same art deco. If anyone is interested in Kyiv material culture of the most controversial century, do not read the summary only. Do not read the text only. Come and see it, before it goes nowhere. Welcome to Kyiv of the 1920s – 1930s.
This article is an attempt to situate the so-called constructivist and post-constructivist buildings in the context of contemporary Kyiv. There are many tens and dozens of them all over the city, and their existence is very precarious. We can expect those buildings to be reconstructed or simply torn down at any moment. Most of them are not protected by the law, and the very grounds of possible protection are uncertain. If we try to specify them, we may use such discourses as stylistic, aesthetic, ideological, or semeiotic, every one of which will give different results and evaluations. Most of the houses built in the 1920s – 1930s cannot be regarded as truly constructivist, showing some features of art deco or late modern (not modernism). Neither do we respect their ideological connotations, even if any intentions of the kind existed at the time of their emergence. Here we propose to carefully weigh the aspect of material continuity every building preserves, or does not preserve throughout its long existence and functioning. People live there or do their jobs, and bring inevitable changes, such as plastic windows instead of authentic wooden, or colour painting instead of grey plaster. Some clubs and cinemas changed their planning and exterior many times. It is difficult to say whether they are still authentic. If we regard only one discourse, we shall always fail. There are some remnants of old bricks, even in a new reconstruction. Moreover, we must take it into account if we try to remember the previous generations who built it. No one can decide what is to live and what is to stay. As to my opinion, every building which survived the WWII deserves a very careful preservation just because of its material provenance. We can reproduce the style, but we cannot recreate the spirit and the body of all who lived and struggled here. Wish we could. I hope that you do not associate those buildings with the soviet, perhaps any, ideology. They are just survivors of their time. Irretrievable, and all over the world the same art deco. If anyone is interested in Kyiv material culture of the most controversial century, do not read the summary only. Do not read the text only. Come and see it, before it goes nowhere. Welcome to Kyiv of the 1920s – 1930s.
Description
Keywords
споруда, річ, матеріальність, конструктивізм, арт-деко, стаття, building, thing, materiality, constructivism, art deco, article
Citation
Собуцький М. А. Споруда як річ (на прикладі київських будівель 1920–1930 рр.) / Собуцький Михайло // Наукові записки НаУКМА. Історія і теорія культури. - 2019. - Т. 2. - С. 82-87.