številka / volume 211-212
november / november 2017
letnik / anno XLVIII

Arhitektura gradi državo
Architecture Builds the State
vsebina številke
table of contents
Jurij Kobe Uvodnik: Državotvorna arhitektura? Državotvorna arhitektura!
Leader: State-forming architecture? State-forming architecture!
TEORIJA
Uroš Lobnik N(eg)acija javne arhitekture? Asemblaž od A do Ž
Mojca Hren Odprtost javnih stavb v kontekstu sodobne države
Pavel Gantar O državi in arhitekturi
Peter Mlakar Monumentalna arhitektura kot sredstvo vznesenosti in upanja
Mateja Kurir O oblasti v arhitekturi Terminski okvir in poročilo s simpozija
PRAKSA
Miha Dešman Državotvorna arhitektura?
Janez Koželj Kratek pregled neizvedenih razvojnih projektov ministrstev RS v Ljubljani
Andrej Hrausky Plečnikovi državotvorni projekti
Andrej Šmid Prostori groznega
PERSPEKTIVE
Nejc Černigoj Predsedniška rezidenca in predsedniška palača
Gaja Golob in Žiga Erjavec Utopije risalnice 3
Miha Čebulj Vizija Ljubljana
Tomaž Krištof Bivanje kot politično dejanje: stanovanja za žvižgače na vrhu slovenskih ambasad. Rezultati delavnice Novo na vrhu starega, Maribor–Ljubljana–Benetke 2016
VIZIJE SO
Kristina Dešman UKC – Kako naprej?
uvodnik

Državotvorna arhitektura? Državotvorna arhitektura!

Jurij Kobe

Kajti če bi nastal polis dobrih mož, bi se v njem vsi bojevali za to, da ne bi vladali, kot se zdaj bojujejo za to, da bi vladali. Tedaj bi postali očitno, da se tisti, ki je dejansko resnični oblastnik, po naravi ne ozira na svojo korist, temveč za korist podložnika, tako da vsak človek, ki ima spoznanje, raje izbere, da mu koristi kdo drugi, kot da bi sam imel težave pri tem, ko bi koristil nekemu drugemu. [1]

Policija ZDA je uspela poloviti glavne akterje mafije. Posledica tega je kaos in doslej najnižja stopnja varnosti v mestu. Malim ribam, ki so ostale, skupno dobro mesta ni del njihove vizije. Veliki so s svojo vizijo skrbeli za red, za razcvet posla, pobijali so le sebi enake ... sedaj streljajo ženske, otroke. [2]

Slednje se nam nekako dogaja danes.

Narod – nacija; v zadnjem času tolikokrat obravnavano stopnjevanje, ki pa je pri nas ostalo na nivoju povsem abstraktnega filozofskega razmišljanja. A nacija, tj. narod, ki je dobil državo, mora to državo tudi znati imeti: ne le na nivoju države (držati), državnih institucij, meddržavnih diplomatskih odnosov, temveč povsem konkretno: v gospodarstvu, v samozavesti, ki ni sestavljena le iz besede, iz krivde in greha, in končno v prostoru, ki kaže tisto, kar je narod, ki naj bi postal nacija, že ustvaril. Smo danes, ko smo na papirju že nacija, v resnici vendarle še vedno reven narod, ki se zadovolji z abstraktnim, z zapisanim, z literaturo?

Še slabše! Tistih temeljev, tiste materialne osnove, ki je v resnici osnova bivanja in obstoja nacije, kot so dediščina vseh dob naše zgodovine, gospodarstvo, prostori za druženje in odločanje, torej tudi vladanje, se danes tako rekoč ne omenja.

Od nekdaj je znano, da je oblikovan, grajen prostor tisto, kar ključno sooblikuje samozavest naroda ali nacije. Ironija je, da nam danes za to rabo zadostujejo omembe Plečnikove arhitekture. Mogočnih prostorov in ustanov, ki so nastali v obdobju socializma in nam danes v resnici pomenijo bazično osnovo naše državnosti, kot so nova cela mesta, vsa državna infrastruktura, industrija, stanovanjska naselja, … tja do Trga revolucije in Cankarjevega doma in Univerzitetnega kliničnega centra ..., vse, kar danes omogoča funkcioniranje države, kar vse je bilo ustvarjeno z veliko mero kulturnega oblikovanja, ne omenjamo. Vsega tega se skorajda sramujemo, vsekakor pa raje ne poudarjamo časa njihovega nastanka.

Spomnimo, Maroje Mrduljaš v knjigi Unfinished Realisations: Between Utopia and Pragmatism [3] trdi, da »socialistična« arhitektura ni bila le propaganda, marveč tudi potreba!

Za graditev, za zasnovo prostora in programov, ki jih ta prostor nosi, je potrebna vizija. Imeti vizijo pa pomeni projicirati nekaj v prihodnost, in to ni vedno nekaj, kar se bo zgodilo že jutri. Danes sta pojma »vizija« in »koncept« izginila iz besedišča vladajočih, kar je seveda razumljivo. Vladajoča stranka mora zadovoljiti in loviti svoje volivce danes, če jih želi dobiti v naslednjem mandatu. Stranka v opoziciji pa meni, da je njena vloga te cilje rušiti, saj gre vendar za isto igro!

Odgovorni za državo danes ne razmišljajo o graditvi države. Med njimi so tisti, ki pojma države sploh ne razumejo, in tisti, ki državo pojmujejo kot prosti lov za svojo korist ali korist svoje stranke. Med njimi so seveda tudi povsem odkriti lopovi, pri teh gre za prisvajanje namesto za »korist nekemu drugemu«.

Torej je logično, da se odločitve v parlamentu gibljejo v okvirih sedanjosti, kvečjemu najbližje prihodnosti, za izboljšave, med tem ko »vizija« zadeva daljnoročnejše cilje, ki lahko vključujejo tudi tisto manj prijetno od trenutno uspešne in udobne sedanjosti. Takšne odločitve zahtevajo vero, smelost in pogum odkrito sprejeti odgovornost za tisto, kar se bo enkrat v prihodnosti zgodilo. Tega pa pričujoča oblika demokracije ne zmore zagotoviti. Živimo v času bega od odgovornosti in celo deklarativno nimamo niti cilja zagotoviti tisto družbeno, kar si sicer mnogi prizadevajo doseči in kar smo nekoč že imeli, kot pravi Slavko Pregl v nedavnem intervjuju.

Tako živimo v času malih izboljšav sedanjosti. Ne le to: danes nekako ne zmoremo moči in odločitve, da bi zgradili zdaj že skoraj pol stoletja stare projekte, kot so NUK, sodišča, nova gledališka dvorana, ali še vedno ne povsem uresničen projekt Generalni urbanistični plan Ljubljane iz leta 1966! … in so Stožice še vedno edina poosamosvojiteljska državotvorna investicija (ki pa seveda ni državna), kamor se zgrinja vsa Slovenija, in sta med infrastrukturami edino TEŠ 6 in »Tretja os« projekta, ki nista bila zasnovana pred osamosvojitvijo.

A to se ne dogaja le na polju materialnih temeljev naše državotvornosti!

Naša vrhunska intelektualna elita ni zmogla močí odločneje reagirati na dogodke, ki nosijo povsem simbolni značaj: ni zmogla javnega protesta takrat, ko so bili z državnih proslav izločeni praporji in praporščaki predstavnikov slovenske partizanske vojske, ki je uspela preprečiti naše izumrtje; ni zmogla miselne presoje ob dejstvu, da so se ob poti k spomeniku partizanskih herojev postavljale herme pomembnih mož socialističnega in osamosvojiteljskega časa, ker se še vedno bojimo moči sporočila Trga republike, kamor bi v resnici sodili, a nam danes ta prostor nosi premočno sporočilo Trga revolucije, ki se je še vedno sramujemo; ko ni bilo moči preprečiti absurdnega ponavljanja iztrganih Župančičevih verzov na pravkar odkritem spomeniku, edinem simbolu državnosti, ki smo ga do danes zmogli uresničiti.

In če se vrnemo nekoliko na začetek, k širšem smislu besed Slavka Pregla, vidimo, da se je država do osamosvojitve vzpostavljala tudi s prostorom, skozi arhitekturo in da danes živimo od tega, kar nam je ostalo od prej, od t. i. svinčenih časov, ko je bil »projekt države« še aktualen. Današnje politike prihodnost ne zanima. Vizija ni funkcionalna, koncept je odveč.

Viri

  1. Platon, Država (Politeja), I. knjiga, str. 1021 347d v Kocjančič, G. (2004), Platon, Zbrana dela, prevod in spremna beseda, Mohorjeva družba, Celje 2004.
  2. Poročilo iz Chicaga
  3. Mrduljaš, M., Kulić, V. (2012) Unfinished Modernisations: Between Utopia and Pragmatism, Udruženje hrvatskih arhitekata, Zagreb.

leader

State-forming architecture? State-forming architecture!

Jurij Kobe

For there is reason to think that if a city were composed entirely of good men, then to avoid office would be as much an object of contention as to obtain office is at present; then we should have plain proof that the true ruler is not meant by nature to regard his own interest, but that of his subjects; and every one who knew this would choose rather to receive a benefit from another than to have the trouble of conferring one. [1]

A report from Chicago:

The state police was able to apprehend the mafia kingpins. The consequence: chaos, with citizen safety at an all-time low. The common good of the city forms no part of the vision of small-time crooks that remain. The heavyweights used to maintain order with their vision, taking care of the business, killing only their own kind ... Now women and children are getting shot. [2]

In a way, the current situation in Slovenia is not a million miles away from that of Chicago.

A people - a nation; so much has been said of this gradation recently, yet in Slovenia, it has remained squarely in the domain of abstract philosophical consideration. A nation, i.e. a people who have attained a state, must be able to maintain it, too: not just in terms of an assemblage of state institutions and a web of international relations, but also in very concrete terms: in economy, in composure - which is not composed only out of words, of guilt and sin - and finally in the space, which showcases what the people who are to become a nation have thus far achieved. Are Slovenes today, when we're already a nation on paper, in reality still merely a poor people who find satisfaction in the abstract, in the recorded-for-posterity, in literature?

It is worse still. Those foundations, that material basis which are in reality the basis of existence and survival of a nation - such as the heritage from all eras of our history, the economy, the spaces for socialising and decision-making, and as such also governing - hardly even get mentioned nowadays.

It has always been recognised that a regulated, built space is that which crucially contributes to the confidence of a people or a nation. It is ironic that for this purpose, referring to the architecture of Jože Plečnik is quite satisfactory for us Slovenes. The imposing spaces and institutions which have been created in the Socialist period and which serve as the fundamental basis of our statehood, such as entire new towns, all the state's infrastructure, industrial facilities, residential communities, and not least the Trg revolucije Square complex, Cankarjev dom cultural centre, and the UKC general hospital - in other words, everything that enables our state to function today -, and whose design was always consciously cultural, aren't spoken of. We're almost ashamed of them, and we certainly prefer not to call to attention the time when they were created.

Let us at this point recall Maroje Mrduljaš, who states in his book Unfinished Realisations: Between Utopia and Pragmatism [3] that "Socialist architecture was not only propaganda but also a necessity"!

The construction and the design of space and the programmes which this space is to bear all require vision. Having a vision means projecting something into the future - not always something which will happen already tomorrow. Nowadays, the terms "vision" and "concept" have vanished from the vocabulary of those in power - and it should not come as a surprise. The ruling party must satisfy and seduce its voters today if it is to win them over for the next term. And the opposition party believes that its role is to throw spanners in the works on every occasion - they're both playing the same game, after all.

Those responsible for the state do not preoccupy themselves with state-building. There are those who do not comprehend the notion of the state. Then there are those who see the state as a free-for-all to benefit themselves or their party. And finally, there also the common crooks - with them, it's about straightforward appropriation rather than conferring benefits to another.

It's only to be expected, therefore, that the decisions passed by the parliament are informed by the present and possibly the immediate future, promising improvement. A "vision", however, requires planning for the long term and may involve a step back from the glory and comfort of the present moment. Making such decisions require faith, audacity, and the courage to accept responsibility for what will happen at a certain future point. This is something that the current form of democracy is unable to ensure. We live in a time of eschewing responsibility and a time when even on a declarative level, we no longer have a goal of ensuring the social condition which today represents the striving of many, and which used to be our reality in the past - as observed by writer Slavko Pregl in a recent interview.

We live in a time of small improvements to the present state. We lack the power and resolve to tackle projects conceived nearly half a century ago: a new national university library, a new courthouse, a new theatre, or the still unfinished project of the General urban plan of Ljubljana from 1966! Stožice sports complex is thus still the only state-forming (but not, however, state-funded) investment of the post-independence era, used by people from across the country on a daily basis. When it comes to infrastructure, only the TEŠ 6 power plant and the northeast-southeast motorway were not designed before the independence of 1991.

The situation concerning the material foundations of our state-forming represents the rule rather than the exception, however.

The top echelons of our intellectual elite were unable to decisively react to recent events of a purely symbolic nature: they couldn't muster a protest when Partisan standard-bearers and their standards were excluded from a state commemoration commemorating the very thing the Partisan army saved from extinction; it was unable to mentally process the fact that the walkway leading to the monument honouring Partisan heroes is lined with herms of significant figures form both the Socialist and the independence eras, because we're still afraid of the power of the message of the Republic Square, where we should belong, but we can't deal with the message of the Revolution Square, which is inextricably tied with it and which is still the source of our shame; it was outside its power to prevent the absurd parroting of Oton Župančič's verse on the recently unveiled monument - the only symbol of our statehood which we have so far been able to realise.

To come back to the beginning, to the wider meaning of Slavko Pregl's words - we see that until the independence, one of the ways the state was able to establish itself was by means of the space, through architecture, and that today, we live off the fruits of what we have inherited from before, from the so-called Leaden Years when the state was still a viable project worthy of our striving. The politics of today is uninterested in the future. The vision is not functional, the concept unwanted.

References

  1. Platon, The Republic (Politeja), Book I, translation by Benjamin Jowett.
  2. Chiicago Report
  3. Mrduljaš, M., Kulić, V. (2012) Unfinished Modernisations: Between Utopia and Pragmatism, Udruženje hrvatskih arhitekata, Zagreb.

open-access article

Hren, M. (2017). Openness of Public Buildings in the Context of the Modern State, ab arhitektov bilten, 211-212/XLVII pdf