Advertisement

Transforming a Totalitarian Edifice: Artistic and Ethnographic Engagements with the House of the People in Bucharest

  • Ger Duijzings
Chapter
Part of the Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe book series (MOMEIDSEE)

Abstract

Bucharest’s House of the People, renamed Parliament Palace after the end of socialism, is one of the largest edifices ever built. Erected during the 1980s and finished in the post-socialist period, it has been described as one of the most radical and violent interventions into the fabric of a city in history. Socialist urban forms and landscapes provide some of the best examples of the symbiotic relationship between power and architecture, even though now they form just the remnants, the tangible and visible legacies, of a rejected totalitarian past. This chapter looks at people’s social exchanges related to and memories, images, and daily use of the material setting. The reflective nostalgia caused by the demolitions of homes and neighbourhoods has been silenced and overwritten by a politically hegemonic restorative nostalgia that defines the building as a great national achievement of the Romanian people.

References

  1. Avanu, G. 2011. The Parliament Palace. Bucureşti: Age.Google Scholar
  2. Balaci, R., and M. Radu. 2007. Geta Brătescu / Ion Grigorescu: Resources. Works from the Collection of MNAC. Bucureşti: MNAC.Google Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boym, S. 2001. The Future of Nostalgia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  5. Buchli, V. 1999. An Archaeology of Socialism. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  6. Cavalcanti, M. de B.U. 1997. Urban Reconstruction and Autocratic Regimes: Ceauşescu’s Bucharest in Its Historic Context. Planning Perspectives 12: 71–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Certeau, M. de. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cios, I. 2008. Artă Comunitară—Surse şi Resurse / Community Art—Sources and Resources. In Ofensiva Generozităţii 2006–2008 / Generosity Offensive Initiative 2006–2008, ed. M. Draghici and I. Gâdiuţă. Bucureşti: Editura Vellant.Google Scholar
  9. Dan, C. 2010. Emotional Architecture: The Beginnings. In Cities Methodologies Bucharest, ed. G. Duijzings, S. Dumitriu, and A. Király. Bucureşti: Editura UNARTE.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2011. Emotional Architecture 3. Bucharest: MNAC.Google Scholar
  11. Danta, D. 1993. Ceauşescu’s Bucharest. Geographical Review 83 (2): 170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Draghici, M., and I. Gâdiuţă, eds. 2008. Ofensiva Generozităţii 2006–2008 / Generosity Offensive Initiative 2006–2008. Bucureşti: Editura Vellant.Google Scholar
  13. Erić, Z. 2015. Reflections on the East-West Avenue of ‘Draculand’. In subREAL, ed. M. Radu. Wien: Verlag für moderne Kunst.Google Scholar
  14. Georgescu, D. 2010. ‘Ceauşescu Hasn’t Died’: Irony as Countermemory in Post-Socialist Romania. In Post-Communist Nostalgia, ed. M. Todorova and Z. Gille. New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  15. Ghenciulescu, Ş. 2011. The House of the People and Matchboxes for People to Live In. Socialist Architecture in Romania After 1989: Perceptions, Transformations, Continuities. Colloquia: Journal of Central European History 18: 150–161.Google Scholar
  16. Ghiu, B., and M.R. Bojan, eds. 2011. Performing History (Romanian Pavilion at the 54th International Art Exhibition—la Biennale di Venezia 2011). Special Issue of IDEA Arts and Society 38.Google Scholar
  17. Graham, S. 2010. Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  18. Granqvist, R. 1999. Revolution’s Urban Landscape: Bucharest Culture and Postcommunist Change. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  19. Hatherley, O. 2015. Landscapes of Communism: A History Through Buildings. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  20. Herzfeld, M. 2006. Spatial Cleansing: Monumental Vacuity and the Idea of the West. Journal of Material Culture 11 (1–2): 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jencks, C. 2005. The Iconic Building: The Power of Enigma. London: Frances Lincoln.Google Scholar
  22. Király, A., ed. 2006. Fotografia în Arta Contemporană: Tendinţe în România, După 1989 / Photography in Contemporary Art: Trends in Romania, After 1989. Bucureşti: Editura UNARTE.Google Scholar
  23. Király, I., and A. Oroveanu. 2009. Reconstructions. Bucureşti: Editura UNARTE.Google Scholar
  24. Lawrence, D.L., and S.M. Low. 1990. The Built Environment and Spatial Form. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 453–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lazea, A. 2013. Urban Landmarks Between Memory and Uses: The People’s House in Bucharest. In The Everyday of Memory: Between Communism and Post-Communism, ed. M. Rabikowska. Oxford: Lang.Google Scholar
  26. Low, S.M. 2009. Towards an Anthropological Theory of Space and Place. Semiotica 175 (1/4): 21–37.Google Scholar
  27. Marinescu, I., and R. Fearns. 2006. Off the Map: In Bucharest. Documentary film (24 min.).Google Scholar
  28. MNAC. 2004. Muzeul Naţional de Artă Contemporană / The National Museum of Contemporary Art. Catalogue of the MNAC Opening Exhibition, Coordinated by Ruxandra Balaci and Raluca Velisar. Bucharest: MNAC.Google Scholar
  29. Müller, D. 2007. Strategien des öffentlichen Erinnerns in Rumänien nach 1989: Postkommunisten und postkommunistische Antikommunisten. In Zwischen Amnesie und Nostalgie. Die Erinnerung an den Kommunismus in Südosteuropa, ed. U. Brunnbauer and S. Troebst. Köln: Böhlau Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Murawski, M. 2011a. Inappropriate Object: Warsaw and the Stalin-Era Palace of Culture After the Smolensk Disaster. Anthropology Today 27 (4): 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ———. 2011b. From Iconicity to Dominationality: The Palace of Culture and Science and Contemporary Warsaw. Informationen zur modernen Stadtgeschichte 2: 56–68.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 2013. Palaceology, or Palace-as-Methodology: Ethnographic Conceptualism, Total Urbanism, and a Stalinist Skyscraper in Warsaw. Laboratorium 5 (2): 56–83.Google Scholar
  33. O’Neill, B. 2009. The Political Agency of Cityscapes: Spatializing Governance in Ceauşescu’s Bucharest. Journal of Social Archeology 9 (1): 92–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pandele, A. 2009. The House of the People. The End, in Marble. Bucureşti: Compania.Google Scholar
  35. Petrescu, D. 1999. The People’s House, or the Voluptuous Violence of an Architectural Paradox. In Architecture and Revolution: Contemporary Perspectives on Central and Eastern Europe, ed. N. Leach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Popa, I. 2012. Robi pe Uranus. Cum am construit Casa Poporului. Bucureşti: Humanitas.Google Scholar
  37. Popescu-Sandu, O. 2010. ‘Let’s All Freeze Up Until 2100 or So’: Nostalgic Directions in Post-Communist Romania. In Post-Communist Nostalgia, ed. M. Todorova and Z. Gille. New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  38. Popovici, V. 2012. Invitation to War: The Dangers of Post-Voina (Sketch for a Political Art Practice). Paper Presented at the Anarchist Studies Conference, Loughborough (UK), September 3–5.Google Scholar
  39. Rabinow, P. 2003. Ordonnance, Discipline, Regulation: Some Reflections on Urbanism. In The Anthropology of Space and Place: Locating Culture, ed. S. Low and D. Lawrence-Zúñiga. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Radu, M., ed. 2015. subREAL. Wien: Verlag für moderne Kunst.Google Scholar
  41. Salecl, R. 1999. The State as a Work of Art. The Trauma of Ceauşescu’s Disneyland. In Architecture and Revolution: Contemporary Perspectives on Central and Eastern Europe, ed. N. Leach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Şerban, A., ed. 2013. Ion Grigorescu: Omul cu o Singură Camera / The Man with a Single Camera. Berlin: Sternberg Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sierra, S., and M. Mircan. 2006. Santiago Sierra. Catalogue, volume 1: Casa del Pueblo Bucarest / House of the People Bucharest. Málaga: Centro de Arte Contemporáneo de Málaga.Google Scholar
  44. Spieker, S. 2015. subREAL During the ‘90s: Ironic Monuments, Tainted Blood, and Vampiric Realism in a Time of Transition. In subREAL, ed. M. Radu. Wien: Verlag für moderne Kunst.Google Scholar
  45. Ssorin-Chaikov, N. 2013. Ethnographic Conceptualism: An Introduction. Laboratorium 5 (2): 5–18.Google Scholar
  46. Stiles, K. 2010. Remembrance, Resistance, Reconstruction: The Social Value of Lia and Dan Perjovschi’s Art. In The Renaming Machine: The Book, ed. S. Milevska. Ljubljana: Zavod PARASITE.Google Scholar
  47. Sudjic, D. 2005. The Edifice Complex: How the Rich and Powerful Shape the World. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  48. Todorova, M. 2010. From Utopia to Propaganda and Back. In Post-Communist Nostalgia, ed. M. Todorova and Z. Gille. New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  49. Wagenaar, C., ed. 2004. Happy Cities and Public Happiness in Post-War Europe. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Wagenaar, C., and M. Dings. 2004. Ideals in Concrete: Exploring Central and Eastern Europe. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. Yampolsky, M. 1995. In the Shadow of Monuments: Notes on Iconoclasm and Time. In Soviet Hieroglyphics: Visual Culture in the Late Twentieth-Century Russia, ed. N. Condee. London: BFI Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ger Duijzings
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für GeschichteUniversität RegensburgD-93047 RegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations