Alić Dijana (2010) - Transformation of the oriental in the Architectural Work of Juraj Neidhardt and Dušan Grabrijan

TransformationsoftheOrientalintheArchitecturalWorkofJurajNeidhardtand

DušanGrabrijan

AThesis

SubmittedtotheUniversityofNewSouthWales

FortheDegreeof

DOCTOROFPHILOSOPHY

By

DijanaAli

FacultyoftheBuiltEnvironment

TheUniversityofNewSouthWales

Sydney,Australia,

2010

Inmemoryofmyparents,NadijaandTeofikAli

Contents

TRANSFORMATIONSOFTHEORIENTALINTHEARCHITECTURALWORKOFJURAJNEIDHARDTANDDUŠANGRABRIJAN.....................................................................I

Abstract..........................................................................................................................................i

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................iii

ListofFigures................................................................................................................................v

ListofPublications........................................................................................................................ix

Glossaryofterms..........................................................................................................................xi

Chapter1Introduction:ArchitectureandIdeologyintheWorkofDušanGrabrijanandJurajNeidhardt....................................................................................................................................13

Thescopeofthethesis:thewritingsofGrabrijanandNeidhardt..................................................15Scopeoftheargument:theroleofarchitectureincreatinganationalidentity............................17Thesiscontribution:architecture,identityandpoliticsofculture.................................................19Theoreticalframework:overlappingfieldsofarchitecture,identity,cultureandpoliticsofYugoslavia.....................................................................................................................................23Thesisoutline:thedevelopmentoftheargument.........................................................................29

PARTONE:DEVELOPINGATHEORETICALFRAMEWORK......................................35

Chapter2TheKunstwollenofBosnia..........................................................................................37‘Nottofindanew,buttoshowitanew’:Plenik’sarchitectureandteaching..............................38IdentifyingthesignificanceofBašaršija.......................................................................................52Historicyes,butnotsignificant:theproblemsofIslamicheritage.................................................54TheoriginsandtransformationsofBašaršija,fromthetowncentretothehistoricprecinct.......58TheAustro–Hungariantransformations:fromtowncentretohistoricprecinct............................66Thesearchfortherelevanceofhistoricfabric...............................................................................74Themodernityofpast:‘LeCorbusierandSarajevo’......................................................................79Theauthenticityofpast:‘Turkishhouse,itssourcesandprinciples’.............................................84Conclusion:roleofarchitectureinestablishingnationalclaims....................................................88

Chapter3Bašaršija’sContributiontotheNewMasterPlanofSarajevo:theIslamicasOriental.91Anurbanvisionofamoderncity:‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’.......................................................92Theoldprecinctandthenewcity...............................................................................................100SearchingforOrientalsecrets.....................................................................................................102TheimpactofLeCorbusier’sviews.............................................................................................111Bašaršija:‘surgeryormedication’..............................................................................................115Thenewsatelliteminingtowns...................................................................................................119Individualhouses:modernhouseswithOrientalparts................................................................125Conclusion:TheOrientoftheoldtownandthemodernityofnewsuburbs................................131

Chapter4BosnianOrientalasanArchitecturalExpressionofSocialistIdeology........................135TheYugoslavcommunistartisticagendaandaresistancetotheparticular................................137Thechangingpoliticalcontext:Tito–Stalinconflict......................................................................145Tito’ssearchfor‘our’architecture..............................................................................................147

ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity:a‘syntheticintegrationoftheoldexperiencesandnewsocialistneeds’.........................................................................................149Redefiningthegroundsuponwhichanationisconstructed.......................................................155ThequalitiesembeddedinBosnianOriental...............................................................................172ContributionofBosnianOrientaltoYugoslavia...........................................................................175Conclusion:ArchitectureisacarrierofthepoliticalmessageofmulticulturalBosnia.................182

PARTTWO:APPLICATION..................................................................................185

Chapter5TransformingtheTheoreticalintoanArchitecturalAgenda:theMahalaandaršijaasArchitecturalPrototypesofBosnianModernExpression............................................................187

TransformingBašaršija:anewapproachtothestudyofaršijaandmahala............................187Thevaluesofmonuments:abstraction,lightandscale...............................................................194Thevaluesofthetraditionalhouse(Bosanskakua)..................................................................200ThepragmaticsofBosanskakua:thesecularvaluesandrationalgroundingofthetraditionalhouse..........................................................................................................................................202Transformingreligiousintosecularvalues..................................................................................207TheemotionalvaluesattachedtoBosanskakua.......................................................................211Thedictionary:integratingthepragmaticsandpoetics..............................................................212Conclusion:theuniversalandtheparticularoftheBosnianOrientalhouse...............................217

Chapter6TransformingtheCity:theNewaršijaastheThemeParkofSocialismandtheDesignoftheParliamentHousePrecinct...............................................................................................219

Bašaršijaandsocialisturbanpolices..........................................................................................220PastandpresentreunitedintheNewaršijaproject:athemeparkofsocialistBosnia.............224Marindvorprecinctandthedesignofsocialistmodernism.........................................................241Historicalcontinuityandprogressivedevelopmentofculture....................................................244ThebuildingoftheNationalAssembly........................................................................................247Postscript:Bašaršijaasacentreofcollectiveidentity...............................................................250

Chapter7DiscussionandConclusions.......................................................................................255Overviewandconclusions..........................................................................................................255Contribution:changingformationsofidentity............................................................................259Contemporaryandfuturerelevance:wardestructionandthemeaningsofarchitecture...........262

Bibliography..............................................................................................................................269Booksandarticles.......................................................................................................................269SelectedbibliographyofGrabrijan’spublications:......................................................................282Websites....................................................................................................................................288

i

Abstract

This thesis explores the correlation between architectural expression and political

ideology in the work of two prominent post–World War Two Yugoslav architects,

DušanGrabrijanandJurajNeidhardt.Itfocusesontheircollaborativearchitectural

writings,namely ‘Sarajevoand ItsSatellites’ (1942),publishedduringtheproNazi

governmentoftheIndependentStateofCroatia,andArchitectureofBosniaandthe

WayTowardsModernity (1957),producedatthepeakofYugoslavsocialism.Both

publications explored the relevance of the Ottoman/Islamic built heritage to the

creationofamoderncitybutonlyinthelatterdidtheauthorsidentifythislegacyas

asuitablecatalystforthecreationofaBosnianmodernarchitecturalexpression.

This change in position, the thesis argues, developed in relation to the 1950s

nationalistdiscourseinYugoslaviaand,morespecifically,thesocialistledvalidation

oftheBosnianMuslimcommunitythroughthelatter’sofficialrepresentationfrom

areligioustoanationalgroup.GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sconceptionoftheBosnian

Oriental expression as a ‘synthesis of old experiences and new ways’, similarly

offered to resolve the longstanding problematic relationship between the

architecture of Ottoman origin and an architecture deemed appropriate for a

socialistsociety.

ii

Architectural historians of Yugoslav modernism have recognised Grabrijan and

Neidhardt’s contribution to modernity and praised their capacity to connect

Yugoslav modernism with the international agenda. However, the specifics of

Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s vision and the ideological connotations embedded in it

havenotbeenacknowledged.This thesisaddresses thatomissionandshows that

while there had been earlier attempts to integrate the Bosnian Islamic past into

architecturaldebates,GrabrijanandNeidhardt’smodelofBosnianOrientaloffered

aplacefortheOttomanfabricwithinthenewsocialistarchitecturalaspirations.The

thesis foregrounds the important role that architecture plays in the process of

construction,aswellasdestruction,ofnationalidentities.

iii

Acknowledgements

I began writing this thesis many years ago. The process has been as much an

investigationofmyownidentityasanacademicresearchproject.Itwasprompted

by the outbreak of war in the lands of the former Yugoslavia. The losses of war

initiated a search for understanding what was happening back home and the

reasonsforthis,iftherecouldeverbeanyreasonsforawar.Ittookmanyyearsof

thinkingforthisthesistobefinallyproduced.IdonotbelieveIhavefoundanswers,

but I feel that Ihaveexplored the relevantpaths. In theprocess I learntasmuch

aboutidentityasabouttheimpossiblemissionofdefiningit.

Indevelopingthisthesis Ihavereceivedhelpfrommanyscholarsandfriends.The

depthofmygratitudetoallthose isgreaterthanIcanacknowledge.Butwithmy

sincerestapologiesforanyunintendedomissionsIwouldliketothankthefollowing

peopleand institutions:mysupervisors,Dr.PeterKohaneandProfessor JonLang,

whoprovidedinspirationandguidance.ManyofmycolleaguesintheFacultyofthe

Built Environment, who gave support and encouragements, namely Dr. Judith

O’Callaghanforherconstructivesuggestions,MaryamGushehandJohnGamblefor

theirsustainedinterestinmywork;GrahamHannahfortechnicalsupport,andthe

UniversityofNewSouthWalesforprovidingthePhDCompletionScholarshipthat

allowed for some focused research time. I would also like to acknowledge the

encouragements and assistance provided by Professor Zeynep Çelik in her

iv

constructivecriticismat theearlystagesofmywork;AndrasRiedlmayer fromthe

AgaKhanProgramforIslamicArchitectureatHarvardUniversity;Dr.PeterKreiat

The Architectural Museum in Ljubljana; Dženana Gološ and staff at the Gradski

Zavod za Zaštitu I Ureenje Spomenika Kulture Sarajevo, and Istorijski Arhiv

Sarajeva, Dr. Jelica Kapetanovi at the Faculty of Architecture, University of

Sarajevo,andmanyothers.IwouldalsoliketothankDr.DeborahvanderPlaatfor

hercarefulreadingofapreviousversionofthis textandDr.SenkaBožiVrbani

forlivelyconversationsaboutYugoslavpolitics.IwanttothankmybrotherDr.Nazif

Ali for his trust in me and my aunt Jasmina Musabegovi for searching for

documents inSarajevo libraries. Iwrote this thesis in the time leftover from full

timeteachingandparenting.Mygratitudegoestomyfamily,whosupportedmein

workinglateandatnight.MyloveandheartfeltthanksgotoBranimiruriandmy

daughters,ElaandIna,foreverythingtheyhavedoneforme,butmostofallforjust

beingthere.

v

ListofFigures

Figure1:TerritorialdivisionoftheKingdomofYugoslavia19181921.Source:Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,p.113....................................................................................................................................40Figure2:Illyrianmonument,J.Plenik,Ljubljana.Source:D.Ali,2004.............................................49Figure3:Contemporaryviewof theexteriorof thecoveredmarketplaceofBrusaBezistan.Source:DijanaAli,2004................................................................................................................................61Figure4:aršijawithitssurroundingsattheendof19thcentury,Neidhardt’smapdevelopedonthebase of late 19th century Austro Hungarian map. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.59..................................................................................65Figure5:ContemporaryviewofVijenica.Source:DijanaAli,2004..................................................72Figure6:ContemporaryviewofBašaršijasquarewithsebilj.Source:DijanaAli,2004....................73Figure7:‘SchematicrepresentationofthenewsuburbsofthemiddleBosnianminingbasin’.Mapofsatellitetownsincludedintheproposal:(1)oldandnewSarajevo;(2)Ilidža;(3)Breza;(4)Riica;(5)Riica; (6)VarešMajdan; (7)Zenica.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt, ‘Sarajevoand ItsSatellites’,p.272.....................................................................................................................................................97Figure 8: ‘East–west artery’, an urban vision for Sarajevo presented in its relation to significantlocations (from top to bottom of the drawing) that include: city gate at Bijela Tabija; bazaar ofBašaršija; King Tvrtko urban square; Stjepan Tomaševi urban square, intersection in front of AliPasha’sMosque,MarijinDvor andNewRailway Station. Source: Grabrijan&Neidhardt, ‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.239....................................................................................................................99Figure 9: Drawings illustrating the organic unity of terrain and architecture. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.225.................................................................................101Figure10:Muslimhouse,drawing.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.215..........................................................................................................................................................102Figure 11: Josip Vancaš: houses designed in ‘Bosnian style’. Source: I. Krzovi, Arhitektura Bosne iHercegovine,1878–1918,pp.232&235..........................................................................................104Figure 12: The Orient as inspiration. Face cover and veil, (zar and vala). Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoanditsSatellites’,pp.212&213.....................................................................107Figure 13: Medina mosque. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, p. 210.[ImagerepublishedinArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity].............................109Figure14:Sketchofanarabesque.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212..........................................................................................................................................................111Figure 15: Design proposal for urban regulation of Bašaršija. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212...................................................................................................118Figure16:Mapofsatellitetownsincludedintheproposal.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoanditsSatellites’,p.274..................................................................................................................121Figure17:UrbandevelopmentofLjubija,withanewlydesignedchurchlocatedinthecentreoftown.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.280.................................................125Figure18:Neidhardt’sdevelopmentofthe‘elemental’architecturalvocabularyofBosnia.Singlemanhousing project for Zenica. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and the WayTowardsModernity,alsopublishedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.317.......................................127Figure 19: Single man housing project for Zenica. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,alsopublishedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.292.......128Figure 20: Singlemen’s housing project for Zenica. Source: Grabrijan&Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,alsopublishedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.292.......129Figure 21: Singlemen’s housing project for Zenica. Source: Grabrijan&Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,alsopublishedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.287.......130

vi

Figure 22: Territorial divisions of the former Yugoslavia, 19451991. Source: Lampe, Yugoslavia asHistory,p.231.................................................................................................................................136Figure23: StagedesignedbyNeidhardt for Tito’s visit to Sarajevo. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.321.....................................................141Figure24: ‘Peoplebuild, statehelps’posterdesignedbyNeidhardt.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.320.....................................................141Figure25:Structureofthebookasrepresentedasatree.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.4.............................................................................152Figure 26: Drawing of a panorama of Sarajevo, showing an harmonious connection between theterrain and the city. Source: Grabrijan&Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and theWay TowardsModernity,p.5................................................................................................................................153Figure27:Sketchshowing theMecca–Sarajevo link.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.60...............................................................................163Figure28:Drawingofsojenicastructures.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.4....................................................................................................165Figure29:SteakfromRadimlje,Bosnia.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.19..................................................................................................167Figure 30: Neidhardt’s sketch of steak, a medieval tombstone. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.18.......................................................168Figure31:Neidhardt’s sketchof steakornamentsanddecoration. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.18.......................................................169Figure 32: Illustration titled ‘From old to new pyramid 5 millenniums’. Source: Kapetanovi, ‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’;p.464..................................................................................173Figure33:Bosniaasaplaceofnegotiations,‘Urbanandarchitecturalanalysis’.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.322....................................174Figure34:Mosque,churchandthemonumenttoLenin.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.238.........................................................................175Figure35:HouseonthemountainofTrebevi(1947).Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.279.............................................................................177Figure36:Tourismandrecreationzones.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.484................................................................................................181Figure 37: Map highlighting important architectural sites. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.442.....................................................182Figure38:Divisionofprecinctbasedoncrafts.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.64...........................................................................................190Figure39:Divisionofprecinctbasedoncrafts.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.65...........................................................................................192Figure 40: ‘Store beside store, handicraft beside handicraft’. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.66.......................................................193Figure41:Bašaršijaasaproductionline.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.66..................................................................................................194Figure42:Monumentsandsignificantstructuresoftheoldprecinct.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.61.......................................................195Figure43:Beg’sMosque,crosssectionandaxonometric.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.83...........................................................................196Figure44:A.Choisy,HagiaSophia,fromHistoried’Architecture(1899);reprintedinA.Forty,WordsandBuildings,AVocabularyofModernArchitecture,Thames&Hudson,London,2004,p.23........197Figure45:Lighting inBeg’smosque.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.87........................................................................................................198Figure46:‘Mihrab,pulpit,carpet’,abstractingthespace.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.284.........................................................................199Figure47:Neidhardt’sproposalfortemporaryshelters,1945.Source:Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.269.......................................................................................................201Figure 48: Embryonic development of an old house in Sarajevo. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.166.....................................................203

vii

Figure49:Furnishingsandutensilsofatraditionalhouse.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.204–05..................................................................204Figure 50: Neidhardt’s drawing of Svrzo’s house; layout and cross section. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.183....................................206Figure51:InnercourtyardandaroominSvrzo’shouse(Svrzinakua),openedtothepublicin1953.Source: Muzej Grada Sarajeva, Stambena Kultura Starog Sarajeva, DES, Sarajevo.http://www.muzejsarajeva.ba/content/view/37/52/lang,en/.........................................................207Figure 52: Abdesthana and banjica space in Svrzo’s house. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.138......................................................208Figure 53: ‘Modernity of the traditional house’s interior’, erzelez house. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.208....................................209Figure54:Modernityofthetraditionalhome:crossventilationandaninteriorofamutvak(women’skitchen)oftheDjerdjelesfamilyhouse.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.208......................................................................................................210Figure55:Thecity,aršija,mahala,house,24sketches.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.56–57....................................................................213Figure 56: Neidhardt’s ‘Uptodate architectonic dictionary alphabet of the carpettown’. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.324.................215Figure 57: Neidhardt’s illustration of a traditional interior. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.230......................................................217Figure 58: Bašaršija precinct during the socialist period. Plan indicating the chronologicaldevelopmentoftheprecinct:A)GaziHusrefBeg’smosque;B)Orthodoxchurch;C)Jewishsynagogue;D)Brusabezistan;E)RustempashaBezistan;F)Czar’smosque;G)TownHall.OriginallypresentedinJSAH,vol.51,no.1,March1991,drawingadjustedfromthemapusedinA.Bejti,StaraSarajevskaaršija–juer,danasIsutra............................................................................................................220Figure59:ModelofBašaršija.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.98................................................................................................................224Figure60:ViewoftheBašaršijaproposal.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.139................................................................................................226Figure61:TheNewaršijaproposal:viewofnewartistsstudiosabovetheOldOrthodoxchurch(topandbottomleft);proposedchangeofGaziHusrefBeg’sbezistanintoabar(topright);aninteriorofthenewTownMuseumtobehousedintheformerSheriat(MuslimLaw)School.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.114....................................229Figure62:InteriorviewoftheproposedadaptationofBrusabezistan.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.56–57................................................229Figure63:ProposalfortheNewMuseumofRevolutionwithintheoldGaziHusrefBeg’sbezistanthatwouldincludeartcelebrating‘Liberationwar’.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.126.........................................................................................230Figure64:TheproposedgatetotheBašaršijaprecinct.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.109..........................................................................231Figure65:ProposedBogumilgravestonesintheprecinct.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.113..........................................................................232Figure66:Interiorsofproposedrestaurant‘Aeroplane’.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.294..........................................................................235Figure 67: Longitudinal section through the new Bašaršija. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.120–21..............................................236Figure68: Planof theNewaršijaproposal:A)GaziHusrefBeg’smosque;B)Orthodox church; C)Jewish synagogue;D) Catholic church of St Anthony; E) newgraveyard; F) Czar’smosque;G) newpublic/culturalbuildings;H)newresidentialareaforculturalworkers.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.117......................................................238Figure 69: Proposal for theAcademyofArts and Sciences of the People’s Republic of BiH. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.113.................239Figure 70: Collection of architectural ‘elements’ includes steak; traditional house and mosques’domes.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,p.416...................................................................................................................................................240

http://www.muzejsarajeva.ba/content/view/37/52/lang

viii

Figure 71: Images of New aršija, photomontage. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.120&121.................................................................241Figure 72: Masterplan view of the new Marindvor proposal. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.414.....................................................243Figure73:ThemapofMarindvorprecinctandSarajevo,drawnbyNeidhardt. ‘Dwellingcomplex inYugoslavArmyStreet(196647).First[example]inthehistoryofSarajevo[where]theprincipleofaspaciousmeanderstreet isapplied’.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,p.408......................................................................................................243Figure74:Source:‘Graphicanalysisoftheelementsoftheurbansolution’describedthroughuseofkeywords (from top) ‘zone’; ‘zigzag space’; ‘visual markers of heights’; ‘space’; ‘views’, ‘traffic’;‘historic precinct’; ‘continuity’; ‘pedestrian zones’ and patterns’; ‘squares’ and ‘city as a carpet’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.415................245Figure75:Fromtop:urbansolutionforMarindvorprecinct.Bird’seyeviewof‘Manifestationsquare’and theparliamentHousebuilding. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,pp.410&413.........................................................................................246Figure 76: ’Elements’ of the new National Assembly buildings: tower, atrium, shells, balcony andveranda.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.417..................................................................................................................................................247Figure 77: Design for the National Assembly of Bosnia and Hercegovina. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.417....................................247Figure78:PeopleviewingtheParliamentHousebuilding.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.410.........................................................................249Figure79:Sarajevo,apostcard,publishedby‘Svjetlost’..................................................................252Figure80: TheParliamentofBosniaandHercegovinaburnsafter beinghit by tank fire during thesiegein1992.Source:MikhailEvstafiev(photographer),Wikipedia................................................264Figure81:RubbleinVijenica,formerTownHallandNationalandUniversityLibrarybuilding.Source:D.Ali..............................................................................................................................................267

ix

ListofPublications

Ali, D., ‘Saraybosna Belediye Binas: Bellein Yer ve Ortamlar’,in C.Bilsel,A.Ciravolu,N.Dostolu,A.E.Bulca,D.nceday,H.Kahveciolu,E.Madran,S.Özalolu,T.S.Tamat,G.Tümer,H.T.Yldz(eds.),MimarlklarnPazaryeri,XXII.DünyaMimarlkKongresi'ndenSeçmeBildiriler;TMMOBMimarlarOdas (ChamberofArchitectsofTurkey),Ankara,January2009,pp.6377.Ali,D.,‘Theroleofrationalandscientificargumentsinthepromotionofideologythrough architecture’, F. G. Leman, A. J. Ostwald, A Williams (eds.) Innovation,InspirationandInstruction:NewKnowledgeinArchitecturalSciences,Proceedingsofthe 42nd Annual Conference on the Australian and New Zealand ArchitecturalScience Association (ANZASca), Newcastle, Australia, 2628 November 2008, pp.161168.

Ali, D., ‘Political secularisation and architectural abstraction: the dialectics of thenewsocialistarchitecture’,PanoramatoParadise,XXIVthConferenceoftheSocietyof Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand, Adelaide, Australia, 2124September2007,pp.113.

Ali, D., ‘Following the traces: the role of historical studies in the architecturaldesignstudio’,inConnectED2007InternationalConferenceonDesignEducation,9–12July2007,UniversityofNewSouthWales,Sydney,Australia,papercode61.

Ali, D., ‘Dare to be Similar: The transformable house’, Architect Victoria, OfficialJournal of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects Victorian Chapter Print,Autumn2007,pp.45.

Ali, D., ‘Marindvor precinct and the design of the socialist Modernism’, in T.McMinn, J. Stephens, S. Basson (eds.),ContestedTerrains,TheProceedingsof theTwentythird Annual Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians ofAustraliaandNewZealand,NotreDameUniversity,Fremantle,WesternAustralia,29thSeptember2October2006,pp.914.

Ali,D., ‘DaretobeSimilar:TheTransformablehouse’, inS.Whibley&D.Ramirez(eds.), Rehousing, UAL International conference proceedings, Urban ArchitectureLaboratory,RMIT,MelbourneAustralia,58October2006,pp.4655.

Ali, D., ‘Ascribing significance to sites of memory, the Sarajevo’s town hall’, in P.Somma(ed.),AtWarWiththeCity,UrbanInternationalPress,Gateshead,2004,pp.65–86.

x

Ali,D., ‘Whatdoesplacemeantome,everything’,InterviewwithGlennMurcutt,ORISMagazineofarchitectureandculture,vol.5,no.25,Zagreb,Croatia,pp.433.

Ali,D.,‘Grabrijan,RieglandtheproblemofStyle’,Progress,TheProceedingsoftheTwentieth Annual Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians, AustraliaandNewZealand,Sydney,25October,2003,pp.15.Ali, D. & Bertram, C., ‘Sarajevo: a moving target’, Centropa, Journal of CentralEuropeanArchitectureandRelatedArts,vol.2,no.3,September2002,pp.164176.

Ali,D., ‘SiteofMemoryandHistory:SarajevoTownHall (Vijecnica)’, inS.Akkach(ed.), DePlacing Differences, Architecture, Culture and Imaginative Geography,CAMEA, 3rd Symposium, Centre for Asian and Middle Eastern Architecture, TheUniversityofAdelaide,Australia,2002,pp.191201.

Ali, D., ‘Transposed meanings: The Town Hall in Sarajevo’, Open HouseInternational,War&Cities,vol.27,no.4,2002,pp.2031.

AliD.&GushehM., ‘Reconcilingcompetingnationalnarratives inSocialistBosniaandHerzegovina:TheBašaršijaProject (194853)’, JSAH,Journalof theSocietyofArchitecturalHistorians,vol.58,no.1,March,1999,pp.625.

Ali, D., 'From Ottoman house to Bosnian style: Neidhardt’s design for workers’housing in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1939 to 1942)’, InSite, An electronic journalpublished by Graduate Students at the Faculty of the Built Environment, no. 1,March1999.

Ali,D.,‘Changingperspectivesofarchitecturalvernacular:GrabrijanandSarajevo’,inR.Blythe,R.Spence(eds.)Thresholds.PapersoftheSixteenthAnnualConferenceof the SocietyofArchitecturalHistorians,AustraliaandNewZealand, Launceston,September1999,pp.17.

Ali,D.,‘Sarajevoandthemakingofmonuments(19451992)’,inM.Ghandour,M.Labban, M. Lozanovska (eds.), Sites of Recovery, The Fourth 'Other Connections'Conference,Beirut,Lebanon,October,1999,pp.1118.

Ali,D.,‘Inthesearchofstabilisingarchitecturalprinciples:fromtheBosnianhousetoBosnianstyle’, in J.Willis,P.Goad,A.Hutson (eds.)FIRM(ness) commodityDelight?: questioning the canons, The Proceedings of the Annual Conference of theSociety of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne,Australia,September1998,pp.914.

xi

Glossaryofterms

AbdesthanathespatialalcovethattraditionallyfacilitatedtheMuslimpracticeofablutionAvlijacourtyardBasamcistairsBegBosnianspellingofthetitlebeyorchieftainBezistancoveredbazaarforvaluablegoodsaršijabusinessdistricteifmoodortemperamentalbehaviourDivanhanaawide,semienclosedentryspaceintheBosniantraditionalhouseEsnaftheprofessionalandeconomicorganisationoftheguildsEyâletgovernorategeneralHajatanteroomHalvatroomHamampublicbathHanhotelHanikahhostelwithaschoolforyoungdervishesImaretkitchenforthepoorKaravansarajinnfortravellersandmerchantsKasabasmalltownKuahouseKunstwollenanartisticexpressionembodyingthespiritofthecollectiveKutubhanalibraryMahalaneighbourhood,residentialquarterMedresareligiousschoolMektebelementaryIslamicschoolMerakafeelingofirrationalandleisurelyjoyandpleasureMihrabqiblawallMillets system of selfgoverning religious communities under the OttomangovernmentMimberpulpitMuafnamaadocumentprovidingthecitywithexemptionsfromtaxesMusafirhanainnforpoorpeopleMušepcilatticeworkPašalukOttomanadministrativeunitŠadrvanwaterfountainSahatkulatheclocktowerSandžakcommonlytranslatedas‘province’ŠehertownSejjididescendantsoftheProphet

xii

Steak (plural steci) the gravestones generally accepted as common in preOttomanandearlyOttomantimesinBosniaTašlihansmallinnTeferipicniclikegatheringscommonlyheldbytheMuslimsTekija,zawiya–alodgeofadervishorderTurbemausoleum,tombofthefounderandhisfamilyVakfijaendowmentdeedVakufIslamicpiousendowment

Chapter1Introduction:ArchitectureandIdeologyintheWorkofDušanGrabrijanandJurajNeidhardt

The deliberate destruction of the cultural and built heritage in Bosnia and

Hercegovinaduringthe1992–96waractsasapowerfulreminderofthepotencyof

architecturetocarryapoliticalmessage.Architecture’scapacitytoembodycultural

andpoliticalassociations,evenwhenreducedto rubble,wasdescribedbyAndras

Riedlmayer, expert witness to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in

Europe. Referring to the destroyed National and University Library (former Town

Hall) inSarajevo,hestated, ‘RubbleinBosniaandHerzegovinasignifiesnationalist

extremistshardatworktoeliminatenotonlyhumanbeingsandlivingcitiesbutalso

thememoryofthepast’.1

Thisthesisexploresthecorrelationsbetweenarchitecturalexpressionandpolitical

ideology. Specifically, it investigates the role architecture played in the identity

formation of post–World War Two Yugoslavia, focusing on two architects, whose

writings and designs are considered to embody the collective Bosnian identity of

thesocialistperiod:DušanGrabrijan (1899–1952)and JurajNeidhardt (1901–79).2

1 A. Riedlmayer, ‘Killing memory: the targeting of libraries and archives in Bosnia Herzegovina’,testimonypresentedatahearingoftheCommissiononSecurityandCooperationinEurope,4April1995, p. 51. Andras Riedlmayer was an expert witness to the International Criminal Tribunal forYugoslavia,Miloševitrial,TheHague,2003.2ThespellingofNeidhardt’s surnamevariesand iscommonlyspelledNajdhart. JelicaKapetanovicredits this to Neidhardt’s own insistence to assimilate and accept the phonetic spelling of Serbo

Chapter1

14

Their concept of Bosnian Oriental expression – based on the integration of the

spiritualvaluesembeddedinthehistoricOttomanandIslamicbuiltfabric,andthe

contemporaryandmodernaspirationsofthesocialiststate–becamerecognisedas

aspecificamalgamoflocalandinternationaltrendsinarchitecture.

Togetherandindividually,GrabrijanandNeidhardthavebeencelebratedastwoof

themostimportantpractitionersandtheoristsofpost–WorldWarTwoYugoslavia.

Their ability to ‘penetrate deep into the substance of [Islamic] architectural and

urban heritage’ is seen as central to their capacity to connect local architectural

debateswiththeEuropeanmodernagenda.3However,whiletheircontributionto

thisintegrationhasbeenacknowledged,nodiscussionhasaddressedthenatureof

the relationship expressed in their vision of the modern architecture of Bosnian

Oriental.4 My intention in this thesis is to address that absence, exploring the

interrelation between Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s architectural vision and the

ideologyofsocialism.Iaddressthequestionofhowtheyjustifiedtheincorporation

Croatianlanguage,thustransformingtheGermansoundingNeidhardtintoNajdhart(orNajdhardt).J. Kapetanovi, ‘Stvaralaštvo arhitekte Juraja Najdhardta’, (The architectural work of JurajNeidhardt), PhD thesis, University of Sarajevo, 1988, p. 11. This thesis uses the original spelling‘Neidhardt’,asusedinthecreditsofthebookD.Grabrijan&J.Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity(ArhitekturaBosneiPutuSuvremeno),LjudskaPravica,Ljubljana,1957.3In2001,intheaftermathofthe1992–96Bosnianwar,theAcademyofScienceandArtsofBosniaandHercegovinaorganisedaneventtocelebratethecentenaryofNeidhardt’sbirth.Thesignificanceofthiseventandthehighprofilesoftheorganisersandparticipantswereatestamenttoa lastingimpactofNeidhardt’sideasandworkinBosnia.ZlatkoUgljen,anarchitectandarecipientofanAgaKhanAward,inhistributestatedhisadmirationforNeidhardt’s‘sixthsense’.Inthekeynotelecture,whichopenedtheexhibition,ProfessorIbrahimKrzovidescribedtheoccasionas,‘anopportunitytoexpress reverence for the name of one of the best artists in the cultural circles of Bosnia andHerzegovina’.‘TheAcademyofScienceandArtsofBosniaandHercegovinamarkingthecentenaryofthe birth of the academic Juraj Neidhardt’, catalogue jointly produced by the Academy of ScienceandArtsofBosniaandHercegovina,andtheArchitecturalFacultyofSarajevoUniversity,Sarajevo,2001.4NumerousarchitectspraisedGrabrijanandNeidhardt’spromotionoftheIslamicheritageofBosnia,asisdiscussedinmoredetailinconclusionofthisthesis.

Chapter1

15

ofIslamicformswithintheirvisionofamodernandsocialistcity,andwhatkindof

politicalandideologicalagendainformedtheirvision.

Thescopeofthethesis:thewritingsofGrabrijanandNeidhardt

It took more than 20 years for the authors to develop their architectural and

theoreticalposition.DušanGrabrijan,originallyfromSlovenia,arrivedinSarajevoin

1929totakeupajobwithMinistryofBuilding(GraevinskaDirekcija).In1930,he

tooka teachingpositionat theSarajevo’sTechnicalSchool,wherehestayeduntil

1945.

Juraj Neidhardt’s architectural career followed a more international path. Upon

completion ofhisarchitectural studiesat theViennaAcademy in1924,Neidhardt

commenced architectural practice in Croatia. In 1930 he left Croatia for Germany

andworkedforarchitectPeterBehrens(1868–1940)between1930and1932,and

forLeCorbusierbetween1932and1936.Ontherecommendationofhislongtime

friend Grabrijan, Neidhardt took up a job with the Bosnia mining engineering

companyandjoinedGrabrijaninBosniain1939.

GrabrijanandNeidhardtcollaboratedontwomajorpublications–‘SarajevoandIts

Satellites’(Sarajevoinjegovitrabanti),publishedin1942,andArchitectureofBosnia

andtheWayTowardsModernity(ArhitekturaBosneiPutuSuvremeno),published

Chapter1

16

in1957–and it ison theseworks that Iprimarily focus. 5The firstwasproduced

duringtheearlyyearsofGermanoccupationandthesecondunderthecommunist

governmentofsocialistYugoslavia.Whereas‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’presented

theoldasaburdentomodernism,theArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowards

Modernityarguedforitscontemporaryrelevance.TheoldurbanfabricofBašaršija

thatwasinitiallypresentedasdetrimentaltoprogresswasidentifiedasthecoreof

thenewsocialistarchitecturalexpression.

Importantly, while the publications are discussed in their chronological order, my

focusisnottheprogressivedevelopmentofthearchitects’ideas.Thesepublications

represent the scope of Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s theoretical understanding, and

thisstudyarguesthatthechangeintheirurbanvisionfromthefirsttothesecond

publicationisindicativeofthedevelopmentoftheirmodernistideasaswellastheir

growingawarenessofthespecificsofBosnia’spoliticaldilemmas.

Intemporalterms,IamprimarilyconcernedwithGrabrijanandNeidhardt’surban

proposals for Sarajevo presented in the period between the late 1930s and mid

1960s.Butmydiscussionbothprecedesandextendsbeyondthisperiodbyvirtueof

referencetothehistoricaldevelopmentofSarajevo,aswellastoissuesrelatingto

thelateryearsofsocialism.Thesebriefhistoricaldigressionsservetocapturesome

ofthemostsignificantaspectsofdebatesconcerningIslamic/Orientalheritage.

5 D. Grabrijan & J. Neidhardt, ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ ’ (Sarajevo i njegovi trabanti), TehnikiVjesnik,br.7–9,Zagreb,1942;Grabrijan&J.Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity(ArhitekturaBosneiPutuSuvremeno),LjudskaPravica,Ljubljana,1957.

Chapter1

17

Scopeoftheargument:theroleofarchitectureincreatinganationalidentity

GrabrijanandNeidhardtfrequentlystatedthattheirinterestinhistoricarchitecture

was‘nottoreturntoOttomantimesorthelifeofthattime’but‘tobuilduponthe

achievementsofthepast’.6Tradition,theyargued,wastobeusedasavehiclefor

developingnewideas.Inthiscontext,Bašaršija–thehistoricprecinctofSarajevo

establishedbytheOttomans–gainedparticularsignificance.

Bosnia’s Islamic origins and the particularities of its historical development were

highly problematic during the period under review. Longstanding Serb and Croat

nationalistviews,aswellasYugoslavsecularistopinion,contestedtheirrelevance.

While approaching the subject from completely different positions, the ruling

CommunistPartyofYugoslaviaandthenationalistsalikechallengedtherelevance

of the Ottoman cultural legacy to the new socialist state of Bosnia and

Hercegovina.7 Maria Todorova argues that it is in the discussion of the Ottoman

Empire’srolethatnationalistandMarxistagendasintersected.8Inthenationalists’

case, the Ottoman Empire was perceived as an obstacle to national (organic)

development of culture. In the Marxist interpretation, the Ottoman Empire was

6Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.11.7 It is importanttonotethatthetwoforcesdidnothavethesamepowerorrepresentationinthepoliticalarenaofformerYugoslavia.SocialistYugoslaviawasaonepartypoliticalsystem,headedbytheCommunistPartyofYugoslavia.Whilethereweremanydifferentnationalists’claims,whichalsochanged over the course of socialist government, the most significant in regards to the OttomanheritageofBosniaarethoseoftheSerbianandCroatiannationalists.TheybasedtheirclaimsontheChristianoriginsofBosnia,questioningtheterritorialintegrityoftheBosnianstate.8M.Todorova,‘TheOttomanlegacyintheBalkans’,inC.Brown(ed.),ImperialLegacy,TheOttomanImprintontheBalkansandtheMiddleEast,ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork,1996,pp.45–77.

Chapter1

18

seen as essentially feudal and backward, and therefore its legacy was one that

hinderedprogressandmodernisation.9

The absence of a welldefined national identity for Bosnia provided a space for

competing narratives to emerge,10 the most significant of which are discussed in

this thesis. They are the socialist interpretation of Bosnia as a symbol of a united

Yugoslavia; the secular Bosnian Muslim, Serb and Croat articulation of a common

identity for the inhabitants of the Bosnian state; and the historical and ongoing

nationalist debates (both Serbian and Croatian) that denied collective Bosnian

identity and the existence of the very notion of ‘Bosnianness’.11 The dialectic

between the absence of any formal recognition of the Bosnian nation and the

search fora collective expression of ‘Bosnianness’ became a mode of structuring

theculturalimagination.

TheurbancoreofBašaršijabecamethesubjectofintensestudyforGrabrijanand

Neidhardt.InanattempttoovercomethelimitationsposedbyitsOttomanismand

to include this urban core in both Bosnian and Yugoslav national narratives, they

resortedtoauniqueinterpretationoftheOttomanandthemodern.Thevisionof

modern architecture presented in their writings and design work identified

architecture as a force capable of negotiating the complex relationship between

9Todorova,‘TheOttomanlegacyintheBalkans’,pp.45–77.10 In articulating certain dominant national narratives I do not deny the existence of multiplenationalistclaimsprevalentinpost–WorldWarTwoBosnia.11Theterm‘Bosnianness’ isadoptedfromdiscussionsofthequalitiesassociatedwiththeculturalconstruct of being Bosnian, discussed in A. Buturovi, ‘Producing and annihilating the ethos ofBosnianIslam’,CulturalSurvivalQuarterly,summer1995,pp.29–33.

Chapter1

19

modernist, nationalist and socialist/communist agendas of post–World War Two

Yugoslavia. And while the analysis of their work identifies numerous embedded

contradictions, the significance of Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s contribution, it is

suggested,liesintheirabilitytodissociate,albeittemporarily,theIslamichistorical

fabric of Sarajevo from its former colonial ties, instead establishing a secular and

moderncontextforitsinterpretation.

Thesiscontribution:architecture,identityandpoliticsofculture

The1992–96warbroughtforwarddiscussionofthesignificanceofculturalpolitics

in theconstructionanddestruction ofYugoslavia’s identity. Inanattempt todeal

withthesocialandpoliticalforcesthatcontributedtothecountry’sdisintegration,

an increasingnumber of scholars focusedon the roleof collectivememory in the

culturalprocessesaccompanyingtheconstructionofanationofYugoslavs.

Andrew Wachtel’s book Making a Nation, Breaking a Nation is among the most

embracing and ambitious projects of this kind. It considers the construction of

Yugoslav unity in a range of ways: linguistic policies and language; literary and

artistic canons interpreted as supportive of Yugoslav ideals; educational policies;

and the production of new literature and art that incorporated the various and

changingviewsoftheYugoslavideal.12

12 A. Wachtel, Making a Nation, Breaking a Nation, Literature and Cultural Politics in Yugoslavia,StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford,Ca.,1998,p.5.

Chapter1

20

AlthoughWachtel’sattention is largelyon formsofculturalexpressionother than

architecture, he acknowledged the contribution made by Croatian architect Ivan

Meštrovi(1883–1962).IntheperiodbeforeandduringWorldWarOne,Meštrovi

became one of the leading representatives of a new kind of synthetic Yugoslav

culture.13PromotedmostlybytheYugoslavelite,thiswasbasedontheassumption

that the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were members of a single nation. Cultural

expression that would represent this multicultural Yugoslav nation would thus

synthesisethebestelementsofeachoftheseparateSouthSlavic‘tribes’.14Despite

thepotentialofthisdiversitytocontributetotheideaofamultiethnicYugoslavia,

Wachtel’sstudypresentsonlylimiteddiscussionofBosnianartistsandnomention

ofBosnianarchitecture.

Someaspectsofthisdeficiencyhavebeenrecentlyaddressed.Forexample,Amila

Buturovi’s examination of the poetry and literature of Bosnian writers such as

Mehmedalija Meša Selimovi (1910–82) and Mehmedalija Mak Dizdar (1917–71)

hasrevealedtheirinvolvementwithdebatessurroundingtheidentityofBosnia.15In

StoneSleeper,ButurovidiscussesMakDizdar’spoetryandhisuseofthemediaeval

tombstone steak in the ‘recovery’ of medieval voices in the imaginations of

contemporaryBosnians.However,whileherstudychallenges theviewofBosnian

identity divided alongethnic lines,offeringa view of culture built upon pluralistic

13Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,p.54.14Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,p.73.15 A. Buturovi (trans. Francis R. Jones), Stone Speaker,Medieval Tombs. Landscape, and BosnianIdentity in the Poetry of Mak Dizdar, Palgrave, New York, 2002; Buturovi, ‘Producing andannihilatingtheethosofBosnianIslam’,pp.29–33;andButurovi,‘Nationalquestandtheanguishofsalvation:BosnianMuslimidentityinMešaSelimoviDervishandDeath’,Edebiyat,7,spring1996,YorkUniversity,Toronto,np.

Chapter1

21

societyanditsideals, it isstillfocusedonliterarytexts. Inthisthesis Iproposeto

add to the discussion by presenting Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s work as a

contributiontothemulticulturalandmultiethnicYugoslav ideologicalagenda,and

by extending the examination of forms of cultural expression to architecture and

urbandesign.

MyanalysisbuildsuponexistingrecognitionoftheworkofGrabrijanandNeidhardt

as architects that connected the international modernist agenda with local

architectural debates, bringing ‘the freshest ideas of modern architecture’ to the

Bosniancontext.16ProfessorofarchitectureatSarajevoUniversityandarecipientof

theAgaKhanAward(1983),ZlatkoUgljencitedNeidhardt’s influenceascrucialto

hisownarchitecturaldevelopment.Neidhardt’swork,Ugljenstated,presented‘the

synthesis of the universal and regional, representing firmly the [ideas of] modern

architecture’.17

In his Modern Architecture of Croatia Between the Two World Wars (Hrvatska

moderna architektura izmedju dva rata), Tomislav Premerl, too, presented

Neidhardt as a major player in creating modern architecture in the Yugoslav

territories:

ItisthroughtheworkofNeidhardtthatourarchitecturewasstronglyconnectedto

the main European centre. He directly transferred and modified the ideas of Le

Corbusier toourcontext…Neidhardtachieved thesynthesisof logical traditional

16 Amir Zec, a contemporary Bosnian architect, in an interview with Emir Imamovi, ‘Mercator isbadly positioned’, inBosanskohercegovaki DANI, independent news magazine, special edition onurbanism,URBICID,Sarajevo,June2003.17S.Roš&A.Rusan,‘InterviewwithZlatkoUgljen’,Oris,3/12,2001,pp.4–31.

Chapter1

22

elements and the new achievements, paying a special attention to the relation

between the individual buildings, their immediate surroundings and the broader

city contexts or the landscape. The presence of Neidhardt’s ideas in architectural

debatesbetweenthetwowarsisfelttodayasanimportantlinknotonlyinbuilding

newspatialvaluesatthetime,butinlinkingustotheworldandtheworldtous.18

This view was restated in the extensive anthology of Yugoslav modernity titled

Impossible Histories, Historical Avantgardes, Neoavantgardes, and Postavant

gardes inYugoslavia,1918–1991.19There,SlovenianacademicandarchitectPeter

Krei recognised Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s ability ‘to blend the qualities of the

traditionalhousewithcontemporarytrends,’butwithoutanyinvestigationofsuch

integration.20PresentingNeidhardt’sowndesigns,suchastheworkers’housing in

Zenica (1938) and the building of the State Mining School (1938), as ‘notable

example[s] of the faithful transfer of Le Corbusier’s principles of architecture to

Bosnia’, Krei maintained that the primary contribution of their work was its

capacitytoextendtheinternationalmodernistideastotheYugoslavterritories.

In2001,intheaftermathofthe1992–96Bosnianwar,theAcademyofScienceand

ArtsofBosniaandHercegovinacelebratedthecentenaryofNeidhardt’sbirthwith

anexhibitionandconference.Whilestill focusedonthemodernityofNeidhardt’s

opus,thediscussionrecognisedGrabrijanandhiscapacityto ‘penetratedeep into

thesubstanceof thearchitecturalandurbanheritage’ofBosnia,andto integrate

18 T. Premerl, Hrvatska Moderna Arhitektura Izmedju Dva Rata (Modern Architecture of CroatiaBetweentheTwoWorldWars),NakladniZavodMaticeHrvatske,Zagreb,1989,p.16.19P.Krei,‘ArchitectureinformerYugoslavia,fromtheavantgardetothepostmodernimpossiblehistories’,inD.Djuri&M.Šuvakovi(eds),ImpossibleHistories,HistoricalAvantgardes,Neoavantgardes,andPostavantgardesinYugoslavia,1918–1991,MITPress,Cambridge,Ma.,2003,pp.332–73.20 Krei, ‘Architecture in former Yugoslavia, from the avantgarde to the postmodern impossiblehistories’,p.346.

Chapter1

23

theIslamiccomponentintheircollaborativevision.21However,noexaminationof

that vision was presented and no indication of the importance of the political

contextwasrecognised.

Thisthesisextendsandfillsthegapsintheexistingliteratureintwoways:firstly,it

develops debate on the relationship between modern architecture and the

ideological grounding of Yugoslav socialism; and secondly, it highlights the

important role architecture plays in constructing identity, as well as in its

destruction.

Theoretical framework: overlapping fields of architecture, identity, culture andpoliticsofYugoslavia

Inbringingarchitecturalandpoliticaldiscoursestogether,IuseFoucault’stechnique

of‘problematisation’;thatis,Ihighlighttheconnectionsbetweenpoliticalissuesin

‘the historical and structural conditions which gave rise to them’.22 Accepting the

premise of ‘discourse theory’, which presents all objects and practices as

meaningful and all social meanings as contextual, relational and contingent, I

examineGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sdiscussionofBosnianOrientalasanattemptto

embed the specific views of the Bosnian nation – its past and present – in the

languageofmodernarchitecture.23

21 Zlatko Ugljen, in The Academy of Science and Arts of Bosnia and Hercegovina Marking theCentenary of theBirth ofAcademic JurajNeidhardt, Academy of Science and Arts of BiH, and theArchitecturalFacultyoftheUniversityofSarajevo,Sarajevo,2001,p.34.22 D. Howarth & J. Torfing (eds), Discourse Theory in European Politics, Identity, Policy andGovernance,Palgrave,Macmillan,NewYork,2005,p.318.23 For a discussion of discourse theory and method see Howarth & Torfing, Discourse Theory inEuropeanPolitics,Identity,PolicyandGovernance,pp.316347.

Chapter1

24

The work of British cultural historian Stuart Hall provides the theoretical

underpinning for interpreting Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s architectural efforts in

relation todebateson identity.24Hallpresents identityasaprocess that is ‘never

completed’.25A ‘processofbecomingratherthanbeing’,hisconcept isbuiltupon

anunderstandingthatidentitiesare:

...neverunifiedand,inlatemoderntimes,increasinglyfragmentedandfractured;

never singular but multiply constructed across different, often intersecting and

antagonistic,discourses,practicesandpositions.26

Hall’s understanding of identity stands in opposition to essentialist views that

assume a ‘stable core of self unfolding from beginning to end through all the

vicissitudesofhistorywithoutchange’.27Heargues that identitiesarenotunified,

but‘areconstantlyintheprocessofchangeandtransformation’.28

Considered within the parameters of Hall’s discussion, Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s

Bosnian Oriental represents a model of identity that is demonstrative of the

transientandconstructednatureofidentitycreation.Theirprocessofdefiningthe

BosnianOrientalinvolved‘theinventionoftradition’asmuchas‘traditionitself’.29

24 In his essay ‘Who needs 'identity'?’, Stuart Hall argues that the ‘natural’ definition of identitypresupposesastablecoreoftheselfthatremainsstaticacrosstime,andhasanorigin,historyandancestrysharedbypeoplebelongingtoaparticulargroup.Yet,contemporaryscholarsarguethattheconceptofa‘stablecoreoftheself’,orhomogenicnotionofidentity,actuallymasksthepluralityofpositionsbehindeach ‘identity’.According to Hall, there isa complex relationbetween these twoconcepts.Hall,inS.Hall&P.DuGay(eds),QuestionsofCulturalIdentity,Sage,London,1996,pp.1–35.25Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.26Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.27Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,pp.3–4.28Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.29Theterm‘inventedtraditions’isusedinreferencetoE.Hobsbawm&T.Ranger,TheInventionofTradition,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cantoedition,1992.Thistextonnationalismpresents‘traditions’asemergingthroughsystematically;ofteninstitutionally,produceddiscourseandknowledge.

Chapter1

25

It activated ‘the resources of history, language and culture’30 in a way that was

evocativeoftheprocessofcreatingarchitectureasaformofartthatis‘constituted

within not outside representation’.31 Precisely because Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s

model of Bosnian Oriental is constructed within a specific political context it is

importanttounderstanditsrelationshiptothehistoricalandinstitutionalsitesfrom

which it emerged, gaining meaning and significance.32 This relationship

demonstratesthatthesearchforidentityis‘notthesocalledreturntoroots’buta

processof‘comingtotermswithour“routes”’.33Byunderstandingtheframework

of Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s discussion of Sarajevo’s historic fabric, my aim is to

identifytheimpactofthesociopoliticalcontextontheirrepresentationandonthe

meaningstheyattachedtoit.

Tolinkurbanandpoliticaldebates,thisstudybuildsuponapproachesdevelopedby

scholars such as Zeynep Çelik, Mary McLeod and Sibel Bozdogan, who have

intertwinedtheanalysisofurbanhistorywiththestudyof‘urbanprocesses’.34Çelik

suggests that this approach to urban history considers the diverse forces that

impact on the urban environment, namely social, economic, political, technical,

artistic and cultural factors.35 Drawing on Henri Lefebvre, Çelik argues that this

30Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.31Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.32Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.33Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.34Particularlyrelevanttothetheoreticalunderpinningofthisthesis is thediscussionpresentedbyProfessor Zeynep Çelik in Urban Forms and Colonial Confrontations, Algiers under French Rule,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,1997.AlsoseeS.Bozdogan&R.Kasaba(eds.),ModernismandNation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic, University of WashingtonPress, Washington DC, 2001; and M. McLeod, ‘Urbanism and Utopia: Le Corbusier from regionalsyndicalismtoVichy’,PhDthesis,PrincetonUniversity,1985.35ForfurtherdiscussionseeÇelik,UrbanFormsandColonialConfrontations,p.5.

Chapter1

26

method of analysis allows for the uncovering of a diverse set of relationships,

inherenttotheproductionofspace,andpresentsanalternativetounderstanding

spacesimplyas‘space“initself”’.36Çelikmaintainsthatthisemphasisonthe‘long

history of space’, rather than on ‘chronologically fixed urban forms,’37 helps in

understandingthewaysinwhich‘societiesgeneratetheir(social)spaceandtime–

their representational spaces and their representations of space’.38 By examining

the relationship between architectural form and the methods by which it is

interpreted–bothinthewrittenwordandthroughdesign–Iaimtodemonstrate

the interconnections between architectural discourse and the ideological context

withinwhichitisproduced.39

Therelationshipbetweensocialistideologyandthespecificsofarchitecturaldesign

promoted in Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s writing is thus considered within the

framework of contemporary discourse on memory, history and identity. French

historianPierreNoraprovidesacontextforthediscussionofthoserelationships.He

suggests that sites gain significance when they no longer form part of daily life,

arguingthatsitesofmemory(lieuxdemémoire)emergeatpointsof rupturewith

the past, where the real environments of memory (milieux de mémoire)

disappear.40Oftenpromptedbychangesinsocialconditions,suchatransformation

releases a site of the specific collective memory attached to it, allowing multiple

36Çelik,UrbanFormsandColonialConfrontations,p.5.37Çelik,UrbanFormsandColonialConfrontations,p.5.38Çelik,UrbanFormsandColonialConfrontations,p.4.39 J. M. Schwarting, ‘Postscript’, in B. Colomina (ed.), Architectureproduction [sic.], PrincetonArchitecturalPress,NewYork,1988,pp.246–53.40 I draw from a number of essays presented in P. Nora (ed.),RealmsofMemory: Rethinking theFrenchPast,ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork,1996,1998.

Chapter1

27

interpretations.Consequently,a‘siteofmemory’emergesinanattempttofixtime

andtostabilisethesite’smeaning.Whileseeminglystable, ‘sitesofmemory’have

thecapacitytoconstantlygeneratenewsocialmeanings.41Consideredwithinsuch

aframework,GrabrijanandNeidhardt’svisionsforBašaršijapresentanattemptto

transform the site by assigning the urban fabric new meanings, accepted and

alignedwithnewsocialistidentity.

ThestudybuildsuponBenedictAnderson’swellknownanalysisofthenationalism

andnationbuildingprocesspresentedinthebookImaginedCommunities.42Arguing

that thenation isnotagivenhistoricalentitybutaconstructedand ‘an imagined

political community,’ Anderson presents ‘nationality … as well as nationalism’ as

‘cultural artefacts’. 43 By intertwining their architectural studies of the Ottoman

historicbuiltfabricwithintheirvisionoftheBosniannationGrabrijanandNeidhardt

offeredtorenegotiatethehistoricalandspatialgroundingofBosniannation.

In relating the individual experience of an architect such as Juraj Neidhardt to a

broader sociopolitical milieu, I am indebted to the work of Jelica Kapetanovi,

notablyherdoctoral thesis.UndertakenattheUniversityofSarajevo in1988,and

publishedasJurajNeidhardt,LifeandWorkin1990,thethesispresentsabiography

of Neidhardt.44 It offers a comprehensive overview of the architect’s life, his

41Nora(ed.),RealmsofMemory:RethinkingtheFrenchPast.42B.Anderson,ImaginedCommunities,ReflectionsontheOriginandSpreadofNationalism,Verso,London,NewYork,1992,13.43B.Anderson,ImaginedCommunities,13.44 J. Kapetanovi, ‘The architectural work of Juraj Neidhardt’; J.KarliKapetanovi, JurajNajdhart,životidjelo(JurajNeidhardt,LifeandWork),VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo,1990.

Chapter1

28

professionalengagementsinleadingEuropeanarchitecturalpractices,aswellasthe

personal dilemmas and professional challenges he faced during his lifetime.

Permeating theaccount isKapetanovi’sadmiration forboth thepersonaandthe

work of her longtime colleague and mentor, Professor Neidhardt. By

contextualisingNeidhardt’sworkinrelationtothecriticaldebateswithinwhichhis

and Grabrijan’s work circulated – namely socialism/communism, modernity and

modernism–myworkheretakesKapetanovi’sdiscussionastepforward.

Sources

This thesis draws on the following principal sources: the two publications written

collaborativelybyGrabrijanandNeidhardt,Grabrijan’sseparatelyauthoredwritings

andNeidhardt’sdesignwork.

‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, was only published in SerboCroatian, and the

translations of all quoted material are my own. The original SerboCroatian has

been placed in footnotes. The second collaborative publication, Architecture of

Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity, was published in English and Serbo

Croatian, so the original English translations have been used (unless otherwise

stated).Ihavealsotranslatedadditionalsources(unlessotherwisestated),suchas

Grabrijan’sarticlesinSerboCroatianandhisbookPlenikandHisSchool,published

in Slovenian (Plenik in Njegova Šola, edited and published by Nada Grabrijan).

Again,theoriginalquoteshavebeenplacedinfootnotes.

Chapter1

29

In the 1980s, Mrs Nada Grabrijan, the widow of Dušan Grabrijan, and Ms Tanja

Neidhardt,thedaughterofJurajNeidhardt,wereengagedinalengthylegaldispute

overtheauthors’individualcontributionstothecollaborativeworks.MrsGrabrijan

argued for greater recognition of her late husband’s contribution.45 While I

recognise the significance and complexities of the dispute, I do not consider it

relevant to the discussion presented here. I explore and reexamine individual

contributions in the collaborative works, and while efforts have been made to

recognisetheimportanceofindividualcontributionssuchconsiderationsarenotof

majorconcern.Grabrijan’srelativelyshortstayinSarajevoandhisprematuredeath

at the age of 53 (five years before Architecture of Bosnia and theWay Towards

Modernity was published) in the end made Neidhardt the main advocate of the

Bosnian Oriental. Nevertheless, Grabrijan’s writing underpinned Neidhardt’s

understandingofBosnianarchitecturalheritage,andNeidhardt’sownarchitectural

designiscommonlypresentedasacollaborativeeffort.

Thesisoutline:thedevelopmentoftheargument

In summary, I argue in this thesis that while there were previous attempts to

integratetheIslamicpastintoarchitecturaldebates,GrabrijanandNeidhardtwere

thefirsttoamalgamatetheOttomanhistoricalfabricwiththenewsocialistculture

inasinglevision.46ThistheytermedBosnianOrientalexpression,anditwasmade

45 The Architectural Museum in Ljubljana contains archives of Grabrijan’s work, as well as thedocumentationofthiscourtcase.[FužineCastle,ArchitectureMuseumofLjubljana,Slovenia.]46 Particularly relevant is the discussion of attempts made by architects of the Austro–Hungarianperiod to construct a ‘style’ responsive to the specifics of Bosnian condition. The work ofarchitecturalhistorianNedžadKurtoismostrelevant:seehisArhitekturaBosneIHercegovine,razvojBosanskog Stila, (Architecture of Bosnia and Hercegovina and the Development of Bosnian Style),Medjunarodni Centar za Mir, Sarajevo, 1998; and ‘Arhitektura Secesije u Sarajevu’ (Secession

Chapter1

30

possiblebythechangesoccurringinthepoliticalandculturaldebatesofthe1950s

inYugoslavia,andinBosniaspecifically.

IpresentatwopartdevelopmentofGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sposition.Following

theintroduction(chapterone)partoneofthethesis(chapterstwotofour)analyses

the development of their theoretical agenda. It specifically focuses on the

articulation of the relationship between the historical fabric of Bašaršija and the

new city. Chapter two investigates Grabrijan’s early writings. It is in these articles

that he identifies the Ottoman/Islamic heritage of Sarajevo as theKunstwollen, a

modelofculturerepresentativeofcollectiveBosnianvalues.Grabrijan’sintegration

of specific Islamic forms within this vision of Bosnian architecture provided a

theoretical argument for the place of this heritage in debates on modern

architecture. This would later underpin Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s collaborative

agenda.However,asthechapterconcludes,thepromotionoftheIslamicheritage

as representative of Bosnian collective identity went against dominant nationalist

views,whichdeniedtherelevanceoftheIslamicpasttocontemporaryBosnia.The

historicallinksbetweenMuslimsofBosniaandtheOttomancolonialpower,which

brought Islam to Bosnia, problematised the future of Ottoman architectural and

culturalheritageinBosnia.Thechapterhighlightsthecontradictions inGrabrijan’s

interpretationofthisheritageascentraltounderstandinghisoverallargumentand

thelatercollaborativeworks.

architecture of Sarajevo), PhD thesis, University of Zagreb, 1988. See also, I. Krzovi, ArhitekturaBosneiHercegovine,1878–1918, (ArchitectureofBosniaandHerzegovina,18781918),UmjetnikaGalerijaBiH,Sarajevo,1987.

Chapter1

31

ChapterthreeanalysesGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sfirstcollaborativework,‘Sarajevo

andItsSatellites’.ThiswasanattempttointegratethespecificallyIslamicformsof

Bašaršijawithintheirvisionofanewurbanmasterplan.Thechaptershowsthatin

developing an argument about the relationship between the old precinct and the

city their discussion begins to move away from the approach established in

Grabrijan’s earlier writings. They gradually abandoned the search for the

authenticity and specificity of the old fabric, and ultimately presented Bašaršija

and the people inhabiting it in a stereotypical Orientalist mode that highlighted

oppositionalrelationshipsbetweenIslamandChristianity,EastandWest.Unableto

dealwiththecomplexpoliticalandurbanissuesthatsurroundedtheoldprecinct,

Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s master plan marginalised the heritage fabric in their

visionofanewcity.Thispositionwasindirectoppositiontotheviewspresentedin

theirsubsequentbook.

Chapter four analyses Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity,

publishedin1957,attheheightofYugoslavsocialism.Thechapterarguesthatthe

processofsecularisingYugoslavsocietyprovidedanopportunityfortheauthorsto

repositiontheirworkbyaligningtheirartisticvisionwiththesocialistframework.In

particular,anewpoliticalcategoryofBosnianMuslim–notareligiousgroup,buta

particular national entity – allowed Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s concept of Bosnian

Oriental expression to be contextualised within the Yugoslav socialist and

communist ideology. The vision of the modern city presented in this book was

grounded on the integration, not rejection, of the city’s historical fabric and

Chapter1

32

specifically the Ottomanestablished precinct of Bašaršija. This new position

allowed the authors, and Neidhardt in particular, to transform this theoretical

positionintoarchitecturalpractice.

Part two of the thesis (chapters five and six) charts the transformation of the

theoretical into an architectural agenda. Chapter five discusses the effects of the

theoreticalshiftfrom‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’totheArchitectureofBosniaand

theWayTowardsModernity.Itarguesthattheemphasisplacedontherationaland

functional design aspects of the Bašaršija precinct provided the framework that

allowed for the ideological separation of traditional forms from their historical

associations.Oncetheoldfabricwasreinterpretedwithinmodernparadigms,itwas

possible forNeidhardt, thepractisingarchitectof the two, toutilise thismodelof

Bosnian Oriental in creating some of his most prominent designs, which included

theBašaršijaproposalandthedesignoftheBosnianparliamentprecinct.

Chapter six examines two projects undertaken by Neidhardt in 1950s – the New

aršijaproject(1953)andtheproposalfortheMarindvorprecinct,whichincluded

thebuildingoftheNationalParliamentofBosnia(1955).Itarguesthatbothprojects

embody Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s attempts to interrelate political and cultural

debates.TheunderlyingsecularisationofthereligiousstructuresintheNewaršija

project,amongothers,andtheinsertionofnonreligiousestablishmentsinreligious

buildingsonlyservedtoconfirmNeidhardt’sdesiretorestructurethe Islamicpast

to fit the socialist present. The chapter further argues that the proposal for the

Chapter1

33

Marindvor precinct and the National Parliament of Bosnia demonstrated

Neidhardt’s insistence on presenting the Bosnian Oriental as a synthetic style,

vestedwithacapacitytointegratethepast,presentandfutureofthearchitecture

ofsocialism.

My conclusion, chapter seven, confirms that Neidhardt and Grabrijan’s design

proposalsandtheoreticalwritingspresentedavisionofarchitectureframedbythe

identitydebatesofsocialistYugoslavia.Theintegrationofarchitecturalandpolitical

agendas in their work demonstrates the significant role architecture can play in

constructing and deconstructing cultural identity. The chapter concludes with the

contributionofthisthesisto itsareaofstudyandoffersviewsregardingpotential

researchinthearea.

PARTONE:DevelopingaTheoreticalFramework

Chapter2TheKunstwollenofBosnia

Inthe late1930sDušanGrabrijanpublishedaseriesofarticlesthataddressedthe

urban heritage issues of Sarajevo and the Ottomanestablished historic precinct

Bašaršija.Heidentifiedtheprecinct’sculturalcharacterasanauthenticreflection

oflocalculture,andassociateditsarchitecturalformswiththespecificallyBosnian

conditionandaformofKunstwollen–anartisticexpressionembodyingthespiritof

thecollective.

This chapter argues that Grabrijan’s interest in exploring the heritage fabric of

Sarajevo was inspired by his teacher Jože Plenik. In his practice and teaching

Plenikpromotedtheintegrationofhistoricremnantswithinnewurbanproposals

and considered historic fabric vital to the creation of new architecture. In an

attempttoextendsuchanapproachtoBosnia,Grabrijan’searlywritingsidentified

intheformsofBašaršijatheauthenticityandinspirationneededforthecreationof

thenew.However,unlikeinSlovenia,wheresuchconnectionsenjoyedthesupport

of the authorities, in Bosnia the urban forms of Bašaršija were viewed with

scepticismandresistance.DuetoBašaršija’shistoricconnectionstotheOttoman

colonial times and the dominance of Islam over Christianity, the Serb and Croat

nationalistideologiescontesteditsrelevance.Consequentlythisheritagefabricwas

Chapter2

38

consideredasaparochialarchitecturalexpressionof the formerOttomanEmpire.

Itsintegrationintonewurbanapproacheswascommonlyrejected.

Inanattempttocurbthisresistance,Grabrijanbegantopresentadifferentviewof

theheritagefabric’sroleinnewurbandevelopmentfromtheoneproposedbyhis

teacher.No longer interested inconnectinghistoric remnants to theirartisticand

historical origins, Grabrijan identified their contemporary relevance and their

modernity. This chapter concludes that while Grabrijan’s views did not receive

public or official support at the time, his writings established the theoretical

groundingforwhatbecamehisandNeidhardt’scollaborativework.Laterchapters

arguethattheideaspropoundedbyGrabrijaninhisvisionofBosnianKunstwollen

provide the basis for the political success of the concept of Bosnian Oriental,

promotedduringtheyearsofYugoslavsocialism.

‘Nottofindanew,buttoshowitanew’:Plenik’sarchitectureandteaching

Between1920and1924DušanGrabrijanattendedJožePlenik’sclassintheSchool

of Architecture at the newly established University of Ljubljana, in Slovenia.1

Plenik’s approach to architectural design and teaching made a significant

impressiononGrabrijan.Hekeptathoroughrecordoftheschooldiscussions,which

waspublishedin1968undertitlePlenikandHisSchool(PlenikinNjegovaŠola).2

1AnumberofmonographsareavailableontheworkandlifeofJožePlenik,suchas:D.Prelovšek,Jože Plenik 1872–1957, Architectura Perennis, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1997; P. Krei,Plenik,theCompleteWorks,AcademyEditions,Ernst&Sons,UnitedKingdom,1993;F.Burkhardt,C.Eveno&B.Podreca,JožePlenikArchitect:1872–1957,MITPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1989.2 As a student of the first generation of Ljubljana school and a member of the group ‘Hearth ofAcademic Architects’, Grabrijan’s book became a record of the debates and casual conversationswithintheschool,aswellasGrabrijan’sownviewofPlenikandarangeofhisarticles.Grabrijan,

Chapter2

39

BythetimePlenikstartedteachinginLjubljana,hewasalreadywellknownandan

experiencedarchitecturalteacherandpractitioner.HewaseducatedattheSchool

ofAppliedArtsinGraz(1888–92),andstudiedwithOttoWagnerattheAcademyof

Art inVienna(1895–98). In1911–12,hewasrecommendedtosucceedWagnerat

theAcademyofArt,butastheMinistryofEducationandReligionturneddownthe

proposal, Plenik took up the professorship at the College of Arts and Crafts in

Prague(1911–21).3Plenik’sactiveprofessionallifeinPrague,andhisinvolvement

with the design of the presidential Castle at Hradany (area around the castle)

securedhimaspecialplaceinhishometown.4

TheopeningoftheschoolfollowedtherecentunificationofSouthSlavs(Yugoslavs

intheSerboCroatian languagegroup)–namelySerbs,CroatsandSlovenes– into

one state in 1918.5 The new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians aimed at

transcendingthedifferencesbetweenthediverselanguages,religionsandhistorical

PlenikinNjegovaŠola.Compilation,editingandillustrationselectionwasdonebyGrabrijan’swife,NadaGrabrijan,sixteenyearsafterherhusband’sdeath.3Prelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957.4Whenin1921PlenikreturnedtoSloveniatotakeuptheacademicposition,hewasdisillusionedwith his European appointments. But he continued his professional involvements abroad, onprojectssuchwastherenovationofPraguecastle.PlenikwasappointedarchitectoftheHradanycastlerenovationinPraguebytheCzechpresident,Masaryk,overtheperiod1920–35.5The ideaofYugoslaviarestedontheassumptionthattheSouthSlavswereasingleethnicgroupthatshould,likeEuropeannationstates,liveinasinglestatewithasharedlanguageandculture.Inhistorical terms, the origins of Yugoslavia as a unified South Slavic state – the Kingdom of Serbs,CroatsandSlovenians–werelinkedtothedisintegrationoftheAustro–HungarianEmpireattheendofWorldWarOne,in1918.TheruleoftheHabsburgmonarchywasformallyrenouncedandpowerhandedovertotheNationalCouncil,whichdeclaredthenewKingdomofSlovens,CroatsandSerbs(1918–29)–latertransformedintotheKingdomofYugoslavia(1929–41).TheKingdomofYugoslavia– a more unifying term than the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians – was headed by theKaradjordjevifamilyofSerbiaproper.FollowingthecommunistvictoryoftheWorldWarTwo,thenew state of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (1945–92) emerged. This statedisintegratedinthewakeofthe1992–96war,givingrisetoanewstateoftheFederalRepublicofYugoslavia(1992–2003),whichmostlycoveredtheSerbianterritory.

Chapter2

40

experiences of its constituents [Figure 1]. While the contents of this vision of

commonality were not popularly agreed upon, many shared the belief in the

possibilityofdefiningandarticulatingaunifiedYugoslavcultureandpeople.

Figure 1: Territorial division of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia19181921.Source:Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,p.113.

Grabrijanrecordednumerousdiscussions in JožePlenikclass,whichexploredthe

potentialofarchitecturetorepresentthepotencyofpoliticalchanges.6Unlikethe

Serb and Croat intellectuals, who by virtue of ethnic origin have historically been

thepoliticalcoreof the ideaofYugoslavia,Plenik’spositionwasmouldedby the

verymarginalityofhisSloveneness.7Further,despitethelongculturalheritageof

Slovenia’scapitalcity,Ljubljana,itwasnotacapitalofanindependentstate.Itwas

6D.Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola (PlenikandHisSchool),ZaložbaObzorja,Maribor,Slovenia,1968.7SloveniainhabitsarathercompactterritoryonthewesternendoftheKingdomofYugoslavia.Itspopulation is highly homogenous. The Slovenes, who are predominantly Catholic, speak a distinctlanguage,theliterarytraditionsofwhichcouldbetracedbacktothe16thcentury.Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,p.30.

Chapter2

41

consideredlesssignificantthanothercentresofthenewlyformedKingdomofSerb,

CroatsandSlovenes–thecitiesofBelgradeandZagreb.

Thenewlycreatedstate,however,promisedtoprovideopportunitiesforallwithin

itsboundaries,andbothPlenikandGrabrijanexpressedadesiretotakeadvantage

of thenewdevelopments.8ThearthistorianDamjanPrelovšekstates that related

issues occupied Plenik’s mind for many years while working in various European

centres.Loyaltytohis‘smallcountry’,Prelovšekwrites,weighedonPlenikandhe

‘feltobligedtomakegoodsomeoftheshortcomingsof itsculture’.9Writingfrom

Vienna to his brother Andrej, before his return to Ljubljana, Plenik described his

feelingofisolationamongtheGermanicpeople:

This is a German Vienna – and I want nothing more than to be increasingly a

Carniolan–aSlovene– inthesamewayasmyparents,ontheonehand,andon

theotherhandIdon’twanttodistancemyselfinprogressing,orratherdeveloping,

fromwhatisnativetome.Itisinfactallwasteland–wehavenothing–andyetin

thisperiodIhaveobservedourcharacter,andwastakenbyit.10

OncePlenikcamebacktoLjubljana,hisarchitecturalapproachwasframedbyhis

desire to identify and transform the unique qualities of his people into an artistic

expression.

Underpinning Plenik’s approach was his interest in history. Congruent with his

belief that the role of an architect was ‘not to find a new, but to show it anew’,

8 On 28 June 1921 the first Yugoslavia came into being as the constitutional, parliamentary andhereditary Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. In 1929 it was renamed the Kingdom ofYugoslavia.J.Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,TwiceThereWasaCountry,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,1996,p.125.9QuotedinPrelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.13.10QuotedinPrelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.13.Undatedletter.

Chapter2

42

Plenik’s designs commonly integrated an historic remnant within new urban

plans.11GrabrijanrecordedPlenik’smaximthat‘Ifwealwayswanttodiscoverthe

new, we would get nowhere, for our life is too short …’12 Plenik also frequently

statedinclassthattheinspirationforhispracticecamefromtherecognitionofthe

historicurbanartefactsofhishometown,Ljubljana.

Grabrijan’srecordsshowhighpraiseforPlenik’sarchitecturalachievementsinthe

urbantransformationofLjubljana.13ItwasPlenik‘sconversionofthesmallobjects

scattered around town into something new and significant that fascinated

Grabrijan.14 ‘He was a master in accommodating and discovering the old,

unanticipated beauty’, wrote Grabrijan inPlenik and His School.15 Astounded by

the impact such changes made on the city, Grabrijan commented that Plenik

turned the city of Ljubljana from ‘a former small Austro–Hungarian town into a

capitalcity’.16Perceivingthisapproachasapoeticattempttomodifythecityscape

throughhumblechanges,withoutdramaticallyalteringit,Grabrijanwrote:

Herevealedsmallandoldjewelsofmonuments,neglectedandforgottenbyall;he

revealed old architecture and knew how to breathe new life into it. He created

architecturewithlimitedmeansandelements,andbroughttolifethingsthatwere

consideredworthless.17

11Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.88.12Originalquote: ‘Akobihotelivednosamovnovokopati,binikamorneprišli, za to jeprekratkonašeživljenjeinjetakanameratudismešna’,inGrabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.88.13AlistofGrabrijan’swritingsisincludedinthebibliography.14KreisuggeststhatPlenik’s interestinhistoricalsourcesemergedfromhisexposuretovariousinfluencesduringhis formativeyears.Healsoargues thatwhilePlenik’sclassicismwasseemingly‘reminiscent of “Antiquity”, the “Romanesque” or “Egyptian” styles’, it was in fact the result of acomplexfusionofdiversearchitecturalinfluences.Krei,Plenik,TheCompleteWorks,p.235.15Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.25.16Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.27.17Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.25.

Chapter2

43

Plenik’s interest in architectural history extended to his teachings and to

discussions with his students. In his record of the topics discussed at the school,

Grabrijan noted Plenik’s emphasis on the study of historical architecture and his

promotion of classicism as ‘the only complete style’.18 Plenik believed that

students had to start from the very beginning, and that was from antiquity.19

‘Antiquity, isnot thatbeautiful!… It issomethingdivine!’,20Plenikproclaimedas

heencouragedhisstudentstosearchforthetimelessandeverlastingelementsof

classical architecture. In a constant interrogation of the past, the class drew

obelisks, pyramids and columns in an attempt to familiarise themselves with the

grammarofclassicism.21AccordingtoPrelovšek,Plenikacquiredtheideafromthe

timeofhisapprenticeshipinOttoWagner’sofficeinthelate1890s.‘Drawprofiles,

heads, tables inchapels, takea thickpenandpractiseeverydayandeveryhour’,

Pleniksuggestedtohisstudents,and‘allofasuddenyouwillhearaboveyouthe

soundofthewingsoftheangelofeternity,thatwilltakeyouabovetheeveryday’.22

Grabrijan,likemoststudentsinhisclass,immersedhimselfinthestudyofantiquity,

presenting for his graduation work a variation on the motif of the stone vase

originallydesignedbyPlenikfortheentrancetotheParadiseGardenatHradany

castle,inPrague.23

18Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.87.19Prelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.158.20Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.87.21 Prelovšek and Kopa suggest that Plenik’s practical involvement and study with the OttoWagner’sschoolofarchitectureconvincedhimthatthemodernarchitectureneednotbeinventedfromnothingbutdevelopedfromavailablesources.D.Prelovšek&V.Kopa,ŽalebyArchitectJožePlenik,DELO,Ljubljana,1992,p.42.22Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.58.23Prelovšek&Kopa,ŽalebyArchitectJožePlenik,p.158.

Chapter2

44

Importantly, forPlenik, theoverarchingpowerofclassicalarchitectural traditions

provided a context for integrating individual expression into a coherent whole. It

facilitated a connection between an historical artefact or a landscape setting, its

historical origins and architectural origins. In his search for the artistic origins of

Slovenianarchitecture,PleniksoughttoestablishadirectlinktotheEtruscans,the

ancientinhabitantsoftheApenninePeninsula.24HebelievedthatSlovenianartwas

the successor of the Mediterranean Antiquity period. Architectural historian

Damjan Prelovšek has argued that such attempts by Plenik were aimed not at

promotingspecificorregionalarchitecturalorartisticexpression,butatestablishing

aconnectiontoauniversalartistictradition,suchasclassicism.25

Certainly Grabrijan perceived his teacher’s approach as inclusive and open to

diverseartistic influences.CommentingonPlenik’sapproach,hewrote: ‘Eclectic?

He [Plenik] almost admitted it himself. Yet, not in the usual meaning of the

word.’26 Plenik’s approach, Grabrijan argued, allowed him to choose from a

treasury of historical styles and apply them in a seemingly random or eclectic

24Prelovšek&Kopa,ŽalebyArchitectJožePlenik,p.52.PlenikstudiedtheornamentationoftheVaesitula(vessel,datedattheendofthe6thcenturyBC),whichwasatthattimethoughtofasatypical Etruscan product. It represented a masterpiece of decorative art and European prehistoryand was considered the most important artefact of the Hallstattian culture in Slovenia. Also seewww.narmuzlj.si/ang/odd/arh/arhobj.html.25Prelovšek&Kopa,ŽalebyArchitectJožePlenik,p.52.26Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.25.

http://www.narmuzlj.si/ang/odd/arh/arhobj.html

Chapter2

45

fashion.27GrabrijansawthisapproachasareflectionofPlenik’scapacitytoengage

inarchitecturaldesignfreeoftheconstraintsofarchitecturalconventions.28

Plenik’s discussions, according to Grabrijan’s record, challenged the perception

thatSloveniannationalarchitecturewasstrictlydefinedbynationalborders.While

thesearchforsuchartisticexpressiondefinedtheapproachesofmanyofPlenik’s

contemporaries in neighbouring Germanspeaking countries, Grabrijan quoted his

teacher saying, ‘a national art, in fact, does not exist’.29 According to Prelovšek,

Plenik avoided compatriot organisations and was critical of their interest in

ethnographic particularities. He had limited interest in domestic architecture and

indicatedhisdistrustinthevaluesoffolkartasaguidetoartisticcreation.30

27Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.25.28Asnotedinfootnote14Plenikwasexposedduringhisformativeyearstoavarietyofsources.ButforPlenik,theotherimportantconsiderationwasthattheclassicaltraditionrepresentedaccesstothedivineandtheworldlyinarchitecture.AdevoutCatholic,PlenikbelievedintheimportanceofRometoWesternculture.Plenik’sfaithinartisticendeavoursthuswasnotunlikefaithinGod–anindividualjourneyforeachpersonwiththeaimofdiscoveringthe‘truth’thatconnectsoneselfandtheeternalqualitiesofarchitecture.Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.50.29 Grabrijan, Plenik in Njegova Šola, pp. 96–97. Admittedly, Plenik’s views were deeplyconservativeandhisteachingmethodsseenasdogmatic.Inlettertohiscolleague,Grabrijanwrote‘Ido not wish Plenik’s temper on anyone, I do not wish his pessimism, even if his genius shinesthroughit’.Originalquote: ‘NežalimnikomurPlenikoveljubezni,neželimniomurnjegovevere inpesimizmainvendarobutimvthestvarehgenialnost.Vprašenjeje,alizatodejevostvsetistodrugopotrebno–potemtudinjoodklanjam!’.Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.62.Further, Plenik’s promotion of Slovenian nationalism relied on mobilising exclusivist and at timesracistviewsthattovaryingdegreeframedthefascistagenda.ButPlenik’sviewsofbothnationandart, I would argue, emerged amid the intellectual and political struggle to define the Yugoslavculture,andbyextensionhisownSlovenianculture.ResistancetosurroundingnationalismframedPlenik’s views on art and nation. While I do not intend to justify or reject the possibility ofinterpreting Plenik’s approach as racist and nationalistic by suggesting that he reacted to thepressure applied by the other nationalisms, it is important to remember that the discourse thatdefineddiscussionsofYugoslavculturewasonethatpromotedexclusivistnationalism.Itwouldbeonlyas recentas the late1990s thatMarxist cultural theoristSlavojŽižekcriticised Plenik for hiselitism.ŽižekarguedthatPlenik’sperceptionofarchitectureashighart,hisattachmenttohistoryandtherejectionofmodernism,wereallconnectedtotheideasthatstructuredfascisminEurope.ForfurtherdiscussionofthisseeS.Žižek,‘Everythingprovokesfascism’(interview)andA.Herscher,‘PlenikavecLaibach’,Assemblage33,MIT,1997,pp.58–75.30PrelovšeksuggeststhatPlenikleanedtowardsSemper’sideathatnationswereonlydistinguishedbytheircomprehensionandreproduction,whilestyleswerethecommonpropertyofthewholeof

Chapter2

46

Grabrijan credited Plenik’s ability to construct new urban realities through the

reuse of heritage remnants as part of his talent for expressing, in architectural

terms, the artistic qualities of the place, reviving the latent value of urban

landscapes.Pleniksaidtostudents:‘Youhavetofollowthepeople…youhaveto

listentothe instinctsand impulses’.31 Itwasanarchitect’s role todefinea ‘style’,

Pleniksuggested,thatexpressedapeople’s ‘innerself’andreflectedthenation’s

‘set of beliefs, mentality, and climate’.32 This idea that it is the architect’s

responsibility to find, among the diverse possibilities embedded in the urban

context, the remnants of a past that have value to the present was central to

Grabrijan’sownunderstandingofhisprofessionalandethicalroleofarchitect.

Thissearchforarelationshipbetweenarchitectureandthepeoplewhocreatedit

connectedPlenik’sthinkingtowellknowndebatesofthetime–mostspecifically

totheAustrianarthistorianAloisRiegl’swritingsandtotheconceptofKunstwollen,

orwilltoart.33WhilePlenikneveracknowledgedthesignificanceofRiegl’s ideas,

historians such as Prelovšek and Stele have argued that there is an obvious

connectionbetweenPlenik’snotionofthe ‘innernerveofart’andRiegl’s ‘will to

civilisation. Semper warned against the folk art as being too young, and as such reflects thedeformedoriginsofnationalcreativity.Plenikalsowasnot interested infolkart,anddidnot joinfellowcompatriotsintheirViennaclubVesna.Prelovšek&Kopa,ŽalebyArchitectJožePlenik,p.46.31Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,pp.96–97.32Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola.Prelovšekreferredtoitasthe‘innernerveofart’inPrelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.12.33M.Iversen,AloisRiegl:ArtHistoryandTheory,MITPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1993,p.6.

Chapter2

47

art’.34 Grabrijan presented Riegl’s work as particularly relevant to the Slovene

students,dedicatingawholesectionofPlenikandHisSchooltotheimportanceof

Riegl’sideas.

Riegl’snotionofKunstwollen,35Grabrijanwrote,‘presentedworksofartasaresult

of the artistic consciousness of people, and the history of art as the discipline of

describingtheartisticwill.’36Conceivedas thehistoricalpropensityofanageora

people, the stylistic development of which was governed without respect to

mimeticortechnologicalconcerns,Kunstwollenofferedlegitimacyandstructureto

Grabrijan’sunderstandingsofPlenik’seffort.37ThisapproachconfirmedGrabrijan’s

faithintheindependentnatureofartisticagencyandtheimportanceofartisticwill

overcausalexplanationsofartisticproduction.‘Riegl’smaincontribution’,Grabrijan

wrote, ‘wasthathetaughtustodifferentiatebetweenartandcraft, liberatingart

from external purpose, which almost took it over, making art history a history of

spiritualvalues.38

34F.Stelereferredtoitasthe‘geographicconstantsofarthistory’,inPrelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.12.35Thetranslationofthistermisproblematicanddiffersbetweenvarioustexts.HenriZernerofferstwo interpretations: the first, articulated by Panofsky, interprets kunstwollen as ‘a content orobjective meaning – each work, by its style, involves the whole culture from which it comes’; thesecond, expressed by Sedlmayr, is that it is the ‘central and informing principle, a truly creativeforce’. Iverson defines the highly problematised concept as ‘an artistic will or urge or intentinforming different period styles’. H. Zerner, ‘Alois Riegl: art, value, and historicism’, Daedalus,Journal of theAmerican Academyof Arts and Sciences, 105, winter1976,p.180;and M. Iversen,AloisRiegl:ArtHistoryandTheory,p.6.36 Original quote: ‘Rieglova glavna zasluga je, da nas nauil razlikovati medumetnostjo inrokodelstvom,dajeosvobodilumetnostodzunanjegnamena,kateremujebilazeskorajpodlegla,indajenapravilizumetnostnezgodovineduhovnoznanost.’Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.44.37Riegl’sthesissuggeststhatthevisualexperiencesofanartistbecomeusefulandrelevantonly ifthey communicate the requirementsof the stylistic situation ofa particularhistorical moment. O.Pacht,‘Arthistoriansandartcritics–vi:AloisRiegl’,BurlingtonMagazine,105,1963,p.189.38Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.44.

Chapter2

48

Riegl’spublicationSpätrömischeKunstindustrie(1897),whichfocusedonthestudy

oflateantiquityandcouldberegardedasofarchaeologicalinterestonly,presented

new ways of thinking for people likeGrabrijan.Rejecting the common perception

thatthelateantiquityrepresentedthedecadenceanddeclineoftheclassicalage,

Riegl argued that an interrogation of this art revealed ‘new values’.39 His

proposition recognised the presence of the historical character of aesthetic

judgment and opened up possibilities for including different aesthetic ideals.

Similarly,hisworkontheBaroque,anotherperiodregardeddecadent,movedaway

from the traditionally accepted modes of analysis that focused on the individual

artistortheproblemofpatronage.Instead,itexploredworksofartasdefiningthe

‘artistic projection of that society’.40 Grabrijan saw this search for an

interrelationshipbetweenthehistoricfabricandthewillofpeopleasanunderlining

forceinPlenik’swork–hisurbantransformationofLjubljanabeinganattemptto

include the arts of small nations, such as Slovenia, within the overall historical

developmentoftheworldofarts.

Grabrijandoesnotofferanassessmentofthequalityorrelevanceoftheelements

integrated. But his continuous admiration of Plenik’s capacity to show, in his

architecture, the supposed inner qualities of the Slovenian people and city of

Ljubljanasuggesthisapproval.Hisnumerouscommentshighlighttherelevanceof

Plenik’sexcavationsoftheRomanwallremnantsinLjubljana,offeredtoprovethe

39Zerner,‘AloisRiegl:art,value,andhistoricism’,p.178.40Zerner,‘AloisRiegl:art,value,andhistoricism’,p.179.

Chapter2

49

classicalrootsofSlovenianculture.41AndhesupportedPlenik’sintegrationofthe

Illyrianmonument(1929),reinstatingthepopularviewoftheFrenchidealofliberty

underpinningSloveniancivil society [Figure2].42Thenumerousembellishmentsof

existing architecture with their connections to the selected monuments of the

Slovenian national past all told a story of what Plenik wanted Slovenia to be –a

Christianlandwithrootsintheclassicalculturesofthe‘West’.

Figure2:Illyrianmonument,J.Plenik,Ljubljana.Source:D.Ali,2004.

Plenik’s limited interest inhiscompatriotsof theYugoslavstate–theCroatsand

the Serbs – is well documented in Grabrijan’s texts. According to Grabrijan’s

records,PlenikwasclearlydissatisfiedwiththeYugoslavgovernment’sattemptsto

41Withinthesquareof theFrenchRevolution inLjubljana,Plenik includedthe Illyrianmonument(1929), the monument to the Slovenian poet Simon Gregori (1937) and the ends of the Romanwall.Prelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.12.42Historically,SloveniannationalismwasawakenedrelativelyearlybyNapoleonBonaparte’sforces,whichoccupiedtheregionbetween1809and1813.TherevivedancienttermIllyriawasintroducedto promote the integration of Croatian and Slovenian lands into a single administrative unit,governed by theFrench. Plenik, allegedly,wasvery interested in the ideas behind French Illyrianideals,particularlytheconnectionitestablishedbetweentheSlovenecultureandtheEtruscans.P.Rowe,CivicRealism,MITPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1997,p.172.

Chapter2

50

dominate the Slovenes. He particularly objected to continual attempts from

BelgradetocontroltheSlovenianarchitectureprogram,andtotheintroductionof

feesforprofessionalregistration.43Mostsignificantly,despitePlenik’sattemptsto

define the grounds of a specifically Slovenian culture he was not interested in

addingthosetoanewcollectiveYugoslavculture.

Exemplifying his opposition to attempts to construct an art reflecting Yugoslav

ideologies,PlenikspokeopenlyagainstartistssuchasIvanMeštrovi.Meštrovi,a

sculptor and an architect who many have argued was one of the world’s most

famous, was a leading supporter of the idea of a new kind of Yugoslav culture.44

Meštrovi made his alliances clear in his controversial display at the Rome

Exhibition in 1911. Expected to present his work within the Austro–Hungarian

pavilion,Meštrovirefusedtodosounlessaseparatepavilionwasprovidedforthe

SouthSlavs;hisrequestwasdenied,heexhibitedhisworkintheSerbianpavilion.45

HimselfaCroat,Meštrovi’srejectionofhisperceived‘CentralEuropeanculture’for

analliancewiththeSerbs,whowereconsidered ‘barbarians’,wasasWachtelhas

suggested ‘sensational’.46 His exhibition work presented fragments from the so

called Kosovo or St. Vitrus’ Day Temple (the battle of Kosovo was fought on St.

Vitrus’ Day).47 A wooden model of the Temple combined Catholic and Orthodox

elements, with the plan following the pattern of a Roman Catholic cross and the

domehavingmoreaByzantinecharacter.Theexhibitasawholewasencircledbya

43Prelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.159.44Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,p.54.45Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,pp.55–56.46Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,pp.55.47Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,pp.55–56.

Chapter2

51

rangeoffiguresinspiredbythefamousheroesofSouthSlavoralpoetry.48Thework

ofMeštroviresonatedthroughtheterritoriesofYugoslavia,asaproposalofdeep

national significance. But commenting on the 1923 Meštrovi exhibition in

Ljubljana,Pleniksaid: ‘I respectMeštroviasanartist,but Idonot think thathe

hasreallythoughtthroughwhathisaimswere.’49

PerceivinghisartisticvisionasawarrantofSlovenianculturalintegrity,Pleniktold

hisstudents:

Iamwholeheartilyfortheunification[ofYugoslavia],butIamforeachfamilyliving

separately, so that we can, with ease, look in each other’s eyes and talk about

thingsandlearnabouteachother–itisonlythatwaythatwecandevelop.50

Encouraged, Grabrijan embarked on his lifelong project aimed at discovering and

addingtothesignificantanddiverseartisticcreationsofYugoslavia– to theever

growing artistic creations of the world. Under the influence of Riegl’s theories,

Grabrijan’sdiscussionoftheurbanconditionofBosniabegantobemarkedbythe

searchforarchitecturethatdemonstratedthesociety’sartisticexperiences,andthe

specificsof itsculturalexpression.51EncouragedbyPlenik’scredothat itwasthe

roleofanarchitect todiscovernewvalues inwhat wasalready there,Grabrijan’s

48Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,pp.55–56.49Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,pp.96–97.50Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.68.51AloisRiegl’ssearchforcorrelationsbetweensocietyandartisticcreationshadasignificantimpacton architectural discourse from the late 19th century on, from the allenveloping art of theGesamtkunstwerk, associated with the work of Wagner, to William Morris and the arts and craftmovement.

Chapter2

52

earlywritingsonthecityofSarajevosoughttoidentifythevalueshiddenwithinthe

urbanfabric.52

IdentifyingthesignificanceofBašaršija

From 1930, Grabrijan’s writings focused on the old Ottomanestablished urban

precinct of Bašaršija. By the time Grabrijan settled in the city this historic core

occupiedonlyarelativelysmallareaontheeasternedgeofthenewcity.53

Notwithstanding its size and peripheral position, the precinct’s busy shops and

pedestrian routes continued to play a significant role in the daily life of Sarajevo.

Established in the 15th century, the old precinct still maintained the original

principlesofOttomanurbandesign.Mostnotablewasthegenericdivisionbetween

public and private domains,54 the road separating the activities of thearšija, the

tradeandbusinessdistrict,fromthesurroundingresidentialarea,themahala.The

Bašaršija business section also accommodated the most important civic and

religious buildings, including the markets, Gazi Husref Beg’s Mosque (1531), the

Jewish synagogue (original building from 1581) and the Old Orthodox Church

(1539–40).55 These structures coupled with the precinct’s narrow, meandering

52 Grabrijan retained his teaching position at Sarajevo’s Technical School until the onset of WorldWarTwo.In1945hereturnedtoSloveniatoapositionasProfessorofArchitectureattheUniversityofLjubljana.53 By the early 20th century, the limits of Bašaršija had been determined geographically: on thesouthbyObalaStreet,whichseparatedBašaršijafromthenorthernresidentialhills;onthewestbyGazi Husref Beg’s Bezistan and the old Jewish Hram (synagogue), which borders a new Austro–Hungariandevelopment;andontheeastbytheVijenica(TownHall)andtheŠeherehajinbridge.54 A. Raymond, The Great Arab Cities in the 16th–18th Centuries, An Introduction, New YorkUniversityPress,NewYork,1984,p.10.55A.Bejtisuggeststhattheoriginalbuildingwasbuilt in1581,andthebuildingthatstandstodaywas built in 1821–23, in Stara Sarajevska aršijajuer, danas i sutra, Osnove I Smjernice za

Chapter2

53

streetsgaveGrabrijananimpressionthattheuniquevaluesofthecityofSarajevo

werelaidwithintheoldprecinct.

Ina1940articleentitled‘Architectureinhumanscale’,Grabrijanstatedthatdespite

thediversityofurbanexperiencesinSarajevo,hisfocusisontheold.‘Ifwelookat

Sarajevo from the surrounding hills of Trebevi, we will notice two formations:

eastern and western parts – cities next to each other.’56 Admitting that the

‘western’ part with its ‘corridorlike streets’ was not of particular interest, he

focusedonthe‘eastern’partandtheoldtownofBašaršija.Hestated:

[Theeasternpart] ismadeofsmallhousessurroundedbygardens, low inheight,

calm,humbleandtame–themonotonythatisonlyhereandthereinterruptedby

domesandminaretsofmosques,i.e.,alayeredcompositionsimilartostoneslates.

Everythingisharmoniousandhomogenous:areflectionofaresidualculture.57

Attracted to the smallscale development of the precinct and its ‘harmonious’

qualities, Grabrijan wrote, ‘My heart is leaning towards the eastern part of the

town’.Hiddeninthisfabricarethe‘secrets[that] Iwouldliketoreveal’.58Further

rationalisingthisinterestintheoldanddilapidatedcity,hewrote:

Regenaraciju (Old Town of Sarajevo, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, a Development Proposal),GradskiZavodzaZaštitu iUredjenjeSpomenikaKulture,Sarajevo,1969,p.34.BejtialsosuggeststhattheOrthodoxChristiansbuilttheirchurchin1539–40,p.31.56 Grabrijan, ‘Architecture in human scale’ (Arhitektura nadohvat covjecje ruke), Novi Behar,Sarajevo,1940,br.2,3andspecialeditionreprintedin,D.eli(ed.),GrabrijaniSarajevo,Izabranilanci1963–42,(GrabrijanandSarajevo,SelectedArticles1963–42),MuzejGradaSarajeva,Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1970,p.51.57Grabrijan,‘Architectureinhumanscale’ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.51.58Originalquote:‘OvestvariimajukvalitetkojimaEuropaoskudjeva.IsprednjihseodjednomosjetibarbarinomtajsuperiorniovjeksaZapada,kojidolaziovamokaoukoloniju.Dakle,poredhaoticnoggradaživitu,negdjeismisaozaljepotuIosjeajzamjerilo!Isrceminaginjeutajdrugi, istonidiograda,Iželiobihmuotkrititajnu!Šta,jedakle,tuštoprivlai,uprkosnerješenogprometa,nehigijeneIneekonomije!PokušatcutonazvatiIizraziti:arhitekturomnadohvatovjeijeruke’;alsopublishedineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.52.

Chapter2

54

…So,whatistherethatmakesitattractiveintheunresolvedtrafficconditions,lack

ofhygieneandrentviability?Iwilltrytonameitandexplainitas:architecturein

humanscale.’59

His fascination with the precinct resulted in numerous articles published in both

professionaljournalsandthedailypapers.Theyincludedtitlessuchas‘Familysmall

house’ (1936), ‘Muslimgraveyards’ (1936), ‘LeCorbusierandSarajevo’ (1936)and

the‘Turkishhouse’(1937),andintheseGrabrijanarguedthatthehistoricprecinct

was relevant to the construction of a new city. Its urban and formal qualities

remindedhimofnotonlyofhisdaysatPlenik’sschool,butalsoofhis interest in

modern debates, such as Le Corbusier’s discussion of the Orient. These themes

underpinnedGrabrijan’swritingsonthecity.

Historicyes,butnotsignificant:theproblemsofIslamicheritage

In the article ‘Muslim graveyards’ Grabrijan addressed the pertinent issue of the

destructionof Islamicbuiltheritage inSarajevo.60The ‘exhumation’ofoldMuslim

graveyardsstartedwiththeAustro–Hungariangovernmentinthe1880s,initiallyas

partofexpandingcityboundariesandtransformingthelandonceontheperiphery.

Thepracticealso formedapartof thegovernment’sendeavour tomodernise the

cityandtoturnoldgraveyardsintonewparks.Inanattempttoparticipateinthose

59eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.52.60ExhumationofoldMuslimgraveyardswasstartedbytheAustro–Hungarians,whotookouttwosignificantgraveyardsinthesouthwestcornerofthePresidentialPalace.Oppositethepalace,inthepositionof today’sSmallPark,anoldMuslimgraveyardwas turned intoapark in1886,andafterWorldWarTwonewbuildingswerebuiltonthesite.Themaincitypark,knownastheBigPark,wasalso originally a Muslim graveyard. During the Turkish time AtMejdan, later renamed SijasetMejdan, was used as an execution ground. Nijazija Koštovi presents an extensive record ofexhumed Muslim graveyards, but Koštovi’s inconsistent referencing system makes this studydifficulttouse.N.Koštovi,Sarajevo,IzmedjuDobrotvorstvaiZla,(SarajevoBetweentheCharitableandEvil),ElKalemandMerhamet,Sarajevo,1995,pp.186–99.

Chapter2

55

changes and find new revenue, the directorate of vakufs (Islamic pious

endowments) – the legal owner of the all the vakuf properties – apparently

‘willinglyhandedover’twolargegraveyardsin1885totransformintosuchparks.61

In return, the government promised to keep the gravestones and pay the vakuf

directorate yearly rent.62 New parks, roads and paths were cut through old

graveyardsandmosquegardens,andwhenGrabrijanaddressedthe issue in1936

theprocesswasinfullswing.

Acceptingmodernisationasthepremiseonwhichthepolicyofgraveyardsclearing

wasbased,Grabrijan’s textaddressedthe issueof integratingtheoldgravestones

(the historic remnant) in the new setting. He perceived modernisation as a

progressive socioeconomic force and suggested that the graveyards could be

turned into the ‘lungsof thenewcity.’63Naivelycalling fora full incorporationof

the past’s remnants into new landscape, Grabrijan wrote, ‘bring park into the

graveyard,graves intothecitycentre,andhistory intomodern life!’64Unawareof

thecomplexityofthedebate,hefocusedontheimportanceofcontextualisingthe

oldrelictsintothenewlandscape.‘Sarajevo’shistory’,hewrote,‘iswrittenonthese

tombs’.65AdjustingRiegl’sthesistothespecificsoflocaldebate,hestatedthatthe

tombs communicated the stylistic requirements of a particular historical moment

61 T. Kruševac, Sarajevo pod AustroUgarskom upravom 1878–1918, (Sarajevo Under the AustroHungarianAdministration18781918),IzdanjeMuzejagradaSarajeva,Sarajevo,1960,p.4762Kruševac,SarajevopodAustroUgarskomupravom1878–1918,p.4763eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.108.64 Original quote: ‘Dakle: park u groblje, grobove usred grada, historiju u moderan život.’ ‘Muslimgraveyards’,ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.108.65Originalquote:‘AliSarajevoimahistorijupisanunanišanima,tj.historijunarodakojijebivjerskiprepotentan,pajeonda,kadsenijesmioiživljavatiubogumilstvu,prešaoodmahnaislam.’‘Muslimgraveyards’,ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.107.

Chapter2

56

andwererelevanttothecontemporarycity.66Inanattempttofindsupportforhis

argument,Grabrijanrecalledaneventwheninanattempttodiverttheauthorities

from clearing an old graveyard Plenik proposed a public park. The design

incorporated importanthistoricmonuments inspatialandsymbolicconfigurations

thatGrabrijanstatedwasevocativeof‘SlovenianPantheon’.67

Butunlike inLjubljana,whereurbanauthoritiessupportedPlenik inhiseffortsto

include remnants of the past in his new urban plans, in Sarajevo the Ottoman

heritagewasunderconsiderableattack.TheexhumationofoldOttomangraveyards

was accompanied by outright demolition or passive neglect and destruction of

historic buildings. This saw the mosque of Mustafa Beg Skenderpaši (the first

domedmosque inthewholeofBosniaandHerzegovina,built in1518)collapse in

1935 after an underfunded roofreplacement project left the structure uncovered

and open to weather.68 A number of local mosques and religious schools were

demolished, including the Hadži Idris Mesdžid (1540), the Mesdžid Tavil Hadži

Mustafa(1545),theMesdžidHadžiMahmudBaliSahtijandži(builtbefore1602)and

theMejdanmedresa(1741).69

It isclear thatGrabrijansawheritageconservationasasignificantproblem. Inhis

1936paper, ‘ThoughtsandcommentsonthedevelopmentofSarajevo’,published

66Pacht,‘Arthistoriansandartcritics–vi:AloisRiegl’,p.189.67 While Grabrijan does not mention the specific project, the reference was most likely made inrelationtoPlenik’sdesignofLjubljanacemeteryatŽaleproject.eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.108.68 The whole structure disintegrated, leaving only the minaret standing. The minaret wassubsequentlydestroyedin1960.Koštovi,Sarajevo,IzmedjuDobrotvorstvaiZla,p.170.69Koštovi,Sarajevo,IzmedjuDobrotvorstvaiZla,pp.174–76.

Chapter2

57

six years after his arrival in the city, Grabrijan expressed his frustration with

approaches to urban development.70 Discussing zoning, traffic and hygiene in

relation to theurbanplanningofSarajevo,Grabrijanaccusedthecityauthorityof

losing ‘itshead’byallowing the ‘barbarityofmodernisation’ todestroy theurban

qualitiesofthecity.71Inanumberofarticlespublishedin1936and1937Grabrijan

continuedhiscriticismofbroaderurbanplanningapproachesandspecificheritage

policies forBašaršija.72However,hisvoice remaineda loneoneandhis requests

went unheard. His outspokenness was seen as a reflection of his nonBosnian

backgroundandlackofinvolvementandawareness,ormaybeappreciation,ofthe

specific historical and political factors that framed discussion of Sarajevo’s built

heritage.

To understand the context within which Grabrijan’s articles appeared and the

resistance they faced, it is necessary to outline two broader issues framing the

discussion of Bašaršija: first, the Ottoman origins that underlined the internal

70Grabrijan‘Sarajevoseizgradjuje,NekolikopolemikihmisliourbanizacijiSarajeva’(ThoughtsandcommentsonthedevelopmentofSarajevo),originallypublishedinJugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,11.4.1936;republishedineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.101–05.71eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.101–05.72 In the years 1936–37 Grabrijan published more than 20 papers. Among those that specificallyaddressed the problematic issues of urban development were: ‘Sarajevo se izgradjujeNekolikopolemikih misli o urbanizaciji Sarajeva’(Sarajevo is getting built, some thoughts on the urbandevelopment of Sarajevo), Jugoslovenski List, Sarajevo, 11. 4, 1936; ‘Porodina mala kua’ (Smallfamily home), Tehniar, br. 7, Beograd, April 1936; ‘Muslimanska groblja’, (Muslim graveyards),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,14.6,1936;andNoviBehar,Sarajevo,1937,br.5–6,god.XI;‘Željeznikiproblem,Oastronomskimsumama’, (Aproblemofthe[Sarajevo]railwaystation,aboutexuberantprices),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,24.6,1936;‘Sarajevskiželjeznikiproblem,konkretnipredlog’,(AproblemoftheSarajevorailwaystation,aproposal),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,1.7,1936;‘OsvrtnaarhitektonskuizložbuJurajaNeidhardtanaTehnikomfakultetuuZagrebuGradjevnaidejaGI’,(Areview of architectural exhibition of Juraj Neidhardt at Technical Faculty in Zagreb), GradjevinskiVjesnik,Zagreb,br.1,January1937;‘Arhitektonskiproblemimodernogteatra,OrijentacijaprilikomSarajevskeadaptacije’,(Architecturalproblemsofmoderntheatre,acasestudyofSarajevotheatre),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,6.1.1937.

Chapter2

58

structure of the precinct and the precinct’s subsequent changes under the new

Austro–Hungariangovernment,whichtookoverBosniain1878;second,theimpact

those urban changes had on geographical and contextual relationship between

Bašaršijaandtherestofthecity.

TheoriginsandtransformationsofBašaršija,fromthetowncentretothehistoricprecinct

The origins of the city of Sarajevo are connected to what later became the

Bašaršijaprecinct.73Inthemid15thcenturytheIsabegIshakovi,firstgovernorof

the newly acquired Ottoman province of Bosnia, built his administrative

headquarters, or saray, from which Sarajevo took its name (saray = military

camp/palace;ovasi=field).74

73HistorianBehijaZlataroffersadetaileddiscussionofthedevelopmentofSarajevofromitsoriginstill the end of 16th century. Zlatar identifies a small town located around the medieval marketsquare Trgovište, or Utorkovište, located where Ali Pasha’smosque and theHygienic Institute aretoday.MostmentionedlocalitiesareintheareathattheIsaBegvakufdocuments(vakufnama)refertoasStaraVaroš(OldTown),dated1468.OldTrgovište(OldMarketplace)isfromthedocumentsof1569,VarošišteorVrhbosnaasitisreferredtoinsomedocuments.Vrhbosnaisalsothenameofthemediaevaltownonthatplace.In1451,theOttomanstookoverthetownofVrhbosna,whichgrewintothemajorOttomancityofBosnia–thecityofSarajevo–andlaunchedaseriesoffurtherattacksthat resulted in the whole mediaeval kingdom falling into Ottoman’s hands. Isa Beg Ishakovi issometimesspelledasIsakovi,and‘beg’isaBosnianspellingofthetitlebeyor‘chieftain.’Heretheformer spelling is used, as it is by B. Zlatar in Zlatno doba Sarajeva (Golden Age of Sarajevo),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1996,pp.28–37.74AccordingtoZlatar,1463marksthetakeoveroftheBosnianterritoriesbytheOttomans.Thatyearthe territory of Bosnia became a sandžak (commonly translated as ‘province’), with the newlyestablished city of Sarajevo as its centre. Zlatar, Zlatno doba Sarajeva, p. 34. Also, from theestablishment of Ottoman power until 1580, Bosnia formed a part of the eyâlet (governorategeneral) of Rumelia which comprised a number of sandžaks and covered most of the Balkans.SarajevowasthefirstcentreofBosniansandžakandlateronpašaluk(Ottomanadministrativeunit).TheeyeletofBosniawascreatedwhich includedthewholeofmodernBosniaandHercegovinaaswell as some parts of neighbouring Slavonia, Croatia, Dalmatia and Serbia. Traditionally theprovinces of the Ottoman Empire were known as eyâlets. From 1864 they were graduallyrestructuredassmallervilâyets,vilajetinBosnian.N.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,Macmillan,London,1994,p.50.

Chapter2

59

Having initially established the governor’s palace and Sarajevo’s first mosque, on

the left bank, Isa Beg built a bridge across the Miljacka River, connecting his

development with the existing intersection of roads that would become the new

commercialcentre.75Onthatleftbankheestablishedatekija(zawiya–thelodgeof

a dervish order) to serve as ‘a place of rest for poor Muslims that are students,

sejjidi[descendantsoftheProphet],warriorsandtravellers’.76Ontherightbankhe

commissioned a karavansaraj (caravansaray, inn for travellers and merchants),

withadjoiningshopsandworkshops,adevelopmentthatformedthenucleusofthe

futuregrandbazaarthatwouldbecalledBašaršija.77

Between1521and1541,underthegovernorshipofGaziHusrefBeg,Bašaršijaand

the surrounds entered a period of major development.78 The increase of urban

activitiesmarkedthebeginningofthe‘goldenperiod’ofthecityandadvancedthe

75InadditiontotheexistingmedievaltownofVrhbosna,theplacethatIsaBegselectedtobuildthenewtownwasclosetoanothermediaevalsettlement–Brodac.There,IsaBegappropriatedlandandinexchangegavethelocalChristianpopulationnewfieldsfurtheraway.However,thefirstbuildingactivities took place before 1462. The transformation was marked by the town’s classification tokasaba,aplacethathasamosquewhereFridayprayersareperforms,acommunityofMuslimsandamarketplace.Zlatar,ZlatnodobaSarajeva,pp.28–30.76IsaBegdesignatedvakufpropertytosecuretheworkingoftekija.Thestructuresthatprovidedthemaintenanceandsupportforhisvakufincludedhamam(baths),watersupply,millsandland.Zlatar,ZlatnoDobaSarajeva,pp.31–33.77 The term Bašaršija is derived from Turkish language as ‘Baš’ is related to ‘ba ’ that in Turkishmeans ‘main’, ‘capital’ and ‘aršija’which is ‘çar ’ that inTurkishmeans ‘bazaar’or ‘market’.Thetermaršijaonlyisalsocommonlyused.78Therehavebeentwospellingsusedforhisname:GaziHusrefBegandGaziHusrevbeg.Heretheformerisused.GaziHusrefBegcameasagovernoroftheBosniansandžakin1521,wherehestayeduntil1541,withtwosmall interruptions.A.Handži,StudijeoBosni,historijskiprilozi izosmanskoturskogperiod,(AStudyofBosniaDuringtheOttomanTurkishPeriod),ResearchCentreforIslamicHistory,ArtandCulture(IRCICA), Istanbul,1994,p.79.ForadiscussionofGaziHusrefBegandhisendowments see also: Gazihusrevbeg’s Vakuf (comp.), Spomenica Gazi Husrevbegove etiristoGodišnjice(FourHundredYearsofGazihusrevbeg’sVakuf)Sarajevo,1932,inparticularthesectionbyH.Kreševljakovi,‘SarajevodoHusrefbega’,pp.3–17.

Chapter2

60

status of Sarajevo from kasaba (small town) to a šeher (town).79 In 1531, Gazi

HusrefBegcommissionedtheconstructionofSarajevo’smostprominentmosquein

Bašaršija–theBeg’s(Begova)mosque,withassociatedstructuresthatincludeda

šadrvan(waterfountain),twoturbes(burialchambers)andakutubhana(library).80

Tothewestofthemosquehebuiltanimaret(kitchenforthepoor),amusafirhana

(inn forpoorpeople),andtothenorthof itamekteb (elementary Islamicschool)

andahanikah(hostelwithaschoolforyoungdervishes).81Inthesameyear,healso

began construction of commercial buildings, such as a karavansaraj (inn for

travellersandmerchants).

ThefollowingdecadewitnessedBašaršija’ssteadydevelopmentintoacommercial

centre, with commissions such as Gazi Husref Beg’sbezistan (covered bazaar for

valuable goods) and tašlihan (small inn) in 1540.82 The commercial growth of

Bašaršija continued throughout the second half of the 16th century. The most

significantcommercialstructurebuilt inthisperiodwastheBrusaBezistan[Figure

79Handžisuggeststhatmostofthesultan’smosques inBosniawere, infact,statesponsoredandnotestablishedunderthevakufoftheSultan.ThatsuggeststhatthefirstmosquesinvarioustownscanbeseenasmoreaplannedactionoftheOttomangovernmentandlesstheresultofindividualundertakings through the institution of vakuf. A. Handži, Studije o Bosni, historijski prilozi izosmanskoturskogperioda.80 The document compiled by the Gazihusrevbeg’s Vakuf,SpomenicaGaziHusrevbegoveetiristoGodišnjice, contains detailed description of the vakuf and the buildings and structure that itencompassed.81Thehanikahburnedtwice, in1697and1755,andwasrenovatedthreetimes in1769,1831and1852. In 1931, it was replaced by a new medresa. Gazihusrevbeg’s Vakuf, Spomenica GaziHusrevbegoveetiristoGodišnjice,p.57.Thedervisheswereofthehalvetijaorder.82Tašlihan(stonehan,Husrevbeg'scaravanseraioroldhan)wasbuiltbetween1540and1543.Thestructurecaughtfirein1697,andthenagainin1831,beforeburneddowncompletelyin1879.

Chapter2

61

3], a covered marketplace constructed by Rustem Pasha in 1551 to facilitate the

importationofsilkfromTurkey.83

Figure3:ContemporaryviewoftheexteriorofthecoveredmarketplaceofBrusaBezistan.Source:DijanaAli,2004.

InaccordancewiththeOttomanpractice,theinstitutionofthevakufunderpinned

urban development. The vakuf was a religious trust fund, with its own separate

administration and legal identity.84 Its finance was reliant on a permanent

endowment of land or real estate made by an individual stipulating that the

propertybeusedforpurposescompatiblewithIslam.85Thus,thedonatedproperty

andfinancewereprimarilyusedforprovidingpublicinstitutions,suchasmosques,

83ForathoroughdescriptionofBašaršija’sdevelopmentinthe16thcenturyseeZlatar,ZlatnoDobaSarajeva.84For furtherdiscussionofvakufs in formerYugoslaviaseeM.Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH, (Legislative Regulations for Cultural and Historic Heritage in Bosnia andHerzegovina,Origins,Protection,Destruction),MedjunarodniCentarzaMir,Sarajevo,1997,pp.17–22.85ThespellingofthetermvakufisBosnian.TheauthorisawareofthederivationfromtheTurkishvakifandArabicwaqf,buttomaintainaccuracyinreferencingoriginaldocuments,alltermsinthisthesisarespelledinBosnian.

Chapter2

62

schools, libraries, hostels, hospitals, public fountains, kitchens and sometimes

bridgesandroads.Thesystemalsoprovidedforincomeproducingproperties,such

as farmlands, toll bridges, inns, bathhouses, shops and warehouses. Funds raised

through these institutions allowed for the perpetual operation and restoration of

thevakuf’sproperties.

InthecontextofBašaršija,thevakuf’sdetailsofGaziHusrefBeg’sendowmentfor

buildingandmaintainingstructuresweresetoutinthreeadministrativedocuments

calledvakfija(endowmentdeed).86Thefirstofthese,dated1531(938accordingto

Islamic calendar), documented the establishment of the main mosque, hanikah,

mekteb, imaret and musafirhana. The second, from 1537, was related to the

medresa, and the third,dated thesameyear,presented theestablishmentof the

main mosque in more detail.87 The vakuf’s funds were used to support the main

buildings, as well as other public structures, such as sahatkula (the clock tower),

fourhans,andvakufhospital,tonamethemostsignificant.88Further,inhisdesire

todevelopBašaršijaintoanactivemarketplace,GaziHusrefBegprovidedloansto

merchants interested in building markets andstores within the boundaries of the

precinct.

Despite Bašaršija’s Ottoman urban structure and the prominence of Islamic

educational and religious institutions, the precinct also accommodated other

86Thevakfijadocuments includedmovableandfixedassets,andsetuptherelationshipsbetweentheeconomicandurbanaspectsofspecificvakufestablishments.Gazihusrevbeg’sVakuf,SpomenicaGaziHusrevbegoveetiristoGodišnjice.87Gazihusrevbeg’sVakuf,SpomenicaGaziHusrevbegoveetiristoGodišnjice,pp.91–92.88Handži,StudijeoBosni,historijskipriloziizosmanskoturskogperioda,VIII.

Chapter2

63

religiousgroups,whichweregrantedadegreeofsocialandcivicautonomyunder

the millet system.89 Millets were selfgoverning religious communities under the

Ottomangovernment,grantingrightstoChristiansandJewstoapplytheirownlaws

in their own courts, albeit under certain restrictions. The system thus recognised

theBosnianpopulationthroughitsreligions(Muslims,Catholics,andOrthodox)and

not itsnationalbelonging–Bosnians,CroatsandSerbs.BecauseIslamformedthe

backbone of the Ottoman state, the religious separations hindered integration of

thevarioussegmentsoftheempire’spopulationintoauniformgroup.

The millet structure affected the urban layout of the city, as religious groups

occupied separate parts of the same precinct.90 In the 16th century, the Catholic

merchantsfromDubrovnik(Ragusa),forexample,builtachurchwithintheirdistrict

of Latinluk, or Franaka mahala, while the Orthodox population settled near the

northern boundary of Bašaršija, where they established their church, with its

surrounding residential and commercial dwellings, in 1539.91 Later in the century,

Bašaršija saw the arrival of the Sephardic Jews, following their expulsion from

Spain.TheyestablishedacommunityinSarajevoandbuilttheirfirstsynagogue,in

1581, at the western end of the precinct. Over the following two centuries

Bašaršijaretaineditsurbanstructure,asdeterminedbytheprominentbuildingsof

GaziHusrefBeg’svakufandtheperipheraldevelopmentofvariousethnicquarters.

So by the beginning of the 17th century one could view the presence and

89Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.49.90HandžiprovidesmoreinformationonmilletsinBosniainStudijeoBosni;seealso,R.Donia&J.Fine,BosniaandHercegovina–ATraditionBetrayed,HurstandCompany,London,1994,pp.64–65.91TheoriginalRomanCatholicchurchinLatinluk,datingfromtheMiddleAges,wasdestroyedinthefireof1697.

Chapter2

64

interactionofBosnia’sfourreligiouscommunitieswithintheonesquarekilometre

ofBašaršija.

Sarajevo was a taxfree city, which furthered Bašaršija’s economic development.

The Muafnama, a document providing the city with exemptions from taxes, was

initiallygiventoSarajevoin1464inappreciationforthecity’smilitarycontribution.

This privilege remained a characteristic of Sarajevo until the late 18th century.92

Clearly, this economic climate provided a financial advantage to merchants and

artisans, whose gravitation to Bašaršija further confirmed this urban core as the

commercialcentreofthecity.Bosnia’sgrowing importanceasastrongholdofthe

OttomanEmpirecontributedtoachangeofstatus in1580 intoaprincipalunitof

the empire. It enjoyed its special status for the remaining period of Ottoman

governanceandthe1878takeoverbytheAustro–HungarianEmpire[Figure4].93

92MuafnamawasfirstgiventoSarajevobysultanMehmedelFatih,andthesameMuafnamawasrenewed at least four more times, in 1572, 1692–93, 1701 and 1748. Serdarevi, Pravna zaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,pp.16–17.93 From the early 19th century, the Ottoman Empire started experiencing significant problems inBosnia.InternalpressuresandrebelliousnesswithinBosniaaccompaniedtheendofNapoleonicwarsandtheSerbianrebellion. In1877,RussiadeclaredwarontheOttomans,andby1878Russiawasabletodictatethetermsofsettlementwiththeempire.UndertheTreatyofSanStefano,BosniawastoremainOttomanterritory,butvariousreformshadtobe introduced.However, theCongressofBerlin in 1878 (Treaty of Berlin) changed those arrangements and announced that Bosnia andHercegovina,whilestillofficiallyunderOttomansuzerainty,wouldbeoccupiedandadministeredbyAustria–Hungary.Foradiscussiononthisperiodsee‘Resistanceandreform’inMalcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.119–35.

Chapter2

Figure 4: aršija with its surroundings at the end of 19thcentury, Neidhardt’s map developed on the base of late19th century Austro Hungarian map. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way TowardsModernity,p.59.

TheinterwovennatureofthecentralmarketandthemainmosqueofGaziHusref

Beg contributed to the development of a complex and active civic centre. More

significantly, this urban model served political purposes, as it allowed for the

articulation of an authoritative Ottoman imperial image. In the first instance, the

reliance on the vakuf and the large financial investments in religious buildings

emphasisedIslamandIslamic lawasthebasisofcommunity,culturalandpolitical

life, thereby strengthening the Ottoman presence in Sarajevo. Further, the city

centre’s concentrated network of economic activity symbolised the Ottoman

commercialinterestintheregion.GiventheperipheralpositionofSarajevoonthe

western boundaries of the Ottoman Empire, the official tax exemption secured

Sarajevo’seconomicgrowthandrepresentedaneconomicallypowerfulempire to

theneighbouringwesternstates.

Chapter2

66

InthefollowingtwocenturiesBašaršijaretaineditsurbanstructureofprominent

buildings of the Gazi Husref Beg’s vakuf, with peripheral development of various

ethnicquarters.Thisperiodofmoderateandconservativegrowth,however,came

toanabruptendastheAustro–HungarianEmpireassumedadministrativechargeof

Bosnia in 1878 and annexed this region in 1908. The new government’s focus on

infrastructureandurbanrenewal,gaverisetoaperiodofdevelopmentandgrowth

inSarajevo.94

TheAustro–Hungariantransformations:fromtowncentretohistoricprecinct

TheTreatyofBerlingavetheAustro–Hungariangovernmentadministrativecontrol

ofBosniain1878.Thenewgovernmentbeganalmostimmediatelytoupgradethe

existing city, as well as develop the new city to the west of the old precinct. The

new city’s placement responded to restrictive topography, defined by the

surrounding mountains and the narrow valley of the riverMiljacka. The new city

thereforemovedawayfromtheoldprecinct.ThepretextfortheAustro–Hungarian

takeoverbeingpremisedonOttomanincapacitytoadministertheregion,thenew

government immediately focused on introducing an administrative and urban

structure. Authorities began numbering the houses, straightening and regulating

the streets, building containing walls for the river Miljacka and adding a series of

94Bytheearly20thcentury,thelimitsofSarajevo’sBašaršijahadbeendeterminedgeographically:onthesouthbyObalaStreet,whichrunsparalleltotheriverMiljackatothesouth;onthenorthbyPetarKoi/MarshalTitoStreet,which separates theBašaršija fromthenorthern residentialhills;onthewestbyGaziHusrefBeg’sBezistanandtheoldJewishHram(synagogue),whichborderswitha new Austro–Hungarian development; and on the east by the Vijenica and Šeher ehajin. Analternative term aršija (markets) is also commonly used in reference to the same precinct. Bothtermscouldbeinclusiveofthesurroundingresidentialareasofmahalas.

Chapter2

67

newbridgesandcivicbuildings.Thisfocusoninfrastructureandurbanrenewalgave

risetothedevelopmentandgrowthofthenewcity,tothewestofBašaršija.95

Frequent fires that started easily in the densely populated Bašaršija area

threatenednotonly thehistoricmonumentsbut thesurrounding fabricaswell.A

suddenfirethatdestroyedsignificantpartsofBašaršija in1879,onlyayearafter

theAustriansarrived,provideda legitimateexcuseforgovernmenttoaddressthe

‘problem’ofBašaršijaandtestitsnewregulatorypolicies.96Inthe1880s,abuilding

codeforSarajevostipulatedthatnewbuildingscouldbebuiltintheBašaršijaarea

and that existing buildings could be adapted only with governmental permission,

thus putting all new development under strict governmental control.97 The

measureswereintroducednotsomuchtoprotectthetraditionalenvironmentasto

provideaspacefortheselectiveconservationandcontrolofthecity’sgrowthand

development.Aseparatesectionofthebuildingcodeintroducedthewideningand

95 For a discussion of the AustroHungarian administration ofSarajevo see Kruševac,SarajevopodAustro–Ugarskom upravom 1878–1918; and H. Kreševljakovi, Sarajevo za vrijeme Austrougarskeuprave (1878–1918), (Sarajevo During the AustroHungarian Government), Izdanje Arhiva GradaSarajeva,Sarajevo1969,pp.23–27.96The first threebooksof regulationsanddirectives (1878–1880)werepublished inVienna in theGermanlanguage,withmoreinstructionalratherthannormativecharacter.InthefirstinstancetheAustro–Hungarian government relied on the existing Turkish ‘buildings and roads regulations’(originallypublished1863)foritsownneeds.Thischangedfrom1881,whenthegovernmentstartedprinting its publications in both German and SerboCroatian and sometimes the SerboCroatianversioninbothscripts(LatinandCyrillic).Kruševac,SarajevopodAustro–Ugarskomupravom1878–1918,pp.36–37.97AtthebeginningthenewauthoritiesacceptedandrespectedTurkishlaws.Butby1880thenewbuildingcode(Graevnired)hadalreadybeenintroduced,stipulatingbuildingheightsandrequiringsubmission of drawings as a part of the building approval process. M. Serdarevi, Pravna zaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.27alsoinKruševac,SarajevopodAustro–Ugarskomupravom1878–1918,p.37.

Chapter2

68

straightening of streets, the opening of new squares and streets and a new

regulation(expropriation)andzoningoftheland.98

A process that initially aimed at making the area safe saw Bašaršija gradually

changefromthecentreofcitylifetoadesignatedhistoricalprecinct.Thenew1893

‘Building code regulations for the capital city of Sarajevo’ (Graevni pravilnik za

Zemaljski glavni grad Sarajevo) defined the business sector of Bašaršija as a

separate zone, with specific building regulations.99 The code allowed building in

timber, but limited the building height to basement and two storeys. Building a

third storey depended on providing appropriate ‘health, air and light access’ and

proving noninterference with the ‘picturesque appearance’ of the surrounding

buildings.100BuildingintheproximityoftheGaziHusrefBeg’smosquewasheavily

regulatedtopreservethe‘character’oftheprecinct.101

Ultimately,theconservationpolicyarticulatedinthe‘buildingcoderegulationsfor

thecapitalcityof Sarajevo’ favoured theconservationof the ‘significantheritage’

only.102Althoughthisledtoprojectssuchastherepaintingoftheornamentsinthe

BegMosquein1885,andthereconstructionoftheŠeherehajinbridgein1902,it

98Kruševac,SarajevopodAustro–Ugarskomupravom1878–1918,p.37.99 Serdarevi suggests thisdocument was the first legal act that regulated the building industry inSarajevo.Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.29.100Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.29101BrankaDimitrijevirefersto‘BosnischePost’of12May1903,whichoutlinestheattemptbytheAustro–Hungarians to regulate building in the area of Bašaršija. B. Dimitrijevi, Prilozi o zaštitigraditeljskog nasljedja u Bosni I Hercegovini I valorizaciji Bašaršije u Sarajevu u AustroUgarskomperiodu(1878–1918),Sarajevo,September1988,unpublishedpaperpresentedataconferenceonthedevelopmentofBašaršija.102Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.27.

Chapter2

69

overlookedtheneedtomaintainsmallscalestructures.103Thefocusonsignificant

structures isolated and privileged monuments and historic buildings above the

overallcontextoftheprecinct.104 Withtheauthorities’growingrecognitionofthe

importanceofhistoricpreservation,questionsofwhethertheprecinctwastobea

historic section or a growing and living part of the city began to enter urban

debates.

AgroupofBašaršijaresidentsappealedfortheirrighttobuildcommerciallyviable

buildings on their land, and asked the authorities to clarify what was meant by

regulationssuchas‘keepingthecharacterofaršija’.Theywroteinaletter‘that[if

that meant] aršija character is expressed through the timber shutters where

differentshopownerspresenttheirgoods’,then,theyargued:

… we think, that keeping these aesthetic qualities will be almost impossible,

becausenoonecanbeforcedtobuilttimbershutterstoday,sowheneverthenew

building is built in the aršija area, even if it is a groundstorey building it will

inevitably have the qualities of the modern shop, which will have nothing

characteristicinitsappearance’.105

Theconcernedgroupfurtherappealedtothegovernmenttoprotectthe‘interestof

thepoorpeople’,ratherthan‘antiquarian’efforts.Toregulatetokeepthewooden

shutters(efenek),theysaid,‘itwasobviousthatthepeoplewhomadethisdecision

103 The introduction in 1892 of the ‘Order of the Government for Bosnia and Herzegovina of theprotection of monuments, the handling of heritage items and other historically and culturallysignificantstructures’(‘NaredbaZemaljskeVladezaBosnuIHercegovinuod27.6.1892br50.243/1ouvanju historikih spomenika, zatim postupku sa starinama i drugim u historikom I kulutrnohistorikom pogledu znamenitih objekata) specifically defined the heritage protection procedures.Serdarevi, Pravna zaštita kulturnohistorijskog naslijedja BiH, pp. 26–27. Discussion of thisdocument and its significance is presented in Dimitrijevi, Prilozi o zaštiti graditeljskog nasljedja uBosniIHercegovini.104Kostovi,Sarajevoizmedjudobrotvorstvaizla,pp.114–15.105Dimitrijevi,PriloziozaštitigraditeljskognasljedjauBosniIHercegovini.

Chapter2

70

hadnopropertyinBašaršija“butwereledbytheirfantasies”’.106Throughoutthe

20th century, the request to the government to devise and make public its

approachtoheritagepreservationunderpinnedtheurbandebatesofSarajevo.

Inadditiontotheregulationsthatconcernedthebuiltfabric,thenewgovernment

introduced a series of measures that restructured the economic structure of the

vakuf, the institutionsupporting thedevelopmentof theprecinct. Primarily itwas

the vakuf’s amalgamation of religious beliefs with social and urban practices that

prompted the Austro–Hungarian government to take control of the institution’s

dealings,anditrequestedmoreadministrativeproceduresandtransparencyinthe

institution’s accounting processes. To implement the new structures the

governmentestablished,in1883,theVakufCommission,andnominatedthesenior

Muslim membership. The commission replaced the local family administration of

vakuf with a centrally controlled administration that required proper budget and

accountability.107

Further,toallowafreemarketofland,in1912theZemaljskaVladaofBiH(thelocal

governmentalbodyundertheAustro–Hungarians)changedlandregulation,sothat

the holder of the land became its owner and vakuf the collector of taxes –

effectivelyreplacingthe1886documentthatregulatedandpreventedthesellingof

106Dimitrijevi,PriloziozaštitigraditeljskognasljedjauBosniIHercegovini.107 By the institutional laws ofvakuf, once a property is a part of avakuf it could never revert toordinaryownership.AtthetimeoftheAustro–Hungarianannexationin1878itwasestimatedthatnearlyonethirdofalluseablelandinBosniawasownedbyvakuf.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.146.

Chapter2

71

the government land (mirija land).108 As the landholders became the owners, the

institutionofvakuflostmuchofitsproperty,andthechangeinstructuremadethe

institution more open to corruption.109 The next big loss of vakuf land occurred

after the World War One, when much of the land was included in agrarian

reforms.110

WhilemostoftheconstructionundertheAustro–Hungariansremainedtothewest

of Bašaršija, new structures within the precinct as well as the Austro–Hungarian

conservationapproachtowardstheOttomancentrealtereditsreadingsignificantly.

The most monumental marker of the new government’s urban vision for the

precinct was the city’s town hall, or Vijenica, which was designed and built

between1891and1895,openingin1896[Figure5].Positionedattheeasternend

of the Bašaršija, on the banks of the river Miljacka, it marked the edge of the

Ottoman market precinct, as well as the outer edge of the dense urban

developmentoftheoldcitycenter.111Thebuilding’simposingheight–almosttwice

108 Inprinciplevakufwasestablishedonthe ‘real’property fullyownedbythepersonestablishingthevakuf(evkafivakuf).Landtitlesweredividedinfivegroups:private–mulk;governmentowned–mirije; religious endowment/vakuf – mevkufe; common use – metruke; and nonusable land –nesvak.Whileitwascommontoendowthegovernmentownedland,permission(temliknama)wasneededinanytransactions.Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.18.109Forexample,thebuildingofBrusaBezistan,originallyestablishedunderthevakufofRustempaša,ended up being recorded as the private property of several individuals Serdarevi,Pravna zaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.22.110Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.22.111Amongothersignificantexamplesofbuildingsdesigned in ‘pseudoMoorish’ styleare: thehighschool(1885)architectH.Niemeczak;Muslimcommunityreadingroom(1888),vakuf’sbuildingat8Zrinjskogstreet(1889)andthebuildingof IsaBeg’sbath(1890),alldesignedbyJ.Vancaš;andtheSheriatSchoolofLaw(1887)byK.Paržik.

Chapter2

72

that of the neighbouring Ottoman structures – stated the AustroHungarian

administration’sgreatersignificancethanthepreviousOttomanrulers.112

Figure 5: Contemporary view of Vijenica. Source: DijanaAli,2004.

The first pseudoMoorishstyle building in Sarajevo was the Ruždija High School,

builtin1885,andalmosteachyearforthenextfiveyearsabuildingofthisstylewas

erected in old Ottoman Sarajevo.113 With every new structure that appeared, the

visualandarchitecturalcoherenceoftheprecinctwasfurtherundermined[Figure

6]. The advent of World War One saw the collapse of the Austro–Hungarian

government,whichushered inaperiodofconflictandregional instability.114With

diverted funds from conservation and development, a period of architectural

112ForfurtherdiscussionseeD.Ali,‘Ascribingsignificancetositesofmemory,theSarajevo’stownhall’,inP.Somma(ed.),AtWarwiththeCity,UrbanInternationalPress,Gateshead,2004,pp.65–86.113ForadiscussionofotherstructuresbuiltbytheAustro–HungariansinthisperiodseeD.Ali&C.Bertram,‘Sarajevo:amovingtarget’,Centropa,JournalofCentralEuropeanArchitectureandRelatedArts,vol.2,no.3,September2002,pp.164–76.114In1918,Austro–HungarianrulewasformallydenouncedandtheKingdomofSlovenes,CroatsandSerbswasformed.ThiswasrenamedtheKingdomofYugoslaviain1929.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.166–74.

Chapter2

73

stagnationandurbandeteriorationsetin.TheCatholicCathedralandtheOrthodox

Church were built in the new city centre, and Bašaršija was no longer a viable

religiousandadministrativecitycentrebutanoldandhistoricpartofthetown.

Figure 6: Contemporary view of Bašaršija square withsebilj.Source:DijanaAli,2004.

Bosnia’s ethnoreligious stratification became one of its central political issues,

particularly exploited in the growing nationalisms of the Bosnian neighbouring

statesofSerbiaandCroatia.115Drawingtheirstrengthfromthe‘imagined’andthe

‘inventedtraditions’of19thcenturyEuropeannationalism,SerbiansandCroatians

questioned the authenticity of the Bosnian Muslims in their national rhetoric.116

115ForanaccountofBosnia’sinternalnationalistdivisionsrefertoButurovi,StoneSpeaker,p.128.116 This is a reference to the wellknown ImaginedCommunities, by Benedict Anderson. Andersonargues that the nation is not a given historical entity, but a constructed and ‘imagined politicalcommunity’. It isan imaginedcommunitybecausemembersofeventhesmallestnationcanneverhopetomeet,orevenhearof,allfellowmembers.Itsmembership,thus,isusuallyestablishednotuponthecommongroundsoftheobjectivelyidentifiablecriteriasuchascommonlanguage,cultureor history, but because ‘they think’ they belong to such a community. See B. Anderson, ImaginedCommunities,ReflectionsontheOriginandSpreadofNationalism,Verso,London&NewYork,1992.Theconceptof‘imaginedcommunity’hasalsobeenusedinrelationtoBosnia.FordiscussionoftheYugoslav ‘imaginedcommunities’seeLampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,TwiceThereWasaCountry,p.

Chapter2

74

Serbian nationalism did so by promoting its superiority and resistance in the

struggle against Ottoman foreign dominations in the territories, and Croatian

nationalismbypromotingitsculturalsuperiority.117Primarilyinterestedinbuilding

uponwhattheyperceivedastheirownrealandexistingcommunities,Serbianand

Croatiannationalideologiesofthe19thcenturyprovidedverylittlesupportforthe

‘imaginedcommunity’ofBosnians.Unlike in theMiddleEast,wheretheOttoman

legacy could be considered organic or in Turkey where it might be an ancient

regime,intheBalkansandBosniatheOttomanpastbecamecommonlyframedbya

discourse of social and political segregation.118 Nevertheless, Grabrijan continued

his interest intheOttomanbuiltheritage,apassionthathesharedwithhisfriend

JurajNeidhardt.Buthiswritingsontherelevanceofthisbuiltfabrictothecollective

identityhadbeguntomakeaturn.

Thesearchfortherelevanceofhistoricfabric

Facedwithwhatheperceivedaslackofappreciation,bytheauthorities,fortheold

fabric and local population, Grabrijan began to acknowledge the difficulties

associatedwithintegratingthepastintonewSarajevo.Herealisedthatunlikeinhis

and Plenik’s Ljubljana, where integrated historic remnants formed a vital part of

thenewcityandsymbolisedthesearchforthehistoriccontinuityofSlovenians,the

40,andfortheYugoslavnationas‘astateofmind’,an‘imaginedcommunity’seeWachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation.117Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,TwiceThereWasaCountry,p.40.118 Balkan historians such as Maria Todorova have argued that the main rationale behind thisattituderestsonwhatshesuggests is ‘thenotsoerroneousperceptionofsegregationofthe localChristianpopulation’andtheprivilegesthatMuslimsenjoyedwithintheessentially Islamicstate–privilege that, in historic terms, marked the interethnic relationships in Bosnia well after theOttomansleft.Todorovaarguesthatasasupranationalornonnationalstate,theOttomanEmpirein its very structure neither provided nor desired to achieve that kind of interaction. Todorova,ImaginingtheBalkans,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,1997,pp.164–65.

Chapter2

75

builtfabricofBašaršijahadnosuchroleinthecollectiveimaginationofBosnians.

Its disparate visual markers and dilapidated fabric were not reminders of the

collectivehistoricexperience,butsignalledadisjointedpastandcolonialtimes.The

diversityoftheprecinct’sreligiousmonuments,whichformerlyservedthereligious

communitiesofMuslims,OrthodoxChristians,CatholicsandJews,wasbytheearly

20th century framed by growing nationalisms and increasing awareness of the

absenceofaunifiedBosniancommunity.

The potency of Bašaršija to act as a literary metaphor for the interethnic

relationship appeared in the work of a significant Yugoslav writer and the Nobel

prizewinner, Ivo Andri. Andri’s novel A Letter from 1920 described religious

markers–themosques,churchesandsynagogues–ofBašaršija, inthefollowing

way:

WhoeverliesawakeatnightinSarajevohearsthevoicesoftheSarajevonight.The

clock on the Catholic cathedral strikes the hour with weighty confidence: 2am.

Morethanaminutepasses(tobeexact,seventyfiveseconds–Icounted)andonly

thenwitharatherweaker,butpiercingsounddoestheOrthodoxchurchannounce

thehour,andchimeitsown2am.Amomentafter itthetowerclockontheBey's

[Beg’s]mosquestrikesthehourinahoarse,farawayvoice,andthatstrikes11,the

ghostly Turkish hour, by the strange calculation of distant and alien parts of the

world.TheJewshavenoclocktosoundtheirhour,soGodaloneknowswhattime

it is for them by the Sephardic reckoning or the Ashkenazy. Thus at night, while

everyone is sleeping, division keeps vigil in the counting of the late, small hours,

andseparatesthesesleepingpeoplewhoawake,rejoiceandmourn,feastandfast

byfourdifferentandantagonisticcalendars,andsendalltheirprayersandwishes

to one heaven in four different ecclesiastical languages. And this difference,

Chapter2

76

sometimes visible and open, sometimes invisible and hidden, is always similar to

hatred,andoftencompletelyidenticalwithit.119

Grabrijanhimselfregisteredtheresentmentandthedislikefortheprecinctbythe

localpopulation.Inhisarticle‘Architectureinhumanscale’,Grabrijanadmittedthat

hisappreciationsoftheoldprecinctwerenotcommonlyshared:

It [Bašaršija] is not significant, say local people. It is only the work of local

[unskilled] labourers,withoutanyqualificationsandculture–areflectionperhaps

of another cultural centre, far away from this city [Sarajevo] – one provincial

expression,[thatis]todayneglectedandinadilapidatingstate.120

TheperceptionthatBosnianarchitecturewasaprovincialcopyofthearchitecture

oftheformerempirewasasignificantcomponentofthenationalistargumentthat

questioned the authenticity of Bosnian Muslims.121 In Ottoman provincial capitals

suchwasSarajevo, itwasthedutyof the localgovernor,orvezir, toestablishthe

new city to promote the principles of Ottoman urbanism.122 Drawing inspiration

from the metropolitan sources of Istanbul, the architectural style of monumental

buildings incitiessuchasSarajevo,BursaandAmasyashareddistinctiveOttoman

119IvoAndri,ALetterfrom1920,trans.LenoreGrenoble,ForestBooks,London&Boston,Dereta,Belgrade,1992.Foradiscussionofthisnovelsee,I.Lovrenovi,Bosnia:ACulturalHistory,NewYorkUniversity Press, New York, 2001, pp. 221–23. Lovrenovic suggests that Lord Owen and some USpersonnel involved inthepeaceprocessof1992hadbeengiventhis letterasafactualdocument.Lovrenovi highlights the fact that the novel, while set in the period between two wars, was firstpublishedin1946.Forextractsfromthenovelsee,[http://www.ivoandric.org.yu/html/body_andric_s_treasury_ii.html]120Grabrijan,‘Arhitekturanadohvatovjejeruke’(Architectureinhumanscale),originallypublishedinNoviBehar, Sarajevo,1940,br.2,3; republishedasaseparate issue (sametitle)Architecture inhumanscale.eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.51–70.121ForfurtherdiscussionseeAli&Bertram,‘Sarajevo:amovingtarget’.122Vizier, is a highranking political or religious adviser to a Muslim monarch, such as a caliph orsultan.TheBosnianspellingisvezir.Külliye,isatermthatdesignatesacomplexofbuildingscentredaroundamosqueandmanagedbyasingle institution,oftenbasedonavakuf. InBosniaonly thetermvakufisused.

http://www.ivoandric.org.yu/html/body_andric_s_treasury_ii.html

Chapter2

77

featuressuchasstonefacades,withmetalcladdomesandpencilminarets.123This

city’s organisational structure, which was held together by this architectural

uniformity, made the city deeply Ottoman. This alliance became particularly

problematicwithgrowingnationalistviewsthatidentifieditasaresidueofcolonial

times.

Thisattitude,Grabrijanargued, ledtotheperceptionthatnothingbutacomplete

demolition and modernisation could overcome the inherent problems of the

precinct:

Iam listening to localpeoplewhosay, ‘Let’sdemolisharšija, it isall rotten, it is

unhealthy, unhygienic, backward. The people living in aršija all suffer from

rheumatism,and it is impossible to adjust it to thecontemporary standards’.But

despite that, [the precinct] possesses so many attractive features, so many

architecturalmasterpiecesthatonemustpausetoadmirethem.124

Rationalisingtheproblematicnatureofhisattemptstoreconcilethehistoricfabric

ofBašaršijawithcommonculturalandhistoricgrounds,Grabrijan’swritingsbegun

toofferanewplatformforinterpretingtheold.125

AttemptingtoneutralisetheproblematicconnectiontoIslam,asastartingpointfor

the discussion he wrote, ‘It would be necessary to establish to what extent the

123Ali&Bertram,‘Sarajevo:amovingtarget’.124Grabrijan,‘Arhitekturanadohvatovjejeruke’ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.51–70.125Originalquote:‘Kadovakousporedjujem,nemogu,adanemislimnanastojanjearh.Plenikauarhitekturigrobova.Njegovradskorodasenemožepregledati,adasenevidinjegovanadgrobnaarhitektura.Njegovatežnjautomraduudnovatosepoklapastimštosupostigliuesteticigrobovanaši Muslimani. … Plenik svjesno uklanja sagrobovasve elemente kojipobudjuju unamaosjeajsmrti: emprese zamjenjuje brezama, mogile zelenim cvijetnim poljanama, crne mrtvake natpisenadgrobnika sa živocrvenim I tako dalje.’ Grabrijan, ‘Muslimanska groblja’, in eli, Grabrijan iSarajevo,p.106.

Chapter2

78

Slavic soul influenced our Muslim graveyards’.126 Grabrijan wrote of ‘snow white

stones’,describingthescatteredoldgravestonesnotthroughtheirreligiousrolebut

asobjects in the landscape ‘alluniform’andseemingly ‘not groundedatall’, as if

‘they bow to each other, on green carpets of grass’.127 Their form, Grabrijan

concluded, was ‘maybe the most beautiful in the world!’128 Void of religious

connections, the gravestones were ‘artefacts of great craftsmanship and artistic

skill’thatrepresentedtheachievementoflocalartisans.129Havingestablishedtheir

value in terms of traditional craft, Grabrijan noted that if not protected they ‘will

graduallydisappear’, togetherwith thedisappearanceof the ‘stonemasonable to

cutastoneinthattraditionalshape’.130

Ultimately,Grabrijanwrote,referringtothecommonpracticeofusinglocalandfolk

imageryonMuslimgravestones,they‘depictmotivesfromapreIslamicperiod,and

Christian life’.131 Considered as generic objects from the past, the gravestones of

Sarajevo,muchliketheRomanruinsinLjubljana,couldbeincorporatedinthenew

126Originalquote:‘Kadovakousporedjujem,nemogu,adanemislimnanastojanjearh.Plenikauarhitekturigrobova.Njegovradskorodasenemožepregledati,adasenevidinjegovanadgrobnaarhitektura.Njegovatežnjautomraduudnovatosepoklapastimštosupostigliuesteticigrobovanaši Muslimani. … Plenik svjesno uklanja sagrobova sve elemente kojipobudjuju unamaosjeajsmrti: emprese zamjenjuje brezama, mogile zelenim cvijetnim poljanama, crne mrtvake natpisenadgrobnika sa živocrvenim I tako dalje.’ Grabrijan, ‘Muslimanska groblja’, in eli, Grabrijan iSarajevo,p.106.127 Original quote: ‘I sad me ne iznenadjuje više kad se sjeam Plenikovih izjava o muslimanskimgrobljima: “Sniježno bijeli kamenovi, svi jednoobrzni, koji se, pošto su bez temelja, jedan drugomklanjaju iznad zelenih ilima,koji im tvore travnjaci:moždanajljepšagrobljana svijetu!’Grabrijan,‘Muslimgraveyards’,ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.106.128Grabrijan,‘Muslimanskagroblja’,ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.106.129Grabrijan,‘Muslimanskagroblja’,ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.106.130Originalquote:‘Nišaniiznadmuslimanskihgrobovaestopokazujumotiveiztogapredislamskog,krisanskogživota. Iovihspomenikabiesvamanje Imanje, jošmalopaneetemoivišepronaiklesara, koji bi umio iskelsati taj tradicionalni oblik.’ Grabrijan, ‘Muslimanska groblja’, in eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.108.131 Grabrijan, ‘Muslimanska groblja’, Jugoslovenski List, Sarajevo, 14. 6, 1936; republished in NoviBehar,Sarajevo,1937,br.5–6,god.XI.eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.108.

Chapter2

79

artistic creations. Seizing an opportunity to present the architectural relics of

Sarajevoasapartofbroaderartisticefforts,Grabrijanwrote:

When I compare [Islam and Christianity] I cannot avoid thinking of Plenik’s

attempts in the architecture of graveyards … Strangely enough his attempts are

very similar with what the Muslims have achieved in their aesthetics of

necropolis.132

Grabrijan’ssearchfora lesshistoricallychargedinterpretationofwhatoftenwere

explicitly religious forms of gravestones and like structures, began to offer new

possibilities for the integrationofhistoric references innew urbanproposals.The

emphasis on the universal qualities of architectural responses diminished the

significance of the religious differences. Further, it allowed Grabrijan to invest art

withthecapacitytotranscendreligiousandnationalbarriers.

Themodernityofpast:‘LeCorbusierandSarajevo’

It was in the 1936 article ‘Le Corbusier and Sarajevo’ that Grabrijan directed the

relevance of local architectural heritage to the future and modern architecture,

unlikePlenikwhodirectedittothepast.

DespiteGrabrijan’sclearadmirationofPlenik’sarchitecturalachievements,hedid

notsharehis teacher’sviewofmodernarchitecture,orhisdislikeofLeCorbusier

andhispromotionofmodernarchitecture’ssocialagenda.Thehistoryandtheory

curriculum of Plenik’s school terminated with mid19thcentury debates; ‘[the]

beginningofourmodernstyle,anewperiod inarchitecture’,Plenikstatedtohis

students,markedtheendofhisdiscussiononstyle,andconsequentlyestablisheda 132Grabrijan,‘Muslimanskagroblja’,eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.106.

Chapter2

80

timeframe for his discussion of architecture’s development.133 Plenik frequently

stated his limited enthusiasm towards modern interest in materiality and

innovation. Grabrijan recorded Plenik suggesting to students interested in the

modernagendatolook‘inbooks[where]youwillfindonyourownwhatisnew[in

modern architecture].’134 And with a clear resentment towards the agenda of

architectssuchasLeCorbusier,Pleniktoldhisstudentsthathewas‘notinterested

inmodern’.135Admittingthepossibilityofawrongstance,hestated,‘Maybethatis

mymistake,butthatishowitis,andnotmuchcanbedoneaboutit?’136

Plenik justified his position by what he saw as a lack of the divine in modern

architecture’s focus on the pragmatic. He stated, ‘what they [modern architects]

want is a means towards an end, not an idea.’137 Particularly critical of Le

Corbusier’s promotion of the social role of architecture, Plenik argued that Le

Corbusier‘alltogethernegated’architectureasheconsideredit‘asocialtool,anda

tool used in helping man’.138 Grabrijan noted that Plenik often used a German

saying–‘esistaucheineIdee,aberkeinvonGottkommende!’[‘Itisanidea,butitis

notinspiredbyGod’]–whenreferringtoLeCorbusier’swork.139Itappearsthathe

133Originalquote:‘1848nastanevEvropivelikipreobrat.Znjimsezaenjanašmodernislog,tosepravi,novadobavarhitekturi.Takosmoprišlidonekegakoncategapremišljevanja,menizazelenoginvampriakovanega.’Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.87.134Originalquote: ‘Takoprihajmodanespopulnomaistih rokvnovodobo.Kulturnoživljenje jevnekismeritudiprinastakobujno,dalahkoiztegasenekajustvarite.Pregledovalipamodernenebomo,našlibisesamivknjigahto,karjenovega.’Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.87.135Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.79.136Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.79137Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.79138Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.80.139Originalquote:‘MislimdarejšenjesvijetaneležitolikouLCkolikouboljimIskoromnijmdjelima:ovjekmoraostatiponižen.ŠtobiNjemcirekli:tojetakodjeideja,alinedolaziodBoga.’Grabrijan,PlenikinNjegovaŠola,p.79.

Chapter2

81

interpretedLeCorbusier’soutspokenenthusiasmfortheprofaneaspectsoflife,his

interest in efficiency and the economics of cities to be in a direct contrast to his

respectforthehigharts.140

DespitesuchhostilitiesGrabrijanandhiscolleagueswereeagertoparticipateinthe

modernist debate, especially since the new technical schools and architecture

programs within the kingdom attracted the return of a number of architects who

had practised abroad.141 Even within the school where Plenik was teaching,

Professor Ivan Vurnik ran classes that openly promoted aspects of the modern

agenda.Grabrijan,likemanyofhiscontemporaries,believedthatintroducingthese

ideasintocontemporarypracticebroughtlocalandnationaltraditionsclosertoan

internationalagenda.

InobservingandwritingaboutSarajevo,Grabrijanrecognisedtheurbanandformal

qualities discussed by Le Corbusier in his Journey to the East.142 Referring to the

140However,thestudents,Grabrijanamongthem,wereinterestedincontemporarydebates.Inanattempttokeepupwithcurrentarchitecturaldebates,Grabrijan’s classorganisedanexcursiontothe InternationalExhibitionofModernDecorativeand IndustrialArts inParis in1925.Pleniksawthisasachallengetohisteachingmethods.Hedeclinedthestudentinvitationtoaccompanythem,pullingoutatthelastmoment.Prelovšek,JožePlenik1872–1957,p.160.141TomislavPremerl,inHrvatskaModernaArhitekturaizmedjudvarata,suggestedthatAdolfLoosmadeasignificantimpactontheZagrebarchitecturalscene,througharchitectssuchasKovacicandEhrlich.ZlatkoNeumannwasLoos’studentandcollaborator,andVladoPotonjakworkedwithhiminParis.Manyother significantEuropean architectsdisseminated their ideasvia theworkof theirstudentsorcolleagues.The influenceofPoelzigreachedZagrebviaDragoIbler,ZdenkoStrižicandJosipPiman,whileErnestWeissmann,JurajNeidhardt,DragoIblerandZlatkoNeimannpromotedof Le Corbusier’s ‘school of thought’. T. Premerl,HrvatskaModernaArhitektura izmedju dva rata(Croatian Modern Architecture Between the Two World Wars), Nakladni Zavod Matice Hrvatske,Zagreb,1989,p.31.142 I. Žanki, (ed.), Le Corbusier (CharlesEdouard Jeanneret), Journey to the East, MIT Press,Cambridge,Ma.,1987.

Chapter2

82

architectureofBašaršija’smahala, theresidentialsector thatsurroundedtheold

OttomanpartofthecityofSarajevo,Grabrijanwrote:143

IamlookingatLeCorbusier’s firstpublication. It startswithhissketchesfromhis

travels, on which he later based his modern architecture. But that is a Bosnian

house!Therearethegardensthatsurroundit!Themosqueandminarets!Thereis

also the Muslim graveyard and grave stones, with beautiful views through lattice

windowsframedbytheheavywalls!144

Astonishedbyhisowndiscoveryofstructuresthatsomuchresembledthebuildings

describedinLeCorbusier’sJourneytotheEast,Grabrijanasked145‘HasLeCorbusier

beentoBosnia?Whataretheparallelsbetweencontemporarymodernarchitecture

and Bosnian houses – between modern and Islamic architecture?’146 Focusing on

this relationship, Grabrijan presented multiple analogies between the buildings

sketchedbyLeCorbusierandtheBosnianhouse,thesubjectofhisdiscussion.

Arguing for a relationship between Bašaršija and Le Corbusier’s ideas, Grabrijan

presentedananalysisofspecificbuildingswithintheprecinct.Bothinformandthe

material used, the fabric of Bašaršija, Grabrijan argued, resembled the context

uponwhichLeCorbusierpremisedhisarchitecture.Withtherelationshipbetween

Le Corbusier’s work and local architectural practices often assumed rather than

143 Grabrijan, ‘Le Corbusier I Sarajevo Uoi izložbe njegovog bivšeg asistenta arh. Juraja J.Neidhardta’,(LeCorbusierandSarajevo),originallypublishedinJugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,31.10,1936;citedineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.29–37.144 Original quote: ‘Gledam Le Corbusieve prve publikacije. Pocinje skicama sa svojih studijskihputovanja,nakojimakasnijeosnivasvojumodernu.PatojeBosanskakuca!Tosuvrtoviokonje!TudžamijaImunare!ItujemuslimanskogrobljeInišani,sadivnimpogledimakrozzamreženeprozore,usjeeneu zidaneograde! Da li je LeCorbusier biou Bosni? Kakve su paralele izmedju današnje Ibosanskekue–izmedjumoderneIislamskearhitekture?’Grabrijan,ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.29.145Žanki , LeCorbusier, Journey to theEast.ForadiscussionofLeCorbusierandOrientalismseeÇelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,Assemblage,17,December1992,pp.59–77.146D.eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.29.

Chapter2

83

demonstrated,Grabrijanarguedthatthetreatmentofmaterials,constructionand

lighting in Bašaršija combined with the city’s organisation of spaces and the

plasticityof formswerevaluessharedbetweentheBosnian traditionalhouseand

LeCorbusier’sarchitecture.Theuseofconcrete,forexample,asthe‘materialofLe

Corbusier’s architecture’ was relevant to the discussion on materiality of the

Bosnian house;147 but not through the expected similarity of the material but

throughasimilartimberliketreatmentofthesurface.LeCorbusierachievedthisby

the use of timber’seffect on offform concrete, and in thecase of the traditional

Bosnianhousebytheuseofatimberconstructionsystem.

Extendingthis,Grabrijanperceivedaresemblanceinbuildingsystemsthatliftedthe

structures above the ground. Le Corbusier used concrete piloti, while traditional

Bosnian structures used timber posts. Despite sometimes tenuous links between

the two, Grabrijan concluded that the roof lighting, doubleheight spaces, glass

elevation, simple cubic massing and even the placement of buildings within the

open greenery were all shared qualities. Relying on the modern authority of Le

Corbusier’swork,Grabrijan impliedthattheparallelshepresentedweresufficient

todemonstratethemodernityoftraditionalBosnianarchitecture.Presentedwithin

the context of modern architectural debates, the built fabric of the old precinct

offerednewrelevance.

147D.eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.29.

Chapter2

84

Theauthenticityofpast:‘Turkishhouse,itssourcesandprinciples’

Grabrijan’s1937article‘Turkishhouse,itssourcesandprinciples’appearedinNovi

Behar, a paper read mostly by the Muslim population of the city – unlike his ‘Le

Corbusier and Sarajevo’ (1936), published in the progovernment journal

Jugoslovenski List.148 This suggests Grabrijan’s increasing awareness of the

problematic associations between Bašaršija’s structures and the Ottoman past,

andan increasingdesire togain thesupport fromthe localMuslimpopulation. In

thisarticleGrabrijanadmittedthathediscoveredtheBosnianhouseinthewritings

ofSwissarchitectErnstEgli(1893–74):

I have seen it [the Turkish house] in the Muslim house of Sarajevo, and was

surprised by the extraordinary similarities between its aspiration and those of

modern architecture. So, a double interest binds me to the [Bosnian Muslim]

house; firstly this house is also our house, and secondly – it contains some long

establishedbeauties,thatIwouldliketoapplytoourmodernarchitecture.149

ReferringtoEgli’sresearch,Grabrijanremarkedthatalmostallobservationsbythe

SwissTurkisharchitecton theTurkishhousecouldbealsoapplied to theBosnian

house.150 Egli’s most significant assistant was Sedad Hakki Eldem (1908–88), who

built his reputation leading the quest for a national expression in modernism,

148 D. Grabrijan, ‘Turska kua Osnove i porijeklo’ (Turkish house, its roots and origins), originallypublished in Novi Behar, Sarajevo, 15. 7, 1937; cited in eli, Grabrijan i Sarajevo, pp. 37–43.HadjijahisuggeststhatNoviBeharwasafamilyorientedpublicationcateringmostlyfortheMuslimpopulationofthecity.M.Hadjijahi,OdTradicijedoIdentiteta(FromTraditiontoIdentity),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1974,p.203.149 Original quote: ‘No moje zanimanje za tursku kuu ima drugu osnovu. Upoznao sam je umuslimanskoj kui u Sarajeva, a iznenadila me udnovata slinost njezinih osnovnih težnji satežnjama moderne arhitekture. Tako me svezao za nju dvostruki interes; prvi: ovo je kua i našakua,adrugi–onasadržinekeiskušaneljepote,kojebihhtioprimjenitiinanašumodernu.’Ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.42.150Egli,suggestedSibelBozdogan,hadreplacedtheclassicalBeauxArtsmodelofeducationwithonebased on the rationalist and functionalist principles of European modernism. Bozdogan & Kasaba,ModernismandNationBuilding,pp.57&70.GrabrijanexplainedthatDr.EgliwasaSwissarchitectwhotaughtarchitectureatTechnicalUniversityandpractisedarchitectureinIstanbul.

Chapter2

85

definingandjustifyingthenewprofessionalidentityofthearchitectandpromoting

theNewArchitectureastheappropriateexpressionforthenewTurkey.151

Of particular importance to Grabrijan was Egli and Eldem’s interest in the

vernacular. The understanding of modern architecture as contextsensitive and

rational underpinned the architectural discourse of Turkey during the 1930s.

Embedded in the architects’ approach was a belief that ‘modern equals national’,

and that the most rational and appropriate response to the region’s climatic,

topographical,cultural,social,andeconomicconditions‘couldnotbeanythingbut

‘national’.152Theidealsofmodernarchitectureandthevernaculartraditionswere,

in their view, one and the same. That European modernism was inspired by

vernaculartraditionsonlyfurtherstrengthenedthisbelief.

Grabrijan’s article on the Turkish house relied on a free interpretation of Egli’s

thesis, adjusted to fit the case under consideration: the Bosnian house. This

techniqueallowedGrabrijantopositioninternationaldebatesclosertotheBosnian

context, as well as to heighten the relevance of his own writings and arguments.

Just as he used the authority of Le Corbusier to affirm the modernity of Bosnian

house, Grabrijan presented Egli’s published paper as a confirmation of his own

academicviews.

151Bozdogan&Kasaba,ModernismandNationBuilding,p.158.152Bozdogan&Kasaba,ModernismandNationBuilding,p.256.

Chapter2

86

InthecontextofBosnia,wherenationalclaimswerebasedontheuniquenessand

exclusivevaluesofdifferentethnicgroups,theamalgamationof internationaland

national influences within the Bosnian house seemed an appealing model.153

AffirmingtheEast/West,Orient/Occident,nature/cultureduality,Grabrijanargued

thattheWesternemphasisonrationalityrenderedthepeople‘coldanddistanced

from nature’, while the Turkish emotional disposition helped them establish ‘a

specialconnectiontonature’.154Presentingtherelationbetweenthehouseandthe

surrounding landscape as essential for understanding the underlying conceptual

organisation,Grabrijanidentifiedthe‘fence,gardenandpavilion’asthethreebasic

elementsofthehouse.155Thespecificsoftheirrelationship,accordingtoGrabrijan,

madetheTurkishhouseunique.Hesuggestedthat:

… the Turkish house is so different to other [houses]. It developed in a climate

where nature whispers to man and man responds with a smile, enjoying it and

lookingatitwithinhisorderedandframedworld.Inthatrelationshipbetweenthe

two, nature becomes an element of composition; and nature transforms into

architecture–thehouse’sexternalexpressionbecomesarchitecturalplasticity.156

ClearlythemodernityoftheBosnian,viatheTurkish,housewasnotonlyexpressed

in the formal architectural characteristics, such as the construction system or the

materialused,butinacomplexemotionalrelationshipbetweenthepeople,house

153Publishedin1936,Grabrijan’spaper‘Smallfamilyhome’discussedthemainpointsofthe‘housewith one wall’ as designed by Loos. The same paper also commented on the students’ projectundertakeninGrabrijan’sclass,whichanalysedLoos’houseinitsrelevancetothecontextofBosnia.D.Grabrijan,‘Porodinamalakua’(Smallfamilyhome),Tehniar,Beograd,April1936,br.7;ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.161–66.154eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.38.155eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.37–43.156Originalquote:‘Automseodnosupremaprirodeturskakuabitnorazlikujeodnjih.Onajenastaluklimigdjeprirodeovjekušapue;ovjekjojsesmješkomodaziva;uživaunjojipromatrajeusvomomedjenom i sredjenom svijetu. Prema takvom odnosu priroda postaje elemenat kompozicije;prirodeprelaziuarhitekturu–kuasepremavanijavljakaoarhitektonskaplastika.Grabrijanineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.38.

Chapter2

87

andland.Grabrijan’sinsistenceonthecapacityofBosnianarchitecturetonegotiate

suchdiverseaspectsofurbanismremainedakeyaspectofhiswriting.

Like Riegl, Grabrijan attempted to reach beyond formal qualities and what he

referred to as ‘dogma of materialism’; his discussion of heritage’s value to

contemporarycreationsfocusedthelesstangibleconnectionsbetweenthepeople

andtheirart.Practicesofdailylivesandexperienceprovidedthespatialframework

forhissearch.Hedescribedthehousesandoutsideshelters forteferi,picniclike

gatheringscommonlyheldbytheMuslims,arguingthat itwas in thosestructures

thatthecreativityoflocalpeopleandtheirwilltoartwasmostevident:

Ottomansknewaboutplacingthebuildingsinnature,andthatishighart.He[the

Ottomanman]placesthehousenotonlyonhills,oronthemostbeautifulspotsin

themiddleofgardens,butabovethewatertoo(caféBendbašaandVrbanja)with

thestructurethatallowshimtoextendabovethewater intotheair,architecture

thatceasestoberationalandmovesintotherealmoffantasy.157

Itwasinstructuresbuiltfordailyroutinesthattheimaginationofthepeople,their

regard for practicality and their relationship to nature, were in Grabrijan’s view

most clearly expressed. While nature emerged as a significant reference point in

Grabrijan’s writings, a specific description of the natural environment either in

terms of garden design or the layout of the landscape was not presented. This

approachsuggestedthatnaturewasseenasanabstractforce,onethatmediated

157Originalquote:‘Osmanlijaumijekuuplasiratiuprirodi,itojevelikiumjetnost!Onjestavljanesamopobrežuljcima,nanajljepšamjesta, usred vrtova,ve i iznadsamevode (kafanaBendbaša iVrbanja),a konstrukcije mu pri tomedozvoljava da prostorije izbacuje ak ipreko vodeu vazduh,imearhitekturaprestajebitiracionalnaiprelaziupodrujefantazije.’D.Grabrijan,‘Kulturateferia(osvrtnabosansko islamskuarhitekturu)’(OnBosniancultureofteferi[picnics],viewofBosnianIslamicarchitecture), JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,8.7,1939.Cited ineli,Grabrijan iSarajevo,p.46.

Chapter2

88

the relationship between humans and their buildings. As a result, thebuilt fabric,

Grabrijansuggested,embodiedqualitiesthatWesterncivilisationwasstilltryingto

achieve: ‘Theprinciplesofthegardencity,whichEuropeancivilisationseeks,have

already been established in Turkey (Istanbul) or here in old Sarajevo’.158 This, in

Grabrijan’s view, was further evidence of traditional architecture’s relevance to

contemporaryendeavours.

Conclusion:roleofarchitectureinestablishingnationalclaims

Grabrijan’s professional duty as an architect was to identify and promote values

associated with the heritage fabric of Bosnia that were relevant to contemporary

architectureandurbanplanning.OnceinSarajevo,Grabrijanlookedforremnantsof

the past that could be brought to life, in a manner similar to Plenik’s urban

programforLjubljana.Inabeliefthatsuchremnantswouldprovidevisualcuesand

connectionstothecollectivehistoryofthepeopleGrabrijanidentifiedthehistoric

precinctofBašaršijatobeofparticularrelevance.Inhiswritingshesoughtwaysto

promoteitsimportancetocontemporaryurbandevelopments.

But Bašaršija, being historically connected to Ottoman colonialism and gradually

outgrown by the new city of Sarajevo, was not considered a place for collective

representation.Indeed,bythetimeGrabrijanstartedwritingaboutit,theprecinct

was under a considerable attack – by outright demolition or passive neglect. It

appearsthatGrabrijansoonrealisedtheproblematicpoliticalpotencyofSarajevo’s

oldfabric,ashiswritingsadoptedadifferentapproachtotheonepromotedbyhis 158eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.45.

Chapter2

89

teacher in Ljubljana. They presented the historic precinct’s fabric not in its

relationshiptothepastanditsreligiousorigins,butasmodernandauthentic,and

as an embodiment of the people’s collective artistic will. As this chapter has

demonstrated, through these texts Grabrijan established an initial but critical

relationship between the city’s Ottoman heritage and the Yugoslav, or more

specifically Bosnian, identity. Later chapters will demonstrate that these writings

provided the theoretical grounding for his and Neidhardt’s collaborative work. In

their first collaborative effort ‘Sarajevo and its Satellites’, however Bašaršija’s

Ottomanfabricfoundonlyalimitedplace.

Chapter3Bašaršija’sContributiontotheNewMasterPlanofSarajevo:theIslamicasOriental

In1942,GrabrijanandNeidhardtguesteditedanissueoftheCroatianarchitectural

journal Technical Gazette (Tehniki Vjesnik).1 Titled ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’

(Sarajevoinjegovitrabanti),thepublicationcontributedtoarchitecturalandurban

debates and to the development of the regulatory urban plan of Sarajevo.2 It

providedanopportunityfortheauthorstopresenttheirdesignworkandwritings–

bothindividualandcollaborative–framedbyasharedvisionofanewmasterplan

forthecityofSarajevo.

This chapter argues that despite the authors’ interest in and fascination with the

historiccoreofSarajevo,theirmasterplanessentiallydeniedtherelevanceofthe

existing city fabric to the growing city. Their discussion of the old precinct

demonstratestheauthors’intentiontomoveawayfromasearchfortheauthentic

qualitiesoftheoldfabricandthemodernityexistingwithinit.Instead,itassociated

1D.Grabrijan&J.Neidhardt,‘Sarajevoinjegovitrabanti’,TehnikiVjesnik,br.7–9,Zagreb,1942.Thepublication was partially sponsored by Neidhardt’s employer at the time, the Croatian MiningCompany(HrvatskiRudniciiTalionice).ThelistofcreditsincludestheCroatianEngineeringSociety,theeditorialboardofTehnikiVjesnikandthedirectorateofCroatianMinesandSteelProduction.2 The translation of publication’s title is my own. The word trabant (plural trabanti) meansattachment, something that follows. Despite the difference in English between ‘attachment’ and‘satellite’(satelitinbothSerboCroatianandBosnian)thetranslationoftrabantito‘satellites’makesmore sense. I am aware of the problematic connotations of ‘satellites’ in the context of 1920s’debates concerning the urban vs. suburban satellite, particularly Le Corbusier’s hesitation aroundsuburban expansion, as discussed in McLeod, ‘Urbanism and Utopia: Le Corbusier from regionalsyndicalismtoVichy’.

Chapter3

92

Islamic urban forms with stereotypical and preconceived notions based on

oppositional relationships between new and old, between progressive and

backward. As this chapter demonstrates, the result of this approach was that

Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s master plan assigned only a peripheral role to the old

precinct within their proposed vision. This was moderated to some extent by

Neidhardt’spresentationofminingworkers’housingprojects.Inthisheanticipated

theshiftthatbecameapparentintheirsubsequentcollaborativework,Architecture

ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,published15yearslaterin1957.

Anurbanvisionofamoderncity:‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’

The opportunity to editTechnicalGazetteprovided an occasion for Grabrijan and

Neidhardttopresenttheirideastoabroadnationalaudience.3Itallowedthemto

reconsider their previous views, such as those outlined in Grabrijan’s 1936 article

‘ThoughtsandcommentsonthedevelopmentofSarajevo’.4InthatarticleGrabrijan

hadidentifiedthecity’slackofanoverarchingurbanvisionasaseriousobstacleto

future development, and raised concerns about the haphazard approach of local

governmentwhendealingwith theheritage fabricof thecity. In ‘Sarajevoand Its

Satellites’GrabrijanandNeidhardtofferedguidelinesandsuggestionsthatcouldbe

usedtoaddressthoseconcerns.

3TechnicalGazettewaspublishedinZagrebbytheCroatianSocietyofEngineers(HrvatskoDruštvoinžinjera).BothBosniaandHercegovinaandCroatiaatthetimebelongedtotheIndependentStateofCroatia(NezavisnaDržavaHrvatska;NDH).TheIndependentStateofCroatiawasapuppetstateofNaziGermany,createdbyfascistItalyandNaziGermany.Itwasestablishedin1941,aftertheKingdomofYugoslaviawasattackedbytheAxisforcesandtheKingdomofYugoslaviawassplitupbyNaziGermanyandfascistItaly.Geographically,NDHencompassedmostofmoderndayCroatiaandallofBosniaandHercegovina,aswellaspartsofSloveniaandSerbia.TheNDHwasruledbyAntePaveliandhisUstašamilitaryforces.4D.Grabrijan‘Sarajevoseizgradjuje,NekolikopolemikihmisliourbanizacijiSarajeva’(ThoughtsandcommentsonthedevelopmentofSarajevo),ineli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.101–05.

Chapter3

93

Theopeningstatementof‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’–‘conservetheold–butbuild

anewSarajevo!’–createdabroadframeworkforunderstandingtheideasbehind

the vision of thecity presented.5 ‘Whichever way the city of Sarajevo develops in

the future’, the authors argued, certain principles ‘embedded in its historic

development ought to be respected’.6 Taking the Acropolis as the root of Greek,

and ultimately Western civilisation, the authors declared that their search for the

‘architecturalprinciples’ofnewBosnianarchitecturewouldconsiderequallytheold

precinctandthemoderncity.7

For Neidhardt, the study of the old town in relation to issues of contemporary

urbanism reminded him of his time spent in Le Corbusier’s office.Neidhardt had

worked in Le Corbusier’s atelier at 35 rue de Sevres in Paris from 1January 1933

untilwellinto1935.8Hewasinvolvedinawiderangeofprojects,includingmaster

plans for Algiers and Nemours.9 Neidhardt was significantly influenced by Le

5 Original quote: ‘Konzervirajmo staro – ali izgradimo novo Sarajevo!’ Grabrijan & Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.210.6 Original quote: ‘Kakogod se Sarajevo u budunosti razvijalo, u svakom sluaju iz njegovogdosadašnjegrazvojaostajuizvjesnaiskustva,kojatrebauvažavati’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.201.7Originalquote:‘AkropolajošIdanasživimeunama,njeniprincipisusvudarasijani–jersuvjeni.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.201.8 Certificate to J. Neidhardt issued by Le Corbusier: ‘I certify that Mr. J. Neidhardt architect fromZagrebworkedinourofficefrom1January1933untiltheendofthesummer1935’.Paris,22August1937.J.Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.115.9LeCorbusier’sinvolvementwithAlgiersspanstheperiodbetween1932and1942.Whileworkinginhis office, Neidhardt was involved in a number of projects, including urban proposals for Algiers(1933–34) and for Nemours (Algeria), Anvers (Belgium) and Stockholm (Sweden). He was alsoinvolvedinstudiesofthe‘futurecity’–LaVilleRadieuse–thebuildingofRentenanstaltinZurich,aprojectforthe1937exhibition(foravenueKallerman)andresearchforanagriculturalreorganisationscheme(afarmandvillage).TheextentofhiscontributiontotheAlgiersprojectisunclear,butinalettertohisfriendKarlMittelin1933,NeidhardtmentionedhisinvolvementwiththeAlgiersproject

Chapter3

94

Corbusier’s ideas, and was particularly intrigued by the Algerian project, in which

the dialogue between ‘Islamic’ and ‘modern’ echoed themes apparent in

Yugoslavia.ConvincedthattheSwissFrencharchitecthad‘discoveredtheprinciple

[of urban planning] somewhere in the Islamic world – somewhere in Algiers’,

Neidhardtwaseager to explore the IslamicaspectsofBosnianarchitecture.10The

opportunitytopresentanurbanplanforthecityofferedanidealprospect.

In addition to the timely urban debates, the physical fabric of Sarajevo reminded

NeidhardtofAlgiers.11LikeAlgiers,Sarajevoconsistedof twodistincturbanparts:

theoldBašaršija,visuallymarkedbysmallalleysandIslamicmonuments,andthe

modern European quarters, structured along wide, regular streets lined with

eclectic buildings. Grabrijan had already noted this oppositional relationship

between modern and traditional in his articles. And for Neidhardt, the Occident–

Orient relationship had the potential to enrich his own architectural approach by

unitingthe‘rational’and‘sensual’andbydevelopingthethemesdiscussedwithLe

Corbusier.

Adding to the similarities of terrain and configuration was the increasing

importance of the urban plan on city development. In Sarajevo, as in Algiers,

urbanismwasbecomingamajorpublicconcern. In the1940s,Sarajevostill relied

andsuggested thathecontributedto thedevelopmentofLeCorbusier’sbrisesoleil idea. J.KarliKapetanovi,JurajNajdhart,životidjelo,p.53.10Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.227.11ForfurtherdiscussionofLeCorbusier’sinvolvementwithAlgiersandadescriptionofthecityseeMcLeod,‘UrbanismandUtopia:LeCorbusierfromregionalsyndicalismtoVichy’,p.335.

Chapter3

95

onan1891plan,developedbytheAustro–Hungarianadministration(1878–1913).12

It addressed the city as a whole and highlighted the colonial government’s

commitment to the city’s westward development, away from Bašaršija.13 The

linearstructureofthismasterplanpromotedarationalurbanorganisation,which

was introducedby theAustro–Hungariangovernment. Itendorsedzoningandthe

orthogonal street system that came to replace the irregular Ottoman street

layouts.14 The 1891 plan underpinned the basic outline for the city’s urban

development until well into the 20th century.15 The destruction and collapse of

numerous historic buildings, mentioned in the previous chapter, as well as

structuressuchasJakubPašinMesdžid,whichwasbuiltin1491anddemolishedin

1936,andamosquebuiltin1540,promptedGrabrijantocallforacomprehensive

urban plan.16 Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s discussion of an urban plan for Sarajevo

consolidatedtheirvisionwithbroaderpublicandprofessionalconcerns.

Like Le Corbusier17, who recommended that Algiers retain its basic linear

organisation because it was particularly suited to ‘modern life’ and rapid

transportation, Grabrijan and Neidhardt retained the linear layout established by

12Evenatthetimeofitsdevelopmentthe1891planhadlimitedscope.Itwasoriginallydevelopedin1879fortheprecinctofBašaršija,butwasextendedandputinplaceonlyafterfiredestroyedmuchoftheprecinctin1891.13 M. umruki, ‘Izrada Generalnog Urbanistikog Plana’ (The development of a general urbanplan),inM.ankovi(ed.),SarajevouSocijalistikojJugoslavijiodOslobodjenjadoSamoupravljanja,1945–1950, Istorijski Arhiv Sarajevo, vol. 1, Sarajevo, 1988, pp. 387–88. In its scope the planextendedfromBašaršija,throughthenewlyestablishedurbancentretothesuburbs,asfarwestasDolacMalta.14TofacilitatesuchchangestheAustro–Hungariansintroducedtheregulatorysystemofcadastre–asystemoflandownershipregistration.15 Various partial urban regulatory plans were proposed and accepted, but a master plan for thewholecityofSarajevowasonlyacceptedin1974.16 For more detailed discussion of the destruction of Muslim heritage see, Koštovi, Sarajevo,IzmedjuDobrotvorstvaiZlaSarajevo,pp.169–85.17McLeod,‘UrbanismandUtopia:LeCorbusierfromregionalsyndicalismtoVichy’,p.337.

Chapter3

96

theAustro–Hungarianplannersintheirnew1942masterplanproposal.Itincluded

the old precinct, as well as the subsequent urban development by the Austro–

HungarianandtheYugoslavgovernments.Theapproachsupportedthelinearityof

electric tramways, in operation since 1895, and made provision for the city to

expandsidewayswhileremainingconnectedviaacentralspine.18‘Thecityislikea

human organism’, they wrote: ‘It has its heart (cultural centre), brain

(administrative section), stomach (business section), lungs (green areas), and

arteriesandveins (communications).’19Thisbiologicalanalogywas represented in

the drawing ‘Schematic representation of the new suburbs of the middle Bosnian

mining basin’ [Figure 7]. Evoking the organic foundation of the proposal, the

drawingshowedafreeflowingbodyofstreetsandurbancentres.

Despitetheirrepeatedstatementsthattheurbanplanwouldofferacomprehensive

solutionfortheexistingcitycentreandhistoricprecinct,GrabrijanandNeidhardt’s

preoccupation appears to be with the new city –beyond the borders of the old

precinct. The proposed plan included a geographically expansive area, which

indicated the authors’ interest in largescale planning and regional development.

The inclusion of six new satellite towns showed the extent of their ambition. The

satellites’ proximity to Sarajevo varied from Ilidža (2), only about 10 kilometres

away from the old town, to Breza (1), Riica (3) and VarešMajdan (6) up to 45

kilometres away, to towns as far as Zenica (7), some 70 kilometres away. On a

18 Horsepulled tramways were introduced in 1884. H. Kreševljakovi, Sarajevo za vrijemeAustrougarske uprave (1878–1918) (Sarajevo During the AustroHungarian Government), IzdanjeArhivaGradaSarajeva,Sarajevo1969,p.33.19Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.202.

Chapter3

97

microurbanscale,theproposalaimedto introducearegularstreetnetwork,with

asmany‘squaresaspossibletomaximisesunandgreenery’.20Itidentifiedhygiene

asa‘necessary[precondition]forthedevelopmentofanyhealthyandprogressive

city.’21‘Wellorganisedstreetsandregularblocks’were,theyargued,thebackbone

ofasuccessfulurbanproposal.22

Figure 7: ‘Schematic representationof thenewsuburbs ofthe middle Bosnian mining basin’. Map of satellite townsincluded in the proposal: (1) old and new Sarajevo; (2)Ilidža; (3)Breza; (4)Riica; (5)Riica;(6)VarešMajdan; (7)Zenica. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, ‘Sarajevo and ItsSatellites’,p.272.

20Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.241.21Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.202.22Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.203.

Chapter3

98

Onlyarelativelysmallsectionoftheplan,labelled‘OldandnewSarajevo’,related

to the existing town of Sarajevo (1). The master plan thus conceptually extended

thecityboundariesawayfromBašaršija,towardsthegrowingAustrian–Hungarian

sectionof thecity tothewestandout tothedevelopingmining townsofBosnia.

The mining towns, which were historically independent, were considered new

suburbsofSarajevo,or‘itssatellites’,assuggestedbytheproject’stitle.

Even in considering issues related to the existing city, Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s

efforts focused on the city at large. The drawing titled ‘East–west artery’ defined

the perimeter by existing monuments in a layout that referenced a human body

[Figure 8]. The entry ‘gate’ was marked by the site dedicated to a new railway

station.23 The ‘lobby’ was associated with the Catholic church at Marijin Dvor

(ChurchofSt.Joseph,1940),the‘foyer’withthemajorintersectioninfrontofthe

mosque of Ali Pasha (1560–61), while other monuments, such as the Orthodox

church (Church of the Nativity of the Mother of God, 1874) and the Catholic

CathedraloftheSacredHeartof Jesus (1889),markedthecitycentre.Thecentral

roadthatcoincidedwiththeexistingPavelievaStreet linkedthemonuments into

whatappearedanaturalandorganicbodilyform,andtheoldprecinctofBašaršija

wasenclosedandconnectedtotherestofthetownonlybythemainroad.24With

major monuments marking the urban context, the proposal’s visual presentation

23Grabrijanreviewedthe1935ideacompetitionforthenewrailwaystationinthearticle‘Sarajevskiželjezniki problem, konkretni predlog’ (The problem of Sarajevo railway station, a proposal),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,1.7.1936.24ThisstreetwasnamedafterAntePaveli,theCroatianfascistleaderwhoheadedaCroatianstatesubservienttoGermanyandItalyduringWorldWarTwo.DuringsocialistYugoslaviathestreetwasnamedafterJosipBrozTito,theYugoslavcommunistleaderandthepresidentofthestate.

Chapter3

99

looked more like a tourist map than a professionally designed contribution to a

developingurbanmasterplan.

Figure 8: ‘East–west artery’, an urban vision for Sarajevopresentedinitsrelationtosignificantlocations(fromtoptobottom of the drawing) that include: city gate at BijelaTabija; bazaar of Bašaršija; King Tvrtko urban square;StjepanTomaševiurbansquare,intersectioninfrontofAliPasha’s Mosque, Marijin Dvor and New Railway Station.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt, ‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.239.

Chapter3

100

Theoldprecinctandthenewcity

Grabrijan and Neidhardt present their discussion of Bašaršija in the section of

‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ titled ‘Heritage’ (Predaja).25 Despite the introductory

statementssuggestingtheauthors’interestinandfascinationwiththeprecinct,the

review of historic development relied on two secondary sources. The first was

credited to the wellknown chronicler of Ottoman times, Evlija elebija, and

presented an extract from his 17thcentury travel journal ‘Sarajevo from 1069–72

(1650–53)’.26ThesecondwasGrabrijan’sfreeinterpretationofthe1916article‘The

rightonview’,originallywrittenbytheAustro–HungarianarchitectJosipPospišil.27

BothtextspresentedpositiveviewsofSarajevo.elebija’saccountintroduceditas

‘themostbeautifulofall’and‘oneofthegreatestOttomancitiesofthetime’.28The

commentswereextendedbyPospišil’sdescriptionofthesurroundingfabricofthe

mahala(neighbourhood). Itwastheharmoniousrelationshipbetweenhousesand

gardens,Pospišilargued,thatdemonstratedinurbantermsthehighethicalvalues

ofthepeoplewhodesignedandbuiltthosestructures.Referringtothecustomary

lawsthatupheldthekeepingofneighbours’unobstructedviews,Pospišilpresented

theurban fabricofmahala asaphysicalmanifestationof thenaturalandorganic

unityofplanningandculturalpractices[Figure9].

25Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,pp.210–25.26 Reference made to the Hijri (Hidžra in Bosnian) calendar. Years 1069–72 are equivalent to theyears1650–53intheGregoriancalendar.TheIslamiccalendarmarksyearsinrelationtotheIslamicprophetMuhammad'semigrationfromMeccatoMedina.27Anotestatesthattheincludedtextisa‘freeinterpretation’oftheoriginaldiscussionbyPospišilpresented in Monatschrift für Städtebau, No.617, 1916. Grabrijan & Neidhardt, ‘Sarajevo and ItsSatellites’,p.224.28 Original quote: ‘Na zemlji ima po imenu ‘Saraj’ nekoliko gradova … ali Bosna – saraj od sviju jenajureenijiinajljepšikamenegrad!’,inGrabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.224.

Chapter3

101

Figure 9: Drawings illustrating the organic unity of terrainand architecture. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, ‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.225.

elebija’s picturesque vision of the city and Pospišil’s complimentary views of

culturalandurbanpracticesofferedanidealisedimageoftheoldprecinct.Despite

Grabrijanhavingproducedhisownrecordof theprecinctand itsmonuments the

authors did not include those in their discussion.29 This would suggest that their

interestswerenotinestablishingaccuratehistoricalaccounts,butinidentifyingthis

fabric as sensual and charming, distant from the new city. Seeking to unlock the

mystiqueoftheOrient,GrabrijanandNeidhardtturnedtoasearchforarchitectural

spaces that they believed captured these qualities. They identified the traditional

OttomanhouseasatthecoreoftheintimatelifeofaMuslimmanand,assuch,a

buildingtypethatcouldpotentiallyprovideakeytounderstandingthe‘Orient’.

29Theyincludedanextensivecollectionofhistoricimages,sketchesandmeasureddrawingsintheirsubsequentbookArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernityGrabrijancollectedsomeofthoseimagesforhisclassesintheTechnicalSchoolinthelate1930s.

Chapter3

102

SearchingforOrientalsecrets

With no structured analysis of the public section of the old city and limited

reference to Grabrijan’s previous studies, the discussion of the old precinct in

‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’focusedontheprivatehome.Itstartedwithananalysis

ofanexternalenvelopeandpartsofthehomethatwererelativelyopentopublic

[Figure 10]. Through an interpretation of the house gained from the street and

mahala setting, the authors constructed a vision of domestic life. This imagined

interiorofferedtheauthorsaplatformforthediscussingwhattheyreferredtoas

theOrientalcharacterofthepeoplewhoinhabitedthosespaces,andthesecretsit

veiled.30

Figure 10: Muslim house, drawing. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.215.

Theywerecertainlynotthefirsttoidentifythedomesticspacesofhomeasakeyto

understanding the architectural and cultural context. The Muslim house and its

surrounds were topics frequently explored by foreign architects. Most significant

weretheAustro–HungarianarchitectswhointheirsearchforanauthenticBosnian,

30Theapproachwaspremiseduponstereotypical interpretationsof theOriental,whichpromotedtheoppositionalrelationshipbetweentheOrientandOccident,EastandWest.ForfurtherdiscussionseeE.W.Said,Orientalism,WesternConceptionsoftheOrient,PenguinBooks,London,1978,pp.1–28.

Chapter3

103

localandindigenousexpressionidentifiedthetraditionalhouseasanarchitectural

embodimentofthosequalities.31

The architect Josip Vancaš was officially the first to recognise the political and

aesthetic potential of Bosnian vernacular built forms, and in particular the

significance of the Ottoman traditional dwelling for a construction of Bosnian

identity.32 In 1911, Vancaš tabled to the Bosnian parliament (Zemaljski Sabor) a

heritage resolution that aimed to protect, register and describe existing

monuments,aswellas togive financial incentive (forexample, lowering taxes) to

the buildings built in what he referred to as ‘Bosnian style’.33 For this purpose

Vancaš designed a prototypical house in ‘Bosnian style’ [Figure 11]. He based his

designsontraditionalarchitecture,inparticularonthehomeofthewealthyperson

31 It was common for OttoWagner’s students to take their first journey to the East, where theynoted and sketched the beauty of the ‘original’, ‘natural’ and ‘pure’ architectural forms of the‘Mediterranean house’. Wagner’s firstrecorded student interested in studying local vernacular,ErnstLichtblau,uponhisarrivalinBosniain1904notedthe‘pure’qualitiesandrationalgroundingoftraditionaldwellings.(Asdiscussedinchaptertwo,thosequalitieswerealsoobservedbyGrabrijaninhis early writings on the city.) On his trip through the countryside Lichtblau produced numeroussketchesoftheBosnianlandscapeandhouses,emphasisingthegeometricsimplicityofformofthehouse.ErnstLichtblau‘StudienundSkizzenausBosnienundDalmatien’(StudiesandsketchesfromBosnia and Dalmatia), Der Architekt, 14, 1903, p. 85, cited in I. Krzovi, Arhitektura Bosne iHercegovine,1878–1918,(ArchitectureofBosniaandHerzegovina,18781918),UmjetnikaGalerijaBiH,Sarajevo,1988,p.231.Seealsochaptersix,‘Thesearchforanationalstyle’,inA.Moravanszky,Competing Visions: Aesthetic Invention and Social Imagination in Central European Architecture,1867–1918, MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.,1997; and R. Besarovi, Iz kulturnog životau SarajevupodAustrougarskom Upravom (Inserts from Cultural Life of Sarajevo Under the Austro–HungarianAdministration),VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo,1974.32 Josip Vancaš was born in Sopron, Hungary, in 1859 and died in Zagreb, Croatia, in 1932. Hecompleted his architectural degree in Vienna in 1881, and from 1882 to 1884 studied at theAcademy of Arts in Vienna. Vancaš’s first major commission in Sarajevo was the design of theCatholiccathedral.ArchitecturalhistorianNedžadKurtosuggeststhatintheirsearchforanarchitectto design the cathedral the authorities approached the government. Minister Kallay in turnapproached Friedrich von Schmidt, professor at the Academy of Applied arts in Vienna, whosuggestedhisstudent,aCroatiancalledJosipVancaš.Vancašwasonly25atthetime,andhesettledpermanently inSarajevo in1894.Duringhis fruitfulcareer inSarajevohedesignedmorethan240buildings, of which most were executed. He became one of the most prominent architects in theAustro–Hungarian personnel, in the city in which almost 600 projects were designed. For furtherdiscussionseeKurto,‘ArhitekturaSecesijeuSarajevu’,1988.33Kurto,ArhitekturaBosneIHercegovine,razvojBosanskogStila,p.298.

Chapter3

104

of Ottoman times.34 The design made reference to the spatial organisation of

Muslim houses, with divanhana (large, openplanned living spaces), recesses and

protrusions on the upper level, white walls and steep, high roofs. It also made

reference to public buildings suchas hotels (han). Other architects, among whom

JosipPospišilwas themostprominent,continuedtheseefforts.Pospišilmadethe

search for authentic Bosnian style the focus of his work, and saw domestic

architectureastheembodimentofculturalrelationships.

Figure11:JosipVancaš:housesdesignedin‘Bosnianstyle’.Source: I. Krzovi, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, 1878–1918,pp.232&235.

While Grabrijan and Neidhardt acknowledged the efforts of their predecessors,

including a version of Pospišil’s essay on the urban positioning of the traditional

34InatalktotheSocietyofYugoslavEngineersandArchitects(UdruženjejugoslavenskihinžinjeraIArhitekata–SekcijaZagreb)VancašcriticisedtheAustro–HungariangovernmentfortheinadequatesupportitprovidedtopreservingSarajevo’sheritagefabric.Hecriticisedtheauthoritiesforavoidingfinancialcommitmentgivingonlyverbalsupportforpreservation.Originalquote: ‘Veina kulturnih država imaveovakovih komisija,a Inaša ju je domovina dobilapodnaslovom‘PovjerenstvozaouvanjespomenikauKraljevinamaHrvatskojISlavoniji’.lanovisutekomisijemeuostalimadirectoruroSzaboIprof.ArhitektMartinPilar.Nažalost,tajekomisijakulturna institucija na papiru, jer ne raspolaže dovoljnim novanim sredstvima, da bi uzmoglapoduzimati potrebna nauna istraživaka putovanja, snimanja, crtanja I publikacije objekata,vrijednihzaštite’.J.Vancaš, ‘BosanskoNarodnoGraditeljstvo’ (Bosnianbuiltheritage),published inTehnikiList(TechnicalJournal),vol.31,no.24,December1928,pp.353–56.

Chapter3

105

house, they perceived the Austro–Hungarian efforts as ‘well meaning’.35 But they

argued that the Austro–Hungarian colonial obsession with the ‘exotic in Bosnian

architectural expression’ resulted in their failure ‘to understand things’.36 In an

attempt to rectify limited understandings of the significance of the traditional

house, they focused their discussion on the search for clues embedded in the

hidden interiors. Central to this was their assumption that a patriarchal and, by

extension, gender relationship between Muslim men and women underpinned

familyrelationships.

The idea of the Islamic home as a shell for daily activities, primarily for women,

stimulated their imaginations and promised insights into otherwise private

domains.37GrabrijanandNeidhardtwrote:

To a Muslim man a woman is his joy – and that is why he carefully hides and

enclosesher.Herdivanhana isenclosedbyamesh,andmušepci [timber lattices]

framed the best views of the garden for her … Through women, a Muslim man

divides the world into a colourful and intimate interior world and a sober and

constrainedpublicworld.38

35Originalquote:‘Nesmijemopoiniputem,kojijepošlabivšaAustrija,putemdobronamjernim,alibezpravogshvaanjastvari.Austrijskiarhitektividjeli suuBosni samoegzotiku,pasumislili,daeBosnuusreitiegzotinimgradnjamaumaurskomsloguInekojkolonijalnojarhitekturi.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.241.36Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.241.37 For further discussion of the Islamic home as a shell for daily activities and other ‘lessons’ formodernarchitectureandurbanism,whicharchitectssuchasLeCorbusierfoundinAlgiers,seeÇelik,UrbanFormsandColonialConfrontations,AlgiersUnderFrenchRule.Forafurtherdiscussionofthesignificance of the indigenous house in broader modernist discourses see Z. Çelik, Displaying theOrient, Architecture of Islam at NineteenthCentury World’s Fairs, University of California Press,Berkeley,1992,pp.87–113.38Originalquote:‘Muslimanuježenaužitak–pajezbogtogatolikoljubomornouvaIzatvara.Zbognjedivanhanaumrežama,mušepci,zanjunajljepšiInajbiranijividiciiizglediuprirode.Ovakomožemuslimanuzetiodtogasvijetasve,štogodmugodi,adaganištaneometaunjegovu–eifu.…Kroznju je musliman podijelio svijet na dva dijela: šareno intimni i trijezno suzdržljivi javni život.’

Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212.Twodifferentspellingsappearinthistext:divhanaanddivanhana.

Chapter3

106

Believing the private space of the home reflected the broader social and gender

relationships in which they were interested, the authors centred their analysis on

architectural elements that enclosed domestic life. As this interrelationship took

place within the Muslim home, understanding spatial qualities was assumed to

provide insights into interpersonal interactions: ‘It’s through his relationship to

women that the Muslim defines [his] world’, they suggested. Identifying sexual

dynamicsasatthecoreofgenderinteractionwithinaMuslimfamily,andawoman

asthemain‘subjectthatisalwayssame’,theywrote:39

A woman is for a Muslim man a piece of paradise on Earth. Because of her he

accumulates all the wealth around her. The Oriental carpet, ilim, is [spread] for

her, the embroidered towels and cushions [also] for her, the water fountains,

šadrvans,andgardensofEden–allforher.40

‘In that world’, wrote Grabrijan and Neidhardt, ‘Muslim man finds his joy and

pleasure merak without anything disturbing his mood eif’.41 By associating the

domesticinterioranditsoccupantswithmerak–afeelingofirrationalandleisurely

joyandpleasure–andeif–moodortemperamentalbehaviour–theypresented

the house as a spatial enclosure of the emotional, if somehow unpredictable,

Muslimworld.

AbandoningGrabrijan’searlierwritingsontheintimacyandeasebywhichBosnian

Muslimscreatedandenjoyedthedomesticenvironment,theauthorspresentedthe

39Originalquote:‘Subjektostajeuvijekisti,mijenjasesamoobjekat,pajemrežaprematomeuvijekdrugaija.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212.40Originalquote:‘Muslimanusuobeananebesasahurijama,t.j.zamamnimženama.ZbognjeIokonjenagomilavaonsvebogatstvo.ilimi–radinje,peškiriIurešenijastuci–radinje,šadrvaniirajskebaše – sve radi nje. U tom se svijetu musliman nasladjuje t.j. predaje svom eifu.’ Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212.41Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212.

Chapter3

107

house’s austere public elevations as reflective of what they perceived as the

controllingnatureofMuslimmenoverwomen.Usingananalogyofthe intriguing

nature of cover, the authors suggested that in relation to the house, ‘fences and

variousotherscreenlikestructures’hidetheinteriorsjustlike‘Justliketheveilthat

reduce[d] a [woman’s] appearance to a neutral shape’ [Figure 12].42 Opening up

thoselayersofprivacy,likeunveilingawoman,wouldprovidetheinsightneededby

the authors to understand the hidden qualities of house. These findings, in turn,

providedtheconceptualstructurefortheirmasterplanpresentedin‘Sarajevoand

ItsSatellites’.

Figure12:TheOrientasinspiration.Facecoverandveil,(zarandvala). Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt, ‘Sarajevoand itsSatellites’,pp.212&213.

The discussion of Bašaršija’s business section, as stated earlier, did not focus on

thehistoricaldevelopmentortheimportanceofspecificmonumentstothearea’s

overall fabric. Instead it considered the precinct’s relevance to the new urban

42Originalquote:‘Ženumuslimannepuštausvijetbezvalet.j.kopreneispredlica,kojajeimunizirapredjavnošu,bezzarat.j.ogrtaa,kojisveženesvodinaistitrijezni,monumentalnioblik,ItimeihsveizjednaujeIneutralizira.TheEnglishtranslationinfull:‘TheMuslimmandoesnotlethiswomengooutonthestreetwithoutacover.Thatwayhereducesherappearancetoageneralshapethatpresents all women within the same monumental form, making them all same and neutral.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212.

Chapter3

108

development. Like their mentor Le Corbusier, Grabrijan and Neidhardt identified

theexplorationofthereligiouspracticesasakeytounderstandingtheprivateand

spirituallifeofthecity.Theyfocusedtheirattentiononwhattheysawasreligious

normsthathadshapedthedevelopmentoftheurbanfabric.Theassumptionthat

Islamic faith subsumed all other forms of sociocultural norms governed their

analysis; the ‘artistic physiognomy of Sarajevo’, they wrote, was determined by

religiousbeliefs.43

Aheadofmanyothertowns,Sarajevohasaspecialdispositionforarchitecture.And

thatspecificallycomesfromIslam.Islamforbidsfiguralrepresentation,andthrough

that discourages sculpture and paintings as art forms, ultimately Islamic art is

focusedonabstraction;i.e.,inornamentinsteadofpainting,inarchitectureinstead

ofsculpture.44

Unawareof thediversitywithinMuslim faith, theirdiscussionof the impact Islam

made on Sarajevo referenced a drawing of the mosque in Medina (now in Saudi

Arabia). The burial place of Muhammad, Medina represented the epicentre of

Islamic religion [Figure 13].45 Recalling Le Corbusier’s reference to Kaaba, the

inclusionofthissketchhighlightedtheauthors’belief intheoverarchingpowerof

Islamtonegate regionaldiversities.ThereferencevisualisedSerbianandCroatian

nationalists’argumentthatsuggested,duetothetransnationalnatureofIslam,that

Bosnian Muslims’ allegiance was not to the local population but to the greater

43Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.227.44 Original quote: ‘Ispred svih drugih gradova Sarajevo ima posebno dispoziciju za arhitekturu. TospecijalnoproizlaziizIslama.IslamskanaukanaimezabranjujeprikazivanjeprirodnihuzoraIlikovauumjetnosti. Na taj nain onemoguuje razvoj slikarstva I kiparstva, pa se islamski svijet timintenzivnije iživljava u apstrakciji t.j. u ornamentici umjesto u slikarstvu, u arhitekturi umjesto ukiparstvu’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.227.45MuslimsreverethecityofMeccaforcontainingtheMasjidalHaram(SacredMosque),consideredthe holiest site of Islam. Medina is the second holiest city in Islam. The city is the burial place ofMuhammadandtheplacewhereheandhisfollowersfledafterbeingexpelledfromattacksagainstMecca,nowknownastheHijira.BothMeccaandMedinaarelocatedinwhatisnowSaudiArabia.

Chapter3

109

world of Islam. Based on that rationale, the nationalists argued, Bosnian Muslims

possessednosenseofnationalorregionalbelonging.

Figure13:Medinamosque.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, p. 210. [Image republished inArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity].

ThegeneralisedandstereotypicalviewsofIslamicartandarchitecturethatframed

GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sdiscussionofBašaršijapervadedtheirperceptionofthe

local population. Despite the precinct’s historic inclusiveness of diverse religious

beliefs,thediscussionpresentedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’focusedonMuslims,

whose values, the authors argued, were in opposition to Western society’s.

‘Western man’, they argued, approached ‘art rationally’, considering it ‘an

intellectualactivity’.46Thisapproachthatcelebrated ‘technology’, theycontinued,

46 Original quote: ‘Zapadnjak pristupa likovnoj umjetnosti nekako posredno: ona mu je delekcijaintelekta:razumijeje.OdatleenambitishvatljivaIglorifikacijatehnikenazapaduIpojavaulikovnojumjetnostikakvajenaprimjerkonstruktivizam.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.211.

Chapter3

110

providedthecontext‘fortheemergenceofartsuchasconstructivism’.47Suggesting

thatthisrelationshipisevidentinthebuiltfabric,theywrote:

When I look at the supporting arches of the gothic cathedral, I am immediately

aware that without them the building would fall down, or that the spaces of the

gothic cathedral would be impossible without them. When I look at the thin

columns of concrete structure that support large concrete volumes – I can see a

workofengineering.Andthedomeandcube–theyallhaveacleargeometry.48

Unlike ‘his’ Western counterparts, ‘Eastern man’, according to the authors, ‘was

different’ and ‘engage[d] in art directly, approaching everything, including

technology,withemotion’.49Theevidenceofthistheyfoundonthebuiltfabricof

Bašaršija:

Arabesque I am never able to decipher – even though it is all interwoven with

geometry.Andtheserollersandarches,conesandcalottes,evencubesarenever

clearly determined – they always vary, going up and down – always appearing

differentlyinregardstotheirposition.50

Supportingtheirstatementwereimagesofarabesquesandwritingspresumablyin

Arabic [Figure 14]. The level of abstractness presented in the drawing neutralised

the meaning of the image, highlighting the problematic relationship between art

andreligionevidentinGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sdiscussion.

47Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.211.48 Original quote: ‘Kad god pogledam potporne lukove na obodima gotske katedrale, osjeamodmah, da bi se bez njih zgrada srušila ili da je bez njih nemogu prostor gotskog profila. A kadpogledam tanko armirane betonske stupove, koji nose glomazne gradjevne mase – onda uvijekmislimnainžinjeraInjegovustatiku.IkupolaIkubussvesutoodredjenegeometrijsketvorbe.AlinaOrijentunijetako!’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.210.49Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.211.50Originalquote‘Arabeskunemogunikadaodgonetnutipremdajesvaisprepletenageometrijom.Iovivaljci,Ilukovi,injeviIkalote,pakubusi,nikadaminisukonanoodredjeni–uvijekonivarirajunaviše ilinaniže–svakiputdrugaijipremasvompoložaju’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt, ‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.210.

Chapter3

111

Figure 14: Sketch of an arabesque. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212.

TheimpactofLeCorbusier’sviews

For Neidhardt at least, this interest in the Oriental can be explained by his time

spentinLeCorbusier’soffice.ArchitecturalhistorianZeynepÇelikhasarguedthatin

projectssuchasAlgiers,LeCorbusiershowedagenuine,ifbiased, interest inlocal

culture.51DefiningtheEastasemotional,irrational,ahistoricalandtimeless,andthe

Westasrational,progressiveanddynamic,LeCorbusierestablishedanoppositional

relationshipbetweenOrientandOccident.52HisobservationsoftheEastconformed

towhatEdwardSaidhasreferredtoasanOrientalistconstructionoftheOther.

InspiredbyFoucault’sArchaeologyofKnowledgeandDisciplineandPunish,Saidhas

argued that the Orient was a virtually European invention, a system of

representation framedbyWesternpoliticalpower.53Hedefined ‘Orientalism’asa

mode of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction

51 For a discussion on Le Corbusier’s work during this period see: M. McLeod, ‘Le Corbusier andAlgiers’, Oppositions, 19/20, winter/spring 1980, pp. 53–85; and Çelik, Urban Forms and ColonialConfrontations.MaryMcLeodarguesthatLeCorbusier’sinvolvementwiththesyndicalistmovementsignificantly informed his approach to urban studies and subsequent proposals for Algeria in theyears1931to1942.52Z.Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,pp.59–77.53 Said acknowledged his debt to Foucault, particularly hisArchaeology of Knowledge, Routledge,London, 1989, c1972 andDiscipline and Punish Penguin, Harmondsworth, England, 1979. E. Said,Orientalism,WesternConceptionsoftheOrient,pp.3–4.

Chapter3

112

between ‘the Orient’ and ‘the Occident’. In Europe from the 18th century on,

Orientalist thinking underpinned understandings of the East–West relationship.54

Said’s thesis has provided a framework through which the work of many modern

architects,includingLeCorbusier,hasbeencritiqued.55

In the article ‘Le Corbusier, Orientalism, Colonialism’, Çelik further demonstrates

that Le Corbusier’s engagement with the Orient was heavily informed by such

biases. He accepts models of the Orient promoted through literature, travel

accountsandpaintings.56PopularauthorssuchasThéophileGautierandPierreLoti

shaped Le Corbusier’s expectations of the places he studied.57 The impact of the

Orientalist tradition fuelled his desire to confirm, on location, his preconceived

mental images of places encountered through literature.58 Çelik suggests that Le

Corbusier’sdesiretoreconstructaperceptionofIstanbulpromotedin19thcentury

travelbooksframedhisownexperienceofthecity.59

Building upon Europe’s historic fascination with Islam, Le Corbusier attempted to

explainarchitecturalandurban form in termsof religiousbelief. Inanattempt to

enrich his own architectural approach, he saw the oppositional relationship as

having thepotential to unite the ‘sensual’heassociatedwith theEastandOrient

withthe‘rational’oftheWest.DefiningthelocalandIslamassomethingOtherto

54Said,Orientalism,WesternConceptionsoftheOrient,p.40.55Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’.56Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,pp.59–77.57Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,pp.59–77.58Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,pp.59–77.59Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,pp.59–77.

Chapter3

113

theWest(morespecificallyFrench,ÇelikarguedinthecaseofAlgiers),LeCorbusier

labelled localcultureasdifferent,andbyextension inferior.60Unversed inMuslim

philosophy, Le Corbusier, Çelik argues, often recycled clichéd views of religion’s

importance in structuring social and cultural formations.61 To demonstrate the

overarching role of religion in shaping urban form, Le Corbusier – in a way

prefiguringGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sefforts inSarajevo–referredtoKaabainhis

discussionofthe‘unityofreligionasexpressedinthephysicalandsymbolic’formof

Istanbul.62

Unlike Le Corbusier, who in his attempts to gain knowledge of other places and

cultures relied on secondary sources and French colonial policies, Grabrijan and

Neidhardtwereintheorymuchclosertotheirsubjectofinvestigation.Bosniawas

anintegralpartoftheirhomestate,theKingdomofYugoslavia.Thekingdom’smain

policies and constitution were defined in relation to the Ottomans’ colonial

occupationoftheBalkans,fromthe15thtothe19thcentury.WhiletheOttomans

60 Çelik, ‘Le Corbusier, Orientalism, Colonialism’, pp. 59–77. In contrast, scholars such as SibelBozdogan have attempted to liberate Le Corbusier from what they describe as themisunderstandingsoftheOrientalistapproach,arguinginsteadforgenuine,ifattimesproblematic,interest in the local context. The Journal of Architectural Education recorded a debate betweenRichard Ingersoll and Sibel Bozdogan. Bozdogan, attempted to distance Le Corbusier from the‘Orientalistsin’byarguingthathisinvolvedandengagedrepresentationoftheOrientwasacriticalandexploratoryvehicleratherthananaffirmativeandexpositoryone.SeeS.Bozdogan,‘JourneytotheEast:waysoflookingattheOrientandthequestionofrepresentation’,JournalofArchitecturalEducation, vol. 41, no. 4, summer 1988, pp. 38–45. However, Ingersoll questioned Bozdogan’sargumentand insisted that LeCorbusier indeed ‘proved inevery instance tobeon the sideof hiswhitefathers’.SeeR.Ingersoll,‘Lettertotheeditor’,JournalofArchitecturalEducation,vol.42,no.4,1989,p.61.SubsequentlyBozdoganrespondedin,‘MoreonLeCorbusier’sOrientalism’,JournalofArchitectural Education, vol. 43, no. 1, fall 1989, p. 63. Ingersoll and, by extension, Çelik havepersisted in stating that Le Corbusier’s experience of the East, which accepted the Orientalistframework,wasaimedatextollinghisownculture.Unwillingtogiveawayhispositionofpower,LeCorbusier, among others, was thus almost inevitably associated with what Ingersoll called the‘originalsin’ofWesterners.61Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,pp.59–77.62Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,p.63.

Chapter3

114

never reached Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s home towns of Lož and Zagreb,

respectively,theirlegacywasfeltwidelyandformedastrongpartofthehistoryof

allSouthernSlavs.However, inGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sexplorationof thecity’s

culturalcontext,theyneveracknowledgedtheirrelativeclosenesstotheirsubject,

if it ever existed. If anything, their approach confirmed that their Slovenian and

Croatian Christian backgrounds excluded them from the Islamic cultural and

religiousmilieuofSarajevo.Inanarticlepublishedin1940,Grabrijanacknowledged

thedifficulties theyhadaccessing the interiorsofMuslim homes: ‘Muslimhouses

aretooenclosedtoallowfreeobservationsandtodrawconclusionsfromthem.’63

Unfazedbythelackofaccess,theyidentifiedanalternativeapproach‘viathestudy

ofMuslimpublicbuildings:hans[inns]andcoffeeshops’.64Theirsenseofexclusion

coupledwith theirpreconceptionsabout Islamdeterminedtheirunderstandingof

the Oriental within the Bosnian context. Their observations of local culture

presented in ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ were framed by an inquiry into social

norms, particularly religious and sexual norms – the realms that Çelik has argued

definedLeCorbusier’sOrientalistapproach.65

63Originalquote:‘Muslimanskekuesunamsuvišezatvorene,adabismomoglinanjimapastisvojeoi I stvaratinekezakljuke. Donjih treba doi I indirektnimputem, tj.prekomuslimanskih javnihzgrada: hanova I kafana.’ Published in ‘Bašaršija – jedna nova alternativa’ (‘Bašaršija – a newalternative’), Jugoslovenski List, Sarajevo, vol. 30, no. 6, 1940; republished in eli, Grabrijan iSarajevo,p.67.64eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,p.67.65ÇelikreferstoworkofhistorianNormanDaniel,whichidentifiedenquiryintosocialnormssuchasreligious, sexual and power as the three realms that have characterised Islam in Europeandiscourses.Çelik,‘LeCorbusier,Orientalism,Colonialism’,p.60.

Chapter3

115

Bašaršija:‘surgeryormedication’

DespitetheinterestinlocalcontextexpressedinGrabrijan’swritings,‘Sarajevoand

Its Satellites’ revealed the historic precinct was given very limited value in their

masterplan.InkeepingwiththeirproblematicreadingoftheOrientalnatureofthe

oldcityanditsinhabitants,theEast–WestArterybypassedtheBašaršijaprecinct,

compoundingitsisolation.Ahighwalloflargerstructureswasproposedtoredefine

theouterperimeteroftheareaandtoenhanceitsseparationfromtherestofthe

city. To support the rezoning (from city centre to marketplace), an improved

internal street network was proposed. This was to facilitate the newly projected

image of the precinct as a tourist centre with ‘bazaars’ that produced ‘bijouterie

[imitationjewellery]’.66

In contrast to Grabrijan’s earlier attempts to establish an argument of relevance,

heretheyhighlightedtheartificialnatureoftheprecinct.‘Inrelationtotoday’slife’,

theywrote,Bašaršijahadnovalue:

[Itsbuilt fabric] is likeastage setwherenothing is real.Theprecinct’spurpose is

unclearanditsexistenceisirrelevant.Withnootherpurposethantohidethelack

ofcontentbehindthesurface;theornaments[andarabesque]haveonlysuperficial

meaning. Their purpose is to cover up the poor quality and the absence of

relevance.It isall falseanddeceptive. Ithasall lost itspurpose.Bašaršija, is[not

real]buta‘mirage’.67

66TheMerriamWebsterOnlineDictionarydefinesbijouterieasacollectionoftrinkets,ornamentsorjewels; and also decoration. In SerboCroatian and Bosnian the word implies imitation, and, byextension,lowqualityandcheapdesign.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.203.67Originalquote:‘DanašnjaBašaršijajepremaživotukaoapstrakcijapremarealizmu,t.j.kuliserija,gdjejesveneopipljivo.SvisutiodnosinejasniIzbogtoganesolidni.Svakiornamenttuzastirenešto,štonijerealno.Svrhajetihšara,dazavaraju,Idaprikrijuslabukvalitetu.Lažanjetajornament,jerjeizgubiosvojunužnost,svojupotrebaIsvojusmisaoIpoštosetolikoudaljioodsvojihizvora,danema

Chapter3

116

In the final analysis, the precinct’s existing fabric had little to offer to their new

masterplan:‘IfthepurposeofgoingtoBašaršijaistodohistoricalresearch’,they

argued, ‘then something should be learnt’.68 ‘But if the idea is to search for new

ideas’, there was ‘nothing new to be found…’69 Reducing Bašaršija to little more

than a twodimensional backdrop or a ‘scenographic display’, the master plan

focused on the new city.70 The discussion of the old precinct’s future, labelled

‘surgeryormedication’,wasconcludedwiththestatement‘Bašaršijaisdead’.71In

adamningassessmentofthebuiltfabric’scondition,theauthorsstated,‘Wherever

you look into theavlija [courtyards]–everythingstinksofdirtand rot,andmany

pestsarewalkingaround,eveninbroaddaylight’.72

Incontrastwiththis,theauthorsassociatedthenewcitywiththeterms‘efficiency’,

‘circulation’and‘standardisation’,demonstratingthattheirbelief inarationaland

pragmaticapproachalignedwiththemodern.Presentingthemselvesasresponsible

socialscientists,notsimplyarchitectsactinguponaestheticideas,theyarguedthat

theexpertswouldconfirmtheiranalysisoftheoldprecinct.Callinguponeducated

snjimapraveveze.SvataBašaršija,kojasenatimšarama,jestekaoneka‘fatamorgana’’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.218.68Originalquoteinfull:‘Ukolikoseidezaotkrivanjemostatakastaretradicije,možeseneštonauitiuBašaršiji.Alineštoidejnonovosetunemožeotkriti.TužnosevraaizBašaršijeonajkojijepošaoda nešto nova vidi I naui, jer sve što tu vidi, mogao je pregledati za prvih 14 dana.’ Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.218.69Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.218.70Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.218.71Originalquote:‘Bašaršijajeumrlakaocity.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.255. Original quote: ‘Kirurgija ili medicina. Kucnuo je dvanaesti as – treba pristupiti regulacijiSarajeva’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.201.72Originalquote:‘Adanegovorimooneodrživimhigijenskimprilikama.Gdjegodzaviriteuavliju–svudazaudarapoplijesniIgnjiloi,amnožinanonihživotinjicaIposredbijeladanaplazipozemlji’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.256.

Chapter3

117

professionals who lived or worked in the precinct to support their views, they

wrote:

If we consult doctors, fireman, insurance experts, or tradespeople and

businesspeople who live in Bašaršija, they will all agree about the unbearable

conditions that are present there ... Today’s Bašaršija is like sick lungs, full of

cavities. There are empty holes left from the burned downhans, courtyards and

ruinsofallkindsofbathsandresidencesthat shouldno longerhaveanyplace in

thisbazaar.73

Withlimitedprospectsfortheprecinct’sreintegrationinthenewcity,theauthors

statedthat‘anyattempttorevitaliseBašaršijaandincludeitinthenewcitywould

be contrary to natural development’.74 Their ‘diagnosis’ – a term they used to

presenttheirconclusions–wastosurgicallyremovetheoffendingelementsofthe

old city. ‘Summarising’ the position of Bašaršija within the master plan, they

stated:

… we realise that medication cannot help here any longer. Trying to heal the

existingsituationbycorrecting,repairing,mendingand filling in theemptyplaces

wouldonlyresult inahalfmendedandweaksolution.Here,surgical intervention

can help, i.e., the demolition of deteriorating and weak structures, followed by

zoning. A zone of highrise buildings surround the precinct of aršija [Bašaršija]

fromoutside–azoneoflowstructuresmakingtheinnercircle,tobefollowedbya

zoneofoldculturalbuildings,allfinallyunifiedbyapark!75

73Originalquote:‘DanašnjaBašaršijanaliibolesnimpluimakojasupunakaverna.Tusupraznineod pogorjelih hanova, pa razna dvorišta I ruševine kojekavih kupališta I stanbenih kua, kojima uovakvombazarunijemjesto.NatajnacindanašnjaBašaršijanijeskoroninapolovicuiskorištenazatrgovakesvrhe!’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.256.74Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.255.75 Original quote: ‘Ako sve rezimiramo, dolazimo do uvjerenja, da tu lijekovi više ne pomažu.Lijeenjepostojeegstanjaispravljanjem,opravljanjem,krpanjem,Iispunjavanjamporušenihmjesta,dalo bi samo iskrpanu polovinu I slabu stvar. Pomoi može tu samo kirurski zahvat, t.j. Rušenjesvega trošnog I nevaljalog, pa onda sprovesti urbanizaciju, t.j. podjelu u zone. Zona sa podrujemvisokihgradjevinadošlabiokoaršije,zonaniskihgradjevinaIbazaraunutarovezatimzonastarih

Chapter3

118

Theproposalsuggestedtheclearanceofallbutthemost‘importantbuildingsbuilt

of solidmaterial’ [Figure15].76Thecomplexof theGaziHusrefBeg, inclusiveofa

mosque, a šadrvan (water fountain), two turbes (mausoleums, tombs of the

founder and his family) and a kutubhana (library) were to be kept.77 Two other

mosques, Bašaršija and Careva (Tsar’s) mosques, would also stay, as would the

nearby medresa (religious school). Basing their judgment on the quality of the

physical fabric,GrabrijanandNeidhardthesitated in includingtheMoriaHan(an

inn),asthestructurewas‘partiallybuiltoutoftimber’.78Ultimatelytheysuggested

retaining it, but on the condition ‘all remnants of the past’ that surrounded the

buildingwerecleared.79

Figure 15: Design proposal for urban regulation ofBašaršija.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.212.

Theproposal,howeverhypothetical,extendedthealreadydiminishingcapacityof

thefinancialinstitutionssupportingBašaršija’surbandevelopment,andthevakuf

kulturnih gradjevina te park, koji bi povezao sve navedene elemente u cjelinu!’ Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.257.76Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.257.77 There have been two spellings used for this name: Gazi Husref Beg and Gazi Husrevbeg.Gazihusrevbeg’s Vakuf (comp.), Spomenica Gazi Husrevbegove etiristoGodišnjice’ (Four HundredYearsofGazihusrevbeg’sVakuf),Sarajevo,1932,p.57.78Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.257.79Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.257.

Chapter3

119

inparticular.Witha limited interest inprotectionandpreservationof theexisting

structures, Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s master plan proposed significant clearing of

architecturalfabricdeemedinpoorphysicalcondition.

UnlikeGrabrijan’searlierwritings,whichchallengedtheauthoritiesandcalledfora

review of preservation policies and urban development approaches, the master

plan complied with the official line. It too, proposed preservation of individual

monuments,butnotthesurroundingfabric.Thesurroundingstructureslackedthe

capacity to generate income needed for preserving monuments, and so the

proposalunderminedtheinterdependencyoftheBašaršija’sbuiltfabricinstilledin

the principles the vakuf institution. Further, the Bašaršija’s proposed change of

role – from an economic, cultural and trade centre into a retail zone of ‘bazaar

bijouterie’–confirmedGrabrijanandNeidhardt’slackofbeliefinrevivingtheailing

fabric and economy. The plan’s overall focus on modernisation, efficiency and

rational planning of the city at large, demonstrated that their interest in urban

planningwasinthedevelopmentofnewsatellitetowns–nottheoldtown.

Thenewsatelliteminingtowns

Asstated,theproposalsin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’emergedfromGrabrijanand

Neidhardt’s interest in urban debates.80 However, the projects included in the

publicationwerecommonlyactualprojectsorcompetitionsinwhichNeidhardtwas

involvedasanarchitect.WhenhecametoBosniain1939,afteryearsofworkingin

Western Europe, he did so to become company architect in the mining 80Between1939and1942Neidhardtwasemployedfulltimebythe‘Jugoelik’steelcompany.

Chapter3

120

conglomerate Croatian Mines and Steel Production (HRUDAT), a successor of the

GermanbackedironandsteelcompanyYugoslavSteel(Jugoelik).81From1939till

1942 Neidhardt worked on numerous proposals for the development of mining

towns.TheyincludedlargeurbanplansfortheMiddleBosnianbasin,masterplans

for the townsofZenica,VarešMajdan,Ljubija,Breza,Podbrežje, Ilijaš,Zenicaand

Ilijaš,anddesignproposalsforworkers’housing[Figure16].82

81JelicaKarliKapetanovisuggestsanumberofreasonsforNeidhardt’sarrivalinBosnia,themainonebeinghisneedtoobtainasecurejobandcommissions.Inaddition,hiswifewasBosnianandhisclose friendGrabrijanwas living inBosnia.Soonafter itopened in1937, Jugoelikbecameastateenterprise.ThecompanywasoneofthelargestintheIndependentStateofCroatia(NDH).Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,TwiceThereWasaCountry,p.180.Upon its creation the NDH took over some sections of the company. The takeover included allbranchesinBosnia,includingBreza,Zenica,LjubijaiVareš,consideredinGrabrijanandNeidhardt’surbanproposal.TheproductionchangedthenametoHRUTATd.d.anacronymforCroatianminesandsteelproduction(Hrvatskirudnici Italionice).I.Mamuzovi,‘Croatianmetallurgy,past,presentandfuture’,Metalurgija,43,1,2004,pp.3–12;alsoat:http://public.carnet.hr/metalurg/Metalurgija/2004_vol_43/No1/MET_43_1_003_012_Mamuzic.pdf82SomehousesinIlijašwerebuiltin1942.TheproposalswerepresentedinGrabrijan&Neidhardt,‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, pp. 273–322; most of the housing projects were presented again inGrabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity. Insomeinstances,suchasthedesignofNeidhardt’sworkers’housing,bothpublicationspresentedthesameprojectinorder to support the respective urban visions. In ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ the housing projectsrepresentedthepowerofrationalplanandefficiency,whileinArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowards Modernity they were proof of the socialist government’s efforts to accommodate theproletariat.

http://public.carnet.hr/metalurg/Metalurgija/2004_vol_43/No1/MET_43_1_003_012_Mamuzic.pdf

Chapter3

121

Figure16:Mapofsatellitetowns included intheproposal.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt, ‘Sarajevoand itsSatellites’,p.274.

Neidhardt saw developing mining towns not in relation to the relatively limited

scope of the architectural task, but within the broader context of Yugoslav social

andpoliticalchanges.JugoelikwasestablishedamidYugoslavPrimeMinisterMilan

Stojadinovi’sbroadereffortstorevitalisethestateeconomy.83TheGermanbacked

ironandsteel complex at Zenica was expected to transform the region into a

‘Yugoslav Ruhr’,84 and Neidhardt’s design proposals for the towns aimed to

establishaconnectionbetweenurbanplanningandsocialchange.

83Facedwithseriouspoliticalchallenges,Stojadinovisoughttocombatdecliningagriculturalpricesby increasing industrial and processed agricultural exports to Germany. Lampe, Yugoslavia asHistory,p.180.84Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,p.180.

Chapter3

122

ForNeidhardt,urbanismwasbasedonaconnectionwiththelandandthenatural

environment, and with regional industry. While this model did not recognise the

specificsofcultureandhistoryassignificant, itexpecteddramaticsocioeconomic

changeswouldunderpintheurbanchanges.Theproposalfortheminingtownsof

theBosnianbasinwas thuspremisedonrezoning land ‘toachieveorganisedand

regularblocksofacontemporarycity’.85

While this grandiose gesture was in some ways reminiscent of aspects of Le

Corbusier’s urbanisation of Algiers and the desire for ‘a spontaneous and total

symbiosisofman,architectureandthelandscape’withinthecontextofBosnia,the

proposal to ‘expropriate’ the land and introduce new subdivisions demonstrated

the limitations of Neidhardt’s political awareness and knowledge of local

conditions.86Theissueoflandrightsanddivisionscutdeepintotheexistingdebate

on land ownerships.87 The problem was a vestige of Ottoman feudalism and the

practiceofdistributingarablelandalongreligiouslines.88Upontheintroductionof

Ottoman governance, the feudal estate holders could beChristian or Muslim, but

duetoalongprocessofreligiousandsocialpolarisation,bythe19thcentury‘allthe

big landowners were Muslims and the great majority of the nonlandowning

85Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.201.86 McLeod has argued that Le Corbusier’s new social and political commitment to the regionalsyndicalisminevidentinthesixprojectsthathedevelopedforAlgiersintheperiodbetween1932and1942.McLeod,‘UrbanismandUtopia:LeCorbusierfromregionalsyndicalismtoVichy’,pp.333–63,withthereferencetothesyndicalistmovement,p.342.87 Original quote: ‘U interesu je cjelokupnosti, da se u gradu provede komasacija’. Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.201.88ForfurtherdiscussionseeI.Banac,TheNationalQuestioninYugoslavia,Origins,History,Politics,CornellUniversityPress,Ithaca,1984.

Chapter3

123

peasants were Christians’.89 Thesehistorical conditions made land distribution or

the ‘agrarian question’ one of the central Yugoslav political dilemmas, which, as

historian Ivo Banac has stated, ‘could be solved only at the expense of one

confessionalcommunity’–theMuslimcommunity.90

IndeedthepostOttomangovernmentsofAustro–HungarianEmpireandYugoslavia

did attempt to address the agrarian question. The full complexities of these

attempts,however,arebeyondthescopeofthisthesis.91Sufficetosay,theAustro–

Hungarian government realised that taking the land away from the Muslim

landlords would further deepen the ideological divide between Muslims and

Christians, and undermine its political agenda. The possibility of this outcome

prevented the government undertaking the reforms. According to the land

ownership census of 1910, Muslims, at that time, made up 91.15 per cent of

landlords, their lands tilledbycustomary tenants (thecommonnative termkmet,

usuallytranslatesas‘serf’).Some73.92percentofkmetswereOrthodoxand21.49

percentCatholic.92 In1919, theKingdomofSerbs,CroatsandSlovenesabolished

serfdom,decreeingserffamiliesshouldbegivenlegaltitletothelandtheyworked,

promptingamajorpoliticalshiftintheBosnianMuslimcommunity.93Roughly4000

89Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.94.90Banac,TheNationalQuestioninYugoslavia,p.367.91ForathoroughdiscussionofthoseissuesseeBanac,TheNationalQuestioninYugoslavia.92Banac,TheNationalQuestioninYugoslavia,p.367.93Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.164.

Chapter3

124

Muslim landowning families were affected by this reform, some were reduced to

poverty.94

It appears that Neidhardt was aware of the problems associated with land

ownership,andsawgovernment intervention ‘totheadvantageofall’andcentral

toitsresolution.95But it isunclearwhetherheconsideredtheethnicandreligious

background of the landholders or of the housing project users as relevant to his

design deliberations. The discussion of the proposals suggested that the projects

weredesignedfor‘thenontraditionalworker,notaproletarianbutapeasantwho

left his village, following the metamorphosis from working on the land to going

underground’.96 In the lightof theagrarian reformsof thisperiod, itwaspossible

that Neidhardt was designing for a Muslim population who, depleted of political

andeconomicpower,couldmoveintothenewlydesignedtowns.WhileNeidhardt

didnotspecifytheethnicityoftheproposedusersofthehousingproject,repeated

references to the traditional ‘Turkish’ house suggest a keen interest in reminding

housinginhabitantsofBosnia’sIslamicpast.However,thechurchproposedforthe

middle of Ljubija’s town square reinforced the presence of the Christian Croatian

governmentoftheIndependentStateofCroatia[Figure17].

94The‘agrarianissue’polarisedtheYugoslavpoliticalscene.MehmedSpaho,theleaderofYugoslavMuslimOrganisation, foughthardtosoftentheblowofagrarianreformsonMuslim landlordsandensure their compensation. Spaho’s commitment to this issue allowed his critics to denounce hispartyasrepresentativeofoldfeudalclass.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.164.95 Original quote: ‘U interesu je cjelokupnosti, da se u gradu provede komasacija’. Grabrijan &Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.201.96Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.282.

Chapter3

125

Figure 17: Urban development of Ljubija, with a newlydesigned church located in the centre of town. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.280.

Neidhardt’s concerns for hygiene and workers’ health further neutralised the

politicaldimensionoftheproposal.Thoseissuesinformedtheurbanorganisationof

the plan, and in many instances brought forward the introduction of sporting

facilitiesandextensiverecreationalspace.Ultimately,byassumingresponsibilityfor

improving housing conditions for mining workers Neidhardt was able to focus his

attentiononthelesspoliticisedissueofindividualdwellingdesign.

Individualhouses:modernhouseswithOrientalparts

AkeycomponentofNeidhardt’sproposalforindividualhousingintheminingtowns

was this modern focus on health and hygiene: ‘Instead of looking like army

barracks’, he wrote, the new residential complexes ‘should be more like

sanatoriums correctly positioned in orientation to the sun and wind’.97 It was

assumed that hygienic living conditions, light and an organised way of life would

97SomehousesinIlijašwerebuiltin1942.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.289.

Chapter3

126

‘ensure the bodily and physical health’ of workers, while bringing them ‘closer to

theWesternEuropeanwayoflife’.98

It was in the design of workers’ housing that reference to the traditional house

began to be included. In response to a brief that called for collective housing for

almost160singlemenworkinginthetownofZenica,Neidhardtsuggestedthatthe

‘principles’ of oriental architecture would allow Bosnia to be connected to the

progressiveworldwhileretainingitsculturalintegrity.Withoutaccess,asforeigners

andnonMuslims,totheinteriorsofMuslimhomes,GrabrijanandNeidhardtbased

theirconclusionsonobservationsandinterpretationsofdailylifefromtheoutside.

TheyacknowledgedtheirlackofaccesstoMuslims’privatedomainsandsoughtto

understand the spatial interrelationships through analysis of what they perceived

were the like spaces ofhans.99 While this acceptance of the ‘old’ informing new

architecturemarkedasignificantadjustmentinNeidhardt’sarchitecturalapproach,

italsohighlightedtheauthors’relianceonvisualcuesandformalanalysis.

In architectural terms, Neidhardt conceived of the workers housing as comprising

individualspacemakingelementsandenclosures.Theseweresignificantlydefined

bymeshesandshadingdevices,sittingelementsandstairs– thesame ‘elements’

alreadydescribedbytheauthorsastheprimaryenclosuresofthe‘Oriental’family

home.Still,thediscussionsupportingtheproposalisvoidofreferencestotheorigin

ofthose‘elements’.Thestairs(basamci),thesemienclosedspaces(divanhana)and

98Grabrijan&Neidhardt,‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.282.99 In the article ‘Le Corbusier and Sarajevo’ Grabrijan stated that it is ‘hard to enter the Muslimhouse’andoffered‘lookingintolikeplaces’suchasinnsetcasanalternative.

Chapter3

127

the mesh of traditional latticework (mušepci) were all shown as freefloating

elements used in a modern expression, abstracted form their context and

presentedindividually[Figure18].

Figure 18: Neidhardt’s development of the ‘elemental’architectural vocabulary of Bosnia. Single man housingproject for Zenica. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity,alsopublishedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,p.317.

The drawings make reference to the formal qualities of the traditional house’s

spaces.Inordertoprovideaplaceforgatheringandconversation,adivanhana–a

wide, semienclosed entry space in the traditional house described in Grabrijan’s

earlier writings – formed the first point of contact and an entry point to the

dwelling.InthehousingproposalforZenica,thisspacetooktheshapeofabalcony.

Unlikeinthetraditionalhouse,wherethedivanhanaconnectedallthesurrounding

spaces,hereitformedaseparatearea.Whatwasanintimateandenclosedspacein

the traditional house, here was strictly limited to the front of the building. It

became its public facade. The comfortable sofas (divans) of divanhana were

Chapter3

128

replaced by a narrow benchspace on the inside of the railing. The ornate timber

detailingwasreplacedwithhorizontal louvres,andpicturesofworkersandvillage

life replaced the pictures and simple objects conventionally used to decorate the

walls of the traditional house. The space ofdivanhanawas still connected to the

groundlevelbyasingleflightofstairs,butunlikeinthetraditionalhouse,wherethe

stairs mediated a series of spatial experiences from open to enclosed, here the

stairs functioned only as a physical connection linking the upper and lower levels

[Figure19].

Figure 19: Single man housing project for Zenica. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowards Modernity, also published in ‘Sarajevo and ItsSatellites’,p.292.

Intermsofbuildinglayout,thesittingspaceofwhatinearlierdiscussionhadbeen

referredtoasanorientalhome,thedivanhana,openedintoalong,linearcorridor

with a reception desk at one end and a large common toilet block at the other

[Figure 20]. On both floors, two large common bedrooms were located on either

Chapter3

129

sideofthecorridor,eachaccommodating20singlebeds,totalling160bedsineach

building.Theinitialdesignproposedtiltupbeds,butinlaterproposalsmetalbeds

replaced them. Presumably to provide some privacy, lightweight partitions

separatedeachbedroomintotwoparts.Celebratedfortheflexibilityofitsfurniture

andthemultipleusesofspaces,thetraditionalhousedidnotseemabletoprovide

amodelforthisarrangement.Unlikeinthetraditionalhouse,theindividualrooms

inthisdesignwereassignedjustonefunction.

Figure20:Singlemen’shousingproject forZenica.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowards Modernity, also published in ‘Sarajevo and ItsSatellites’,p.292.

Chapter3

130

InNeidhardt’stransformationoftheprivatehouseintoapublicresidentialbuilding,

the image of veiled women gave way to young men. The sensuality of the

traditionalhousewas replacedby themasculinityof the new.Thepictures of the

designmodelshowanumberofyoungmeninhabitingthespaceofdivanhana.They

appear comfortable in their new roles, enjoying themselves, their bodies relaxed,

and engaging in an active relationship with their surroundings. On thedivanhana

edges, the delicate timber lattices of the traditional Muslim house, so well

described and analysed in Grabrijan’s writings, were replaced by metal screens

alongtheexternalwall[Figure21].

Figure21:Singlemen’shousingproject forZenica.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowards Modernity, also published in ‘Sarajevo and ItsSatellites’,p.287.

Thiscontextofworkers’housingallowedNeidhardt toaccept the influenceofold

fabriconnewdesign.Intheseprojects,thearchitecturalelementsofheritagefabric

were abstracted, modernised and then absorbed in the pragmatic and modular

modern approaches. By reducing the architectural characteristics of traditional

Chapter3

131

fabrictopatternsandornaments, theheritagewas, like inthemasterplanningof

Bašaršija, still assigned a background role of ‘scenographic display’. Despite the

apparentlimitationsofthescaleofdomesticdwellingandNeidhardt’semphasison

formalaspectsofarchitecture,thedesignsofthemininghousingprojectsmarkeda

recognitionandacknowledgmentoftheoldfabric’svalueincreatingthenew.

Conclusion:TheOrientoftheoldtownandthemodernityofnewsuburbs

Thevisionofamasterplanpresentedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’demonstrated

GrabrijanandNeidhardt’scommitmenttoamodernistapproachtourbanplanning

over an indepth study of the relationships between people, culture and

architecture. The plan for Sarajevo prioritised effective transport networks, urban

organisationandzoning,disregardingspecificurbanandhistoricalconditions.This

highlighted their aspiration to locate their work within the context of modern

urbanism rather than the sitespecific approach promoted by architects such as

Plenik.ThismeantthattheBašaršijaprecinct’simportancetonewurbanplanning

wentunrecognised.

IntheanalysisofhisoldBašaršija,Neidhardt,andbyextensionGrabrijan,didnot

question Le Corbusier’s approach, accepting it as a sound starting point for

investigatingtheIslamicheritageofSarajevo.During1930sGrabrijanhadpublished

aseriesofarticlesthatarguedthatauthenticandoriginalvalueswereembeddedin

theoldprecinct. In thiscollaborativepublication,however, theauthorspresented

the old fabric within concepts that highlighted it as generic and nonspecific in

Chapter3

132

nature. Their discussion placed a building’s physical form in opposition to the

emotional life that took place within it, undermining Grabrijan’s earlier argument

for an organic integration of architecture and people – the two inexorably

connected. ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ demonstrated the great influence of

Neidhardt’s formal and architectural approach over Grabrijan’s cultural and

theoreticalexplorations.

‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’viewedthelocalpopulationofBosnia,andBašaršijain

particular, through preconceived notions of Muslims living their lives within the

frameworkofIslam.ItsemphasisonthegenderandtheindulgenceoftheMuslim

family in particular served to compound the sense of otherness of the existing

context. Ultimately Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s position reinforced a stereotypical

andOrientalistvisionofIslamandtheMuslimpopulationofBosnia.

Atadistancefromthe‘dilapidated’and ‘dirty’ ‘Oriental’precinct, themasterplan

forthenewcity focusedonanefficienttrafficartery,onrationalplanningandon

hygiene. When the old city precinct was considered, the master plan proposed

either its eradication or significant modification of the very traditions that had

shaped it. The ‘static world’ of the Orient was relegated a secondary place, with

modernisation as essential to the new urban visions. Ultimately Grabrijan and

Neidhardt’splanproposedurbanisationasawayofchangingthecommunityandits

wayoflife.

Chapter3

133

Despite limited engagement with the city’s historic fabric, Neidhardt’s historical

referencinginthemininghousingdesignprovidedanimportantconnectiontothe

contextinwhichthetwoarchitectsoperated.Theirsubsequentbook,Architecture

ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,wasbuiltuponthoseexplorations.

Chapter4BosnianOrientalasanArchitecturalExpressionofSocialistIdeology

Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s research on Bosnian architecture culminated in

ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity (ArhitekturaBosneiPutu

Suvremeno), published some 15 years after ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, in 1957.1

ThebookgainedbroadrecognitioninTitoistYugoslavia(1945–92),anditssocialist

policiesmade itoneoftheseminaltextsonmodernBosnianarchitecture.2Unlike

the thesis developed in ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, which marginalised the

relevanceofBašaršijatothenewurbanplan,thediscussionpresentedinthisbook

identified it as a catalyst in creating a new and modern city. It argued that the

Islamic architecture of Sarajevo represented a uniquely Bosnian Oriental

architecturalandculturalexpression.

ThischapterexaminesthepositionofArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowards

Modernityinrelationtothechangingpoliticalenvironmentofthepost–WorldWar

Two period and the formation of a new Yugoslav state. The state’s 1946

constitutionarticulateditspoliticalcornerstonesasthesocialistsystem,therightof

1DušanGrabrijandied in1952, fiveyearsbeforethepublicationofArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,Ljudska Pravica, Ljubljana, 1957. It appears that the book was ready forpublication as early as 1953, as the publishing company Država Založba Slovenije placed anadvertisementintheprofessionaljournalArchitectthatyear;citedinKapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.314.2 In1946,thestatewasnamedtheFederalPeople'sRepublicofYugoslavia,andin1963renamedtheSocialistFederalRepublicofYugoslavia.ThisstatedisintegratedinthewakeofYugoslavwarthatstartedinSloveniaandCroatia1991andinBosniain1992.

Chapter4

136

national selfdetermination and the Communist Party’s domination in public life.3

Fulfilling Tito’s wartime commitments, the constitution officially recognised five

Yugoslav nationalities: Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians and Montenegrians.

BosnianMuslimswerenotincluded,fortheofficialpartybelievedMuslimswerea

separategroup,withoutanational identity.Sixrepublicswereestablished:Serbia,

Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Monte Negro and Bosnia and Hercegovina.4 Bosnia

and Hercegovina was the only one with no majority nationality or national name

[Figure22].

Figure 22: Territorial divisions of the former Yugoslavia,19451991.Source:Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,p.231.

3 For further discussion on post–World War Two Yugoslavia see Donia & Fine, Bosnia andHercegovina–ATraditionBetrayed;Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,TwiceThereWasaCountry,;andN.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,specificallythechapters ‘BosniaandtheSecondWorldWar,1941–1945’and‘BosniainTitoistYugoslavia,1945–1989’.4Thenewterritorialborderscloselycorrespondedtothehistoricunitsbroughttogetherin1918toformtheKingdomoftheSerbs,CroatsandSlovenes.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory.

Chapter4

137

Inthispoliticalcontexttheinterplaybetweentheculturalandnationalidentitiesof

Bosnia was particularly important. The mixed cultural and religious heritage of

Bosnia simultaneously represented a secular, modern Yugoslavia and a uniquely

Bosnianregional identity.Consequently,whenArchitectureofBosniaandtheWay

TowardsModernityidentifiedthebuiltfabricofBašaršijaasanactiveforcecapable

of negotiating the conflicting ideological agendas of Yugoslav socialism, Grabrijan

and Neidhardt’s artistic agenda appeared to offer political solutions. This chapter

presents the gradual but strategic alignment between their views of culture and

architecture and the political themes that dominated the Bosnian scene in the

1950s. Through this relationship, I argue, they made architecture an active

ingredientinthenationmakingofsocialistYugoslavia.

TheYugoslavcommunistartisticagendaandaresistancetotheparticular

Immediately after World War Two, the Yugoslav government considered artistic

endeavourspromotingthespecificsofethnicnationalidentitiesmostlyirrelevant;a

nationalartspromotingtheexclusivevaluesofonenationalgroupcontradictedthe

multiethnic and multinational agenda of the new Yugoslavia. The government’s

idealnewsocietywaspredicatedonthedisappearanceofanyexpressionofloyalty

toaparticularnationstate.5Marxistoppositiontonationalismasbourgeois,andits

beliefinaninternationalcommunistsocietyprovidedfurthertheoreticalsupportto

thegovernment’sresistancetoindividualnationalexpressions.

5ForfurtherdiscussiononpostwarYugoslavismseeA.Djilas,TheContestedCountry,YugoslavUnityandCommunistRevolution1919–1953,HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1996.

Chapter4

138

Perceiving tradition as ‘the surviving past’, the Communist Party denied its

relevance to the modern and progressive society they believed was being

constructed.6 Moreover, the search for connections with the past wasconsidered

detrimental to progress. As Tito said in 1942: ‘The main obstacle for full

achievementofourbrotherhoodandunityarethosewholookbackwards,whotry

to reestablish what used to be before the destruction of [the Kingdom of]

Yugoslavia’.7 In this context, Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s exploration of the historic

fabric’srelevancetothenewcityhadnoapparentpurpose.

Theprimaryobjectiveofthepostwarcommunistgovernmentwastoestablishthe

newYugoslaviaasasecular,unitedandindependentstate.Religiousandnationalist

affiliations were seen as contrary this objective.8 Accordingly, a campaign was

launched that saw the suppression of the courts of Islamic law in 1946; the

introductionof lawforbiddingwomentoweartheveil in1950;andtheclosingof

religious schools, with the teaching of children in mosques becoming a criminal

6 Raymond Williams argues that the concept of tradition has been neglected in Marxist culturalthought.IhereuseWilliams’notionsoftraditionsdevelopedin‘Traditions,institutions,andtheories’todiscussMarxistdiscoursesofsocialistYugoslavia.Forfurtherdiscussionsee,R.Williams,MarxismandLiterature,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,1977,p.115.7JosipBrozTito,‘NOBInacionalnopitanjeuJugoslaviji’,Tito’s1942speech,publishedinA.Isakovi,O ‘Nacionaliziranju’ Muslimana, 101 godina afirmiranja i negiranja nacionalnog identitetaMuslimana (101 years of affirmation and negation of Muslim national identity), Globus, Zagreb,1990,pp.130–31.8 ScholarshiponYugoslavapproaches to resolving the ‘nationalquestion’havebeen articulated inthe following periods: 1944–51, teleological industrialisation: it was believed that rapidindustrialisation would reduce the disparity between regional living standards and thus erodenationalantagonism;1951–60,Yugoslavnationalism:itwasbelievedindustrialisationwouldalleviatenationalism in the long term, although more immediate strategies focused on strengtheningYugoslavnationalism;and1960–69,thearticulationofYugoslavnationalismbasedoncommunityofnations. R. V. Burks, ‘Nationalism and communism in Yugoslavia: an attempt at synthesis’, in H.Birnbaum&S.J.Vryonis(eds.),AspectsoftheBalkans,ContinuityandChange,TheHague,1972,pp.397– 423; proceedings of an international conference held at UCLA, 23– 28 October 1969. Whileseeminglyoperatingwiththeparametersof1950sYugoslavnationalism,GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sviewspromotedadifferentagenda.

Chapter4

139

offence. Many Catholic and Orthodox churches, monasteries, convents and

seminarieswerealsoclosed.9Whileallreligionssuffered,Islamwashardesthit,as

thepracticeofprayingfivetimesdailywasseenasmixingreligionwitheverydaylife

and Islam was considered ‘backwards and Asiatic’.10 Muslim cultural and

educational societies were also abolished, the Muslim printing house in Sarajevo

wasclosed,andnoIslamictextbookwasissuedinYugoslaviauntil1964.

With regards to thearts, thenewgovernmentexpectedartisticproductionwould

address the specifics of the communist agenda and follow Soviet trends.11 Stalin

saw culture as the most effective way of influencing mass consciousness and

assigned artists a revolutionary role in promoting the values of communism.12

ReflectingtheSovietview,Yugoslavartistsandwriterswereexpectedtodepict,in

9MalcolmnotesthattheCommunistPartytookasofterapproachtowardstheOrthodoxChurch,assomeof itsclergyservedas ‘progressive’priests inTito’sarmy.Healso indicatesthatsomeofthemeasuresintroducedbythecommunistswerecovertlyresisted:Islamictextscontinuedtocirculate,childrenwere taught inmosques, thedervishorderskeptuptheirpractices inprivatehomes,andthe Young Muslims, a student organisation, resisted the campaign against Islam until severalhundredof itsmemberswereimprisonedin1949–50.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.195–96.10Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.195.11 The majority of Yugoslav Party members spent their formative years in the USSR, so the‘bolshevisationoftheCommunistPartyofYugoslavia’wasfeltstronglyintheearlypostwaryears.Indiscussion of the impact of Soviet artistic debates on Yugoslavia, historian Pekovi identified theSecond International Writers Conference, held in the Soviet town of Harkov (Kharkov) in 1930, ofparticular importance. The conference highlighted the role of the ‘proletariat’ in promoting thecommunistagenda,butbecausestrictadherencetothe‘Harkovagenda’andpromotionofsocialistrealismwasslightlydelayedinYugoslaviaitlostitsoriginalstrengthandpotency.R.Pekovi,NiRatNi Mir, Panorama književnih polemika 1945–1965 (Neither War nor Peace, [Yugoslav] LiteraryDebatesof1945–1965),Zavodzaizdavakudelatnost‘FilipVišnji’,Beograd,1986,pp.7–8.12SketchedoutbyLenin,socialistrealismbecameadominantmodeintheperiodbetween1946and1953.Itwaspresentedasastrict‘codeoflaw’ofSovietaesthetics,philosophyandtheoryofart.ThemainpromoterofthenewculturalpolicywasAndreiZhdanov.HejustifiedthisturnfromproletarianinternationalismtoRussiannationalismduringhisspeechattheCentralCommitteeconferencewithSoviet composers and musicians (February 1948), saying ‘Internationalism is engendered wherenationalartflourishes.Toforgetthistruthmeanstolosetheguideline,toloseone’sface,tobecomerootlesscosmopolitans.’Thewaveofculturalpogroms in1946 in theSovietUnionsweptawayallthose opposing the official views, who, in the official party views, distorted and negated thesignificanceofnationalculturalheritage.I.Golomstock,TotalitarianArtintheSovietUnion,theThirdReich,FascistItalyandthePeople’sRepublicofChina,IconEdition,GreatBritain,1990,pp.140–43.

Chapter4

140

anoptimistic light, themajorsocialchangesthatweretakingplace.Theapproach

required the creation of art that reflected daily life and experience in the new

society.

Respondingtothenewpoliticalclimate,Neidhardttookanactiveroleinthepost–

WorldWarTwourbandebates.In1945,hemovedfromhisprewarpositioninthe

steel industry to a position in the Ministry of Building, where he stayed until

November1946.Hewassoeagertocontributetothechangingsocietythatwhen

thefirstSocietyforCulturalCollaborationwiththeSovietUnionwasestablished,in

May 1945, he served as secretary.13 He enthusiastically contributed to the stage

setsforpoliticalevents,anddesignedpropagandamaterialforwhatwasconsidered

‘manifestation architecture’, or architecture that supported communist ideology.

He often worked without a commission and for free. His stageset designs were

usedforthecelebrationofthesocialistholidayof29November1947;forTito’svisit

to Sarajevo [Figure 23]; for the inauguration of the railway built by the Yugoslav

youth free labour [Figure 24]; and for numerous communist occasions, from May

DaytotheYugoslavArmyDay.AlloftheserevealanembracingoftheSovietstyle

genericworker’simaginary.14

13Kapetanovi, ‘Thearchitecturalworkof JurajNeidhardt’,p.271.Kapetanovistatedthat inMay1945 the Action Committee (Akcioni Odbor za osnivanje saradnje sa SSSR) in charge of culturalcooperationwiththeUSSRwasestablished.ItspresidentwasMinisterDrNedoZec;thesecretarieswereJurajNeidhardtandSlavkoMiunovi.14KarliKapetanovi,JurajNajdhart,životidjelo,pp.272–82.

Chapter4

141

Figure 23: Stage designed by Neidhardt for Tito’s visit toSarajevo. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.321.

Figure 24: ‘People build, state helps’ poster designed byNeidhardt. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.320.

Chapter4

142

AtthesametimeNeidhardtfocusedhisarchitecturalproductiononwhathesawas

the social agenda of socialism, leaving aside his earlier preoccupation with

Bašaršija.Hearguedthatthequalityoflivingconditionswascrucialforimproving

workers’ productivity, and he renewed his involvement in some of his prewar

projects. Without official appointment or pay, he resurrected his designs for the

mining workers’ housing of Ilijaš, Breza, Zenica, Ljubija and Vareš, and later

published them in Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity as

studiesofworkers’housing.

DespiteNeidhardt’sefforts,thecommunistgovernmentdidnotrecognisethevision

ofmodernarchitecturehewaspromotingascomplementarytotheircause,nordid

itapproveofNeidhardt’sfamilybackground.UnlikethepreviousproNazicoalition

government of the Independent State of Croatia, the early postwar communist

regime considered Neidhardt’s Croatian, Catholic and German heritage a serious

disadvantagetohisabilitytocontributetothenewstate.Hislackofinvolvementin

the‘liberationwar’(WorldWarTwo)andhisprewaremploymentwiththemining

company under the previous government further stigmatised his political profile.

TheextentofpoliticaloppositiontoNeidhardtwassogreatthathewasarrestedin

1947 and imprisoned for 42 days. He was accused of not blending into the new

socialist state and for excessively using drawing materials at the time when such

material was scarce.15 While ultimately he was released without trial, Neidhardt

15Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.281.

Chapter4

143

waspresentedasapersonincapableofcontributingtotherevolutionarycourseof

thenewcountry.

Professionally, Neidhardt was also marginalised. Kapetanovi quotes the engineer

Vaso Todorovi, who, in a job reference for Neidhardt, presented him as an

‘individualist’ and as someone who ‘dedicated himself to the tasks that only he

consideredimportant’.16Individualismwasnotanattributeassociatedwiththenew

socialist character; it had capitalist connotations in its concern for individual over

collectiveneeds.Todorovi’s referencenotedthatwhileNeidhardtwasa ‘capable

artistandanexcellentdraftsman’,hewas‘unabletoadjusttotheprofessionaltasks

[requiredbythenewgovernment]’.17UltimatelytheMinistrydemotedNeidhardtto

‘interior decorator’ – a role perceived as inferior to the professional one of

architect.18

In 1948, Neidhardt was publically criticised by Communist Party official Radovan

Zogovi.19 InaspeechattheFifthCongressoftheCommunistPartyofYugoslavia,

ZogovicondemnedNeidhardt’surbandesignproposalsasframedby‘theWestern

16 Original quote: ‘Zalaže se u poslu koji sam izabere I koji mu se svidi. Likovno spreman I odliancrtaneprilaogodljivnašimprilikamaustrunomposlu’.Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.300.17Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,pp.297–81.18Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,pp.297–81.19Fullquote:‘Decadencyandformalisminarchitectureinourcontext,areexpressed,amongstotherthings,inaseriesofnew,recentlyconstructedordesignedarchitecturalobjects[thedesignsfornewstreetscapes of Sarajevo, etc] as well as in formalist theories that proclaim that the socalledfunctional constructivism … is the architecture of the new socialist society. The fight against theremnantsandrecidivism[sic.]of theWestern formalismanddecadency… includedsofarandwillinclude–toacertainextent–inthefuturefightforpopularizationofthegreattraditionsofSovietart, and the fight against any attempt to intellectually undermine Soviet artistic production.’ R.Zogovi, originally published inArhitektura, nos. 11–12, 1948, p. 56; cited in I. Štraus,ArhitekturaJugoslavije,1945–1990,(YugoslavArchitecture,19451990),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1991,p.12.

Chapter4

144

decadency and formalism’, and therefore incapable of representing the

‘architecture of the new socialist society.’20 Such an approach, Zogovi suggested,

promotedWesternformalismanddecadencyandthevaluesthattheYugoslavParty

will‘fightagainst’.21‘OurParty’,Zogoviconcluded,‘hasalwayssuccessfullyfought

thisbattle[againstindividualisminarchitecture]anditwillcontinue,ofcourse,with

thesamesuccessinthefuture’.22

ThegrowinglevelofSovietpropagandaarguingthat internationalmodernismwas

an expression of capitalism heightened the negative perception of Neidhardt’s

professionalwork.Neidhardt’sWesterneducation,particularlyhisassociationwith

the modernist architectural scene and most notably Le Corbusier, was seen as a

hindrance to his ability to contribute to the architecture of the new socialist

revolution.AsarchitecturalhistorianGregCastillohasargued,thisdiscoursewould

result in the perception of two competing design vocabularies – socialist realism

and international style modernism – as antithetical signatures of Eastern and

Western European architecture respectively.23 This oppositional relationship

formed a significant part of Cold War discourse, and expressed alternative

constructsofpost–WorldWarTwonationalidentities.24WhileGrabrijanwasheldin

higher regard by the communist government than Neidhardt, his move from

20Štraus,ArhitekturaJugoslavije,p.12.21Štraus,ArhitekturaJugoslavije,p.12.

22Štraus,ArhitekturaJugoslavije,p.12.23G.Castillo,‘SocialistrealismandbuiltnationalismintheColdWar“BattleoftheStyles”’,Centropa:AJournalofCentralEuropeanArchitectureandRelatedArts,vol.1,no.2,2001,pp.85–94.Seealso,G. A. Castillo, ‘Constructing the Cold War: architecture, urbanism and the cultural division ofGermany,1945–1957’,PhDthesis,UniversityofCalifornia,2000.24Castillo,‘SocialistrealismandbuiltnationalismintheColdWar’,pp.85–94.

Chapter4

145

Sarajevo to Ljubljana in 1945contributed to the significant decrease in the public

presenceoftheirideas.25Itwasonlywithinthecontextofthedramaticallychanging

political terrain of late 1940s’ Yugoslavia, that Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s work on

Sarajevo’sheritagefabricwouldgainrelevance.

Thechangingpoliticalcontext:Tito–Stalinconflict

In themid1940s the relationshipbetweenYugoslav leader JosipBrozTito (1892–

1980)andSovietleaderJosephStalin(1878–1953)deteriorated,causingafracture

inthe ideologicalgroundingoftheYugoslavCommunistParty(KPJ).26Thepolitical

turmoil was prompted by Soviet allegations that the KPJ was departing from the

communist agenda. It ended with the 1948 expulsion of Yugoslavia from the

Cominform[CommunistInformationBureau].27RejectedbytherestoftheEastern

Bloc,theKPJfounditselfpoliticallyandideologicallyisolatedfromothercommunist

countries.

25UponthebeginningoftheWorldWarTwoGrabrijanstayedinSarajevo,teachingattheTechnicalSchooluntil1945.Hewas imprisonedbytheGermansforsometimeduringthewar,consideredasupporter of the resistance movement. Soon after the end of the war, in 1945, Grabrijan leftSarajevo and returned to Slovenia to take up an academic appointment at the University ofLjubljana. In 1946 he was appointed Associate Lecturer, in 1947 Docent and 1951 AssociateProfessor of history of architecture and principles of design at the Faculty of Architecture inLjubljana.26TheconflictresultedintheCominformResolutionof28June1948,whichexpelledtheCommunistParty of Yugoslavia from Cominform. Extensive literature on this issue suggests the CominformResolution arose from Stalin’s attempts to control other communist states, as well as Tito’sunwillingnesstoobeyStalin’sinstructions.Inparticular,YugoslaviawasconsideredtobepushingtoofasttowardsunificationwithBulgariaandAlbania.AlthoughfollowingStalin'sproposalforaseriesofsuch unifications, Tito was seen to be proceeding without proper consultation with Moscow.Another issue was Tito's eagerness to ‘export the revolution’ to Greece. For an overview of thispoliticalconflictseeMalcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.194–95.27Cominformisanabbreviationfrom‘CommunistInformationBureau’.Theword‘Informbiro’istheYugoslavnameoftheCominform.TheCominformwasanetworkmadeupofthecommunistpartiesof Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, the Soviet Union andYugoslavia (until1948). In thehistoryofYugoslavia, Informbirorefers totheperiodbetween1948and1955,andischaracterisedbyconflictwiththeSovietUnion.

Chapter4

146

Theseparationputpressureonthepartytoredefineitsidentitybothnationallyand

internationally.Particularlychallengingwasthetaskofconveyingthefactthatthe

break had had no negative effect on the country’s determination to embrace

communism. Contrary to previously held beliefs, the party argued that it was

possible for Yugoslavia to build its own brand of communism. While the public

portrayalofTitoas independent, liberalandantiStalinistwas intendedtoset the

leaders apart, the process of identifying unique political approaches that would

confirmthosedifferencesprovedmoredifficult.28Adding to thepressurewas the

needtoidentifyauniquelyYugoslavartisticexpressionthatsupportedthepolitical

changes.

Intheartisticdebatesthisdilemmawasexacerbated,atleastpartly,bythefactthat

unlikeintheSovietUnion,theKPJneveridentifiedtheavantgardeasaconstituent

andnecessarypartoftherevolutionaryproject.29Yugoslaviabypassedtheapproach

set by the October Revolution (1917) and the Soviet Union (1922), which

presupposedthecreationofanewartasnecessaryinestablishinganewsociety.In

theSovietcontext,thisnecessitysetinmotionarangeofavantgardemovements,

such was constructivism.30 So once the Yugoslav Party denounced its shortlived

28Forseveralyearsaftertheconflict,Tito’spolicieswerecloselymodelledonthoseofStalin.Unclearaboutitsgoals,thepartyaffectedabalancebetweenauniqueYugoslavapproachandanappealtotheSovietblock,toregain itssupport.TheYugoslavfederalconstitutionproclaimed in1946wasacopyoftheSovietconstitutionproclaimed10yearsearlier.The1949communistleadership’srapidcollectivisationofpeasantsmallholdingsdemonstrated thehesitancyofYugoslav leadershipat thetime.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.194–95.29S.Musabegovi,‘War–theconstitutionofthetotalitarianbody’,PhDthesis,EuropeanUniversityInstitute,2004.30 Musabegovi, ‘War – the constitution of the totalitarian body’; and S. Musabegovi, Ratkonstitucijaratnogtijela,Svjetlost,Sarajevo,2007,pp.13–14.

Chapter4

147

dedication to Sovietstyle social realism in art and architecture, it was left with a

theoreticalandideologicalvoidastowhatkindofartreflectedofitsprogram.31

Tito’ssearchfor‘our’architecture

The vacuum created by the political shift provided opportunities not previously

availabletolocalartists,andGrabrijanandNeidhardtappearedawareofthisnew

potential. While the desire to incorporate a social agenda had underpinned their

worksince theverystartof theircollaboration, itwasonly in1947 thatGrabrijan

openlyacknowledgedthepoliticalpotentialoftheirarchitecturalwork.Inaletterto

Neidhardthewrote,‘ThemoreIthinkaboutTito’ssearchfor“ourarchitecture”the

more itbecomescleartomethatourpathto localarchitectureviathemodernis

veryfortunate!’32Confirminghisbelief inhisoriginal ideasofBosnianKunstwollen

torepresenttheuniquenatureoflocalart,GrabrijanencouragedNeidhardt‘notto

lose faith’ and to persevere in the promotion of what they now referred at as

31Theambiguityoftheartists’positionwasreflectedinthealternatingsupportandresentmentofthe Soviet government. In a letter to the conference of the Society of Artists of Bosnia andHercegovina, held in February 1949, artists stated their commitment to ‘the exploration anddefinitionofsocialistrealisminthearts’aswellastheirrejectionof‘theuntruestatementsandthe[Stalinist’s] campaign against our people’. Quoted in Prilike 1945–1974, Umjetnika Galerija BiH,Sarajevo,p.15.TheCommunistPartycommitteessuchasAgitprop[agitationandpropaganda]thatpreviously supported the Soviet agenda shifted their interest towards defining the parameters ofauthentically Yugoslav artistic production. For further discussion see M. Markovi & G. Petrovi(eds.), Introduction, Praxis, Yugoslav Essays in the Philosophy and Methodology of the SocialSciences,BostonStudiesinthePhilosophyofScience,D.ReidelPublishingCo.,Holland,1979.32Originalquote:‘Štodalje,tolikouvidjamdajeovajzahvatprekodomaedomodernevrlostretan!IkadBežek(ljub.arhitekt,D.Grabrijanovprijatelj,prim.aut.)kojijedobronamjeranujedaTitotraži‘našu’ arhitekturu, veli više je našega u onom gdje se Najdhardt približio Bosni nego li uRavnikarovom klasicizmu’. English translation: ‘The more I think about it [Bosnian Orientalarchitecture],themoreitbecomescleartomethatthispathtolocalarchitectureviathemodernisveryfortunate!WhenBežek(aSlovenianarchitectfromLjubljanaandGrabrijan’sfriend)whoisverywell intentioned,heardthatTitowasafter ‘our’architecture,hesaidthattherewasmoreof ‘our’[architecture] in Neidhardt’s interpretation of Bosnian architecture than in [Slovenian architect]Ravnikar’sclassicism’.Letterdated8June1947,citedinKapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.297.

Chapter4

148

BosnianOrientalarchitecture.33Grabrijansuggested that their ideaswere ‘twenty

to fifty years ahead of their time’ and that their further development could only

enhancetheirpublicstanding.34

Overthenextfiveyearstheyputsustainedeffortintopromotingtheirworkthrough

publicexhibitions, lecturesandprofessionalengagements.Grabrijan,whobythen

was in Ljubljana, kept up his writing, and published supportive reviews of

Neidhardt’s architectural projects, such as his competition entry for the design of

theSlovenianParliamentinLjubljana(1948).35Atanationalurbansymposiumheld

inDubrovnik in1950,hepresentedapaperthatarguedfortheimportanceofthe

Oriental architecture of Bosnia and Hercegovina.36 The argument was further

advanced through numerous articles on Oriental heritage in other parts of

Yugoslavia,suchasinMacedonia.37Neidhardt,forhispart,advocatedtheBosnian

33Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.297.34 Grabrijan suggested that their approach had been already recognised by some, such as hisSlovenian colleague Bežek who, according to Grabrijan, had suggested that Bosnian Orientalrepresented the qualities sought from ‘our’ architecture. Kapetanovi, ‘The architectural work ofJurajNeidhardt’,p.297.35Thedesignsfortheworkers’housinginVarešMejdanwereexecutedin1954,Kralupiin1952andBrezikin1947.ThecompetitionentryfortheSlovenianParliamentwasdonein1947–48.36D.Grabrijan,‘MislioNašiDedišinivZvezizReferatisPosveta,ArhitektovvDubrovniku’,SlovenskiEtnograf, no. 5, 1952, pp. 101106; originally presented as ‘O naši orientalski in sodobni hiši, at asymposiumonhistoricheritageofYugoslavia,Dubrovnik,1950.37AlistofarticlesthatspecificallydealtwiththetopicofOrientalheritageinYugoslaviaisincludedinthecollectionofGrabrijan’sreprintedarticlespresentedinDž.eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo.Itincludesfollowingtitles:‘OrijentalnahižavSarajevu’,Arhitektura,nos23–24,Zagreb,1949;‘Našaorijentalnai savremena kua’, paper presented at a conference ‘Problemi arhitekture in urbanizma LRS’, Iposvetovanje FLRJ, Dubrovnik 1950; ‘Misli o naši dedišini v zvazi z referati s posveta arhitektov vDubrovniku Ljubljana, 1950’ presented also under the title ‘Dedišina narodov FLRJ v arhitekturi’,Likovni svet, Ljubljana, 1951; ‘Arhitektura v merilu loveka’, Arhitekt, Ljubljana, May–June 1952;‘ArhitektonskonasljedenarodaJugoslavije’,Arhitektura,br.5,Zagreb,1952; ‘Organskiurbanizem’,Arhitekt, Ljubljana, November–December 1952; ‘Le Corbusier’, Naši razgledi, Ljubljana, 4 October1952;‘Obeležjemakedonskecivilnearhitektureinnjenitvorci’,Naširazgledi,Ljubljana,18October1952.

Chapter4

149

Orientalagendathroughhismodernarchitecturaldesigns.Theireffortsculminating

inthebookArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity.

ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity:a ‘synthetic integrationoftheoldexperiencesandnewsocialistneeds’

TheverytitleofGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sbook,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWay

TowardsModernity,servedtolinkBosnia,modernityandtheprogressivenatureof

theirideas.ConfidentthattheuniquequalitiesofBosnianarchitecturecontributed

to the new society under development, Neidhardt and Grabrijan considered the

bookamanifestoofnewtimes:

Today,westandonthethresholdofanewcivilization.Weliveinatimemarkedby

the transition of capitalism into socialism. At this stage we have to deal with

specificdifficulties.Thetransitionaltimeneedsaclearposition.38

ThecriticalpointaboutArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity is

thatNeidhardtandGrabrijanwerenotinterestedin‘bringing’modernitytoBosnia,

but in showing that Bosnia’s uniqueness represented the essence of what they

considered modern. In ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ they had sought to connect to

theprinciplesofmodernurbanism–itsrationalplanningandefficiency–tosupport

andcarryforwardtheirownurbanideas.Butthisbookfocusedonthespecificsof

Bosnianheritageandonpromotingthemodernitytheyclaimedwasalreadythere.

Reintroducing Grabrijan’s early discussion of the Bosnian fabric’s modernity they

wrote:

38Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.14–15.

Chapter4

150

Is aršija not a source of modern architecture? Why do we look for inspiration

elsewhere,continuallygetting it fromsecondhandsources,whenweareat their

origins? … Aren’t musandere like modern built in wardrobes? Aren’t seije like

modern built in couches and modern low furniture? [Aren’t elements of Bosnian

Oriental architecture, such as] the double height space, the single flight of stairs,

and the vegetation which spills into our dwellings [all elements of modern

architecture].’39

The book does not address debates on modern urban planning previously

considered important, but rather focuses on the historical and political issues

particulartoBosnia.Itpresentstheauthors’viewsonquestionsregardingtheorigin

of the Bosnian population, Muslims in particular, and the value of Bašaršija’s

heritage. All of these were pertinent to the growing search for a unique socialist

Bosnianidentity.

As in ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ the book includes an historical overview of the

built fabric, as well as a discussion of the people. Unlike the first publication,

however,whichaddressedtheissuesseparately,heretheurbanandculturalissues

arefoldedintoone;theanalysisofbuiltfabricispresentedthroughadiscussionof

cultural practices and historical changes that shaped the urban forms. This

approachisillustratedbyadrawingofatree,agraphicmetaphorforthetheoretical

andconceptualorganisationofthebook[Figure25].Thetree’srootsystemincludes

varioussocialandemotionalfactors,suchastemperament,traditionandreligionto

39 Original quote: ‘Zar nije takav izvor savremene arhitekture sarajevska aršija? Zašto da izvoretražimo na drugim mjestima, da neprestano primamo iz tree ruke, kada smo na izvoru? Zar nisumusandere – savremeni uzidani ormari? Zar nisu seije savremeni kaui? I savremeno niskopokustvo,tedvoetažniprostoriijednakokrakestepenice,pavegetacija,kojaulaziuprostoristan,kojaseprelijevaupriroduitd.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.14.

Chapter4

151

physical aspects such as materials, climate and topography. Growing out of the

roots, the tree trunk shows a blending of factors from the root system and the

mediation of those by additional factors, such as ‘people and their land’ and the

‘unwritten laws’ – a reference to customary building practices.40 The city is the

resultofallsuchinfluences,representedbythetwolargebranchesofthetree.The

branchesrepresentthetypicalOttomandivisionofSarajevo–thebusinessdistrict

ofaršija(Bašaršija)andresidentialquarterofmahala.41Thedrawingpresentsthe

city as a natural, organic and historical process that integrates a diverse range of

biological,physical,material,socialandemotionalfactors,providingthetheoretical

groundingforthebookitself[Figure26].

40The‘unwrittenlaws’included:localbuildingpractices(gradjevnipostupak);rightstoaview(pravona vidik); relationship to nature (odnos do prirode); spatial architecture (prostorna arhitektura);‘growing’houses(kuekojerastu);houseswithoutfurniture(kuebezmobilijara);surfacestructure(površinestruktura);domeandcubes(kupolastaIkockastaarhitektura)[abstractform];architectureinhumanscale(arhitekturaumjeriluovjeka).41Thewordsusedinthisdrawingare ‘Turcism’;theyarenottheSerboCroatianorBosnianwordsbut‘loans’,wordsmostcommonlyfromTurkishbuttransformedandpronouncedasBosnian/SerboCroatian.

Chapter4

152

Figure 25: Structure of the book as represented as a tree.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.4.

Chapter4

153

Figure26:DrawingofapanoramaofSarajevo,showinganharmonious connection between the terrain and the city.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.5.

The introduction concludes with the statement that this new analysis of the old

fabricmarksa‘rebirth’of‘ahistoriccondition’andareemergenceofthequalities

thathavealwaysbeenthere.42Justifyingthecontemporaryrelevanceofthehistoric

fabric,theywrote:

While for the last half of the century we have been studying all the significant

Roman monuments, in Bosnia we have done nothing for the architecture of our

recentpast.It isthelastmomenttodosomethingaboutit,toprotect,study,and

revealitsprinciples,whichareours,goodandcontemporary,andtotranslatethem

intocontemporary life.Why?Becausethey[theseprinciples]arehuman,because

they reach for connection with nature, because they respect neighbours, are

democratic,unpretentiousandnonpathetic.43

Thefirstpartofthebookpresentsan interpretativeanalysisofhistoricBašaršija,

andthesecondpart itsrelevancetomodernarchitecture.Thefivechaptersinthe

first part are titled ‘The people and land’; ‘The city’; ‘The market place’; ‘The

42Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.14.43Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.13

Chapter4

154

neighbourhood’ and ‘The house’.44 Drawing on many secondary sources from the

fields of ethnography, historiography, architecture and art history, Grabrijan’s

research provided documentation, description and historical recording for those

chapters.

Part two comprises chapters six and seven: ‘Unwritten laws’ and ‘The revival of

Bosnian and Hercegovinan architecture’.45 These chapters present Neidhardt’s

interpretation of the essential relationship between traditional and modern

architecture.Thesectionincludesalmost50designproposals,whichrangeinscale

andtypefromlargeurbanmasterplanstoindividualdetails,andfromlargepublic

buildings to the design of picnic pavilions. Their conceptual grounding, Neidhardt

argues,isintheOttomanheritagefabricofBosnia.Chaptersevenincludesan‘up

todate architectonic dictionary’, which aims to present a ‘model of architecture

that shows the way by which we could eventually arrive at our own new

architecture’.46AlmostexclusivelyfocusedontherelevanceofBašaršijatothenew

city, the book, in both structure and conceptual approach, highlights the timely

natureoftheauthors’renewedinterestinthehistoricfabricoftheprecinct.

44 Chapter one ‘The people and land’ (Narod and Zemlja); chapter two ‘The city’ (Grad); chapterthree‘Themarketplace’(aršija);chapterfour‘Theneighbourhood’(Mahala)andchapterfive‘Thehouse’(Kua).45 Chapters six ‘Unwritten laws’ (Nepisani Zakoni) and chapter seven ‘The revival of Bosnian andHercegovinanarchitecture’(PreporodArhitektureuBosniIHercegovini).46Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.318.Thebookfeaturesarangeofvisualmaterial,includingphotographs,sketchesanddrawingsbytheauthors’aswell as children’s and students’ drawings. A section titled the ‘Specification of collaborators andgraphicmaterial’presentedadetailedlistofillustrationcredits.ThelistsuggeststhatbothGrabrijanand Neidhardt provided illustrations for the historical research presented in the introduction andfirst five chapters. The drawings of the last two chapters were credited to Neidhardt only. Mostcommonly historic and technical/architectural drawings were contributed by Grabrijan,interpretativesketchesandthreedimensionaldrawingsbyNeidhardt.

Chapter4

155

Redefiningthegroundsuponwhichanationisconstructed

The origin of Bosnian Muslims that opens the book is presented as a series of

dialectical questions and answers that seek to highlight the subjective nature of

historic interpretation and the shifting grounds upon which those views are

constructed. ‘Who are these people?’ the authors ask. The answer, they state,

cannot be provided definitively, but rather in a rhetorical question such as, ‘[Are

they]Turkswhosettledhere’or ‘the localpopulation’ofBogumils?And if indeed

they are the Turks who came with the Ottomans, ‘What happened to all the

BogumilsfromBosniaaftertheTurksarrived?DidtheyconvertandacceptIslam?’47

In response, the authors stated, ‘These people’ [referring to a collective of local

population,notnecessarilyMuslims]‘atonemomentbelongedtoaSerbian,thenat

anothertoaCroatianstate’.48Thismarkedaconceptualshift,awayfrompresenting

BosnianMuslimsinaninseparablerelationtothereligionofIslamtodiscussingthe

Muslim community through the inevitable forces of history. This represented a

majorchangeinGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sapproachtotheissueofcultureaswell

as built heritage, and was timely given the party’s growing frustration with its

inabilitytoovercomenationaldifferencesandcreateanewfrictionfreesociety.It

alsoquestionedtheessentialistnotionsofidentitypromulgatedbynationalists.

Asalreadydiscussed,withinBosniatheissueofBosnianMuslims’nationalidentity

was of particular importance. Through its specific historic circumstances Bosnia

47Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.23.48Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.23.

Chapter4

156

escapedtransformationintoanationstate.Asaresult,unlikeneighbouringSerbia

andCroatia,whichwereinhabitedbythepredominantSerbandCroatpopulations

respectively,Bosniawasnota landofBosnians;throughoutitshistoryitremained

inhabitedbyBosnianMuslims,Serbs (Orthodox),Croats (Catholics)and Jews.49By

the20thcenturythenationalistmovementsofSerbiaandCroatiahadmanagedto

tie the Bosnian Orthodox and Catholic population to Serb and Croat national

identities, causing significant confusion over the national status of the Bosnian

Muslims.

In the context of Serbian nationalism, liberation from Ottoman colonial power in

the 1830s had propelled its nationalist ideology. The nationalists portrayed the

Serbian struggle against Ottoman foreign domination as a reflection of their

superiorityoverothernationalandreligiousgroups,andassociatedthechangeof

political structure with a victory of Christianity over Islam. Among the most cited

examples of Serbian literature supporting nationalist discourse is Petar Petrovi

Njegošhistoricalplay,theMountainWreath.50Centredontheexterminationofall

‘Turks’, not only those of Turkish origins but also those who, like the Muslims of

Bosnia, converted to Islam, the plot encouraged religious cleansing as a way to

purify Serbian ethnic space.51 The subsequent ideology supporting the growing

desirefortheterritorialexpansionofGreaterSerbiapresentedBosnianMuslimsas

49Buturovi,‘ProducingandannihilatingtheethosofBosnianIslam’,pp.29–33.50 For a broaderdiscussion of theMountainWreath seeA. Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,pp.40–45.51Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,pp.40–45.

Chapter4

157

eithertraitorswhooughttobeexpelledorasconvertswhooughttoreturntotheir

Christianorigins.

While Croatian nationalism emerged from a different political framework, it too

questioned the existence of a collective Bosnian political identity and the role of

Muslims within it. Croatian nationalism developed in response to a long cultural

subordinationtoAustro–Hungarianruleandmorespecificallyitspoliciesofcultural

assimilation. Eventually liberated from such historical and cultural constraints,

Croatian nationalists promoted their cultural superiority and focused on religious

membershipasapowerfulcommondenominatorofallCroats.52Significantly,while

both Serbian and Croatian nationalisms were premised on a sense of the

exclusiveness of their own cultures, they did not necessarily exclude Bosnian

Muslims. Many indeed, such as Antun Starevi, advocated Croatian identity that

includedBosnia.53

It was, therefore, the Muslim community that Serbian and Croat nationalists

expected to change. Considered a religious group with no national character,

Muslims were required to ‘decide’ on their national affiliation and ‘choose’ their

nationalbelonging. Asa resultofwhat Buturovinamed ‘a triangleof contending

forces’pullingindifferentdirections,54theBosnianMuslimswerecaughtbetween

threedifferentandoverlappingnationalidentities:someacceptedSerbianidentity,

52Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,pp.40–45.53 Buturovi’s ‘Producing and annihilating the ethos of Bosnian Islam’ presents a summary of theissuesrelatedtothepositionandroleofIslaminBosnia.WachtelalsodiscussestheissuesofIslaminrelationshiptoYugoslavculturaldevelopment.54Buturovi,‘ProducingandannihilatingtheethosofBosnianIslam’,pp.29–33.

Chapter4

158

some Croatian and some promoted uniquely Bošnjak national identity.55 Others,

however, argued that Islam was more important than any nation, or alternatively

recognised their Slavic origins and membership of a SerboCroatian tribe as the

mostimportantaspectoftheiridentity.56Thisprocessof‘internalnationalisation’of

the Bosnian community fractured its cohesion, making each of the three main

groupsseekalliancesoutsidethecountry’sborders.57

The communist government’s frustration with its failure to resolve this issue and

the persistence of nationalist formations resulted in a change of the party’s

approach.58Theissuewasnolongeroneofovercomingthenationalistdivisions,but

of controlling and administering the national grouping. Admitting the presence of

nationaldivisionsandsearchingfortheiracknowledgement,anofficialatthe1940s’

55AlthoughBošnjaknational identityincludedthethreemainreligiousgroupsofBosnia’sMuslims,Serbs (Orthodox) and Croats (Catholics), in reality it relied on Bosnian Muslims. Bosnia’s Austro–Hungarianadministrator,FinanceMinisterBenjaminKállay–theheadtheBosnianBureaubetween1882 and 1903 – first introduced the concept. Kallay believed the formation of a political nation,suchascollectiveBosniannation,wouldunitealldifferentpeoplewithinacommonadministrativeand political structure and deny or diminish the relevance of national unity based on nationalidentity. For further discussion see T. Kraljai, Kalajev Režim u Bosni i Hercegovini 1882–1903(Kallay’sGovernanceofBosniaandHercegovina),VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo,1987.56TheJMO,thestrongestMuslimparty,recognisedandacceptedthedifficultiesofcompetingwiththe Serb and Croat nationalist agenda and suggested that its members choose between the two,based on the economic prospects offered by either side. Illustrative of the curiousness of thisarrangementistheoftencitedexampleofJMO18deputies(andtheiralternativeselectedin1923election) who all, but for party president Dr Mehmed Spaho, declared themselves as Croats.MehmedSpaho, who in his student days declared himself a Serb, later refused either the SerborCroatian label, while his brother Fehim, the reis ululema (Islamic religious head) of Yugoslavia’sMuslimsfrom1938to1942,wasaCroatandhisthirdbrother,Mustafa(anengineer),wasaSerb.Banac,TheNationalQuestioninYugoslavia,p.375.57Theterm‘internalnationalisation’iselaboratedinButurovi,‘Producingandannihilatingtheethosof Bosnian Islam’, pp. 29–33. Malcolm uses like term in relationship to a search for a ‘national’identityamongdifferentconfessionalgroupsthatheargueswereinspiredandmovedbytheforcesoutsideBosnia.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory.58Inanattempttotransformitself,thestructureoftheCommunistPartyofYugoslaviachangedinthe1950s.In1952,itsnamewaschangedtoLeagueofCommunistofYugoslavia,andthePolitburowas renamed Executive Bureau. The leadership decided the party should be transformed into amovement of socialist forces, that ‘should not command, but offer ideological leadership’. Thechange in approach decreased the party’s control over the public domain. Djilas, The ContestedCountry,p.174.

Chapter4

159

first party congress stated, in his speech, that Bosnia needed to accept those

divisions:

Bosnia cannot be divided between Serbia and Croatia, not because Serbs and

Croatslivemixedtogetheronthewholeterritory,butalsobecausetheterritoryis

inhabitedbyMuslimswhohavenotyetdecidedontheirnationalidentity.59

Attempting, through official organisation and administration, to provide political

platformsforcommunitiesthatwouldneutralisetheimpactofnationalistdebates,

the1948YugoslavcensuspresentedMuslimswiththreeoptionsfordeclaringtheir

nationality:MuslimSerbs,MuslimCroatsor‘Muslims,nationallyundeclared’.60This

showed the government’s willingness to recognise Muslims as a separate

community but not with a separate national identity.61 The next census, in 1953,

produced a similar result. But with official policy moving towards greater support

for a spirit of ‘Yugoslavism’, the category ‘Muslim’ was removed from the census

altogether;thenewcategoryof‘Yugoslav,nationallyundeclared’wasintroduced.62

The 1961 census stopped short of recognising Muslims’ full national rights, but it

offered a category of ‘ethnic Muslim’, which was seen as more appealing than

previous options. The longstanding debate was eventually resolved by the 1968

League of Communist of Yugoslavia, which recognised Muslim claims and offered

theoptionof identifyingasBosnianMuslim in thesenseofanationality. Itwould

only be in the 1971 constitution that the change was officially instituted and the

59Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.197.60Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.198.61Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.198.62Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.198.

Chapter4

160

‘double’ identity for Muslims introduced: Muslim with a ‘capital M’ indicating

nationalaffiliation,andmuslimwitha‘smallm’,indicatingreligiousaffiliation.63

GrabrijanandNeidhardt’squestioningofMuslimoriginsproblematisedratherthan

confirmed the nationstate model as the only way by which communities can be

structured.Theirargument sought alternative factors thatcould define a national

bond:‘OnlyEuropeanslookfortotalityandclassifyanindividualbythesumtotalof

religion, nationality and extraction [heritage].’64 And it was for that reason that

‘Europe had so many difficulties’ with the Islamic world.65 Unable to comprehend

the ‘nonEuropean’ way of thinking about a nation, foreign rulers of Bosnia, they

argued, misinterpreted the Muslims of Bosnia and perceived them always as

‘somebodyelse’.66TheAustrians, theystated, identified ‘themwiththeTurks, the

Kingdom of Yugoslavia found them to be Serbs, and Croatia to be Croats, etc.’67

Presenting Bosnian identity within a long history of misconceptions and

misunderstandings, Grabrijan and Neidhardt acknowledged the transient and

changingnatureofidentityformation.Theyalsochallengedthegovernment’slack

of capacity to finally resolve the issue, and resist and overcome nationalist

pressures.

63Thechangewasofficiallyrecognisedinthe1971constitution.ForfurtherdiscussionseeDonia&Fine, Bosnia and Hercegovina, pp. 178–79 and Buturovi, ‘National quest and the anguish ofsalvation:BosnianMuslimidentityinMešaSelimovi’sDervishandDeath”’.64Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.23.65Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.23.66Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.23.67Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.23.

Chapter4

161

Grabrijan and Neidhardt perceived the socialist government’s ongoing changes to

theclassificationoftheMuslimcommunityasnewgroundsuponwhichtheconcept

ofanationcouldbeestablished.Nolongerwasidentitydefinedbyaframeworkof

national,ethnicorreligiousbelonging,butitcouldbeassembled,albeitwithingiven

limitations, and constructed upon one’s own choosing. Neidhardt stated that the

interpretativeandpersonalnatureofsuchaprocesshelpedhimtodiscoverhisown

identity; he claimed to be ‘Croatian by birth and Bosnian by choice’.68 He

encouraged his students to combine the various traditions of Bosnia into a new

experience, promoting collective gatherings to celebrate various religious and

culturalholidays.Thesevariedfromearlymorninggatheringsofuranak,associated

withMorningPrayerforMuslims,tothecelebrationofVidovdanDay,aspecialday

in the Serb calendar.69 This rethinking of the nationalist paradigm provided for a

more sympathetic and nuanced interpretation of not only the origins of Muslims

but also their place in the new Bosnian society. Once the collective identity of

Bosniawasconstructed,itwaspossiblefortheauthorstosearchfortheirauthentic

artsandarchitecture.

Unlikethediscussionpresentedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,whichconnectedthe

local Muslim population to focal points of Islam outside of Yugoslavia, the

discussion presented in Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity

68Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.239.69 Vidovdan or St Vitus' Day is a religious holiday observed on28 June. Vidovdan is also adate ofhistorical importance,markingSerbia’sbattleagainsttheOttomans,aswellastheassassinationofthe Austro–Hungarian crown prince Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, which triggered WorldWar One among the most significant events. Kapetanovi, ‘The architectural work of JurajNeidhardt’,pp.324–26.

Chapter4

162

focused on the Muslims links to regional and local traditions. The authors argued

thattheevidenceofBosnianMuslimrejectionofthetranshistoricalassociationsto

theworldofIslamwasreadilyfound:

YouconfusetheBosnianMuslimthemostbyaskinghimtodeclarehisnationality.

Howmuchconfusionandpainhasthatkindofassociation/declarationcausedsince

it was first introduced by the former regimes. And when [the Muslim] confusion

wasnoticeditwasofteninterpretedasmeanness.70

This transformation of alliances from Mecca and Islam at large to a specifically

Bosnian context was reflected in the redrawing of the Medina mosque, originally

publishedin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’[Figure13].

ThenewdrawingshowedtheMedinamosque,asymbolofreligiousbelief,replaced

byadrawingofaMeccapilgrimage,asymbolofMuslimcommunitygatheringand

shared values. Positioned at the edge of the composition, Mecca’s pilgrimage

squarewas isadistantandremoteplace,connected toSarajevoviaasea[Figure

27]. This weakened the visual connection between Sarajevo and the core of the

Islamicworld,shiftingthefocusonthecityitself.Infact,itcouldbearguedthatthe

intentofthedrawingwasnottosuggesttheimpactofmainstreamIslamonthecity

formation,butrathertoempowerthe localcontext, terrainandpeopletomodify

andalter the Islamiccanon intonewregionalexpression.The inclusionof diverse

daily experiences, such as praying, sitting, eating and walking, all highlighted

Sarajevo’s connection to the specific context and not, as previously suggested,

fanaticaldedicationtoIslam.

70Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.23.

Chapter4

163

Figure27:SketchshowingtheMecca–Sarajevolink.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.60.

WithoutexplicitlychangingthetermsbywhichGrabrijanandNeidhardtreferredto

Bosnian Muslims, the transformation of a general notion of ‘Oriental man’ into a

more local or specifically Bosnian Oriental is significant for my argument. This

transformation refocused the discussion on the local and organic connection

betweenthepeopleandartefacts,reignitingGrabrijan’searlierdiscussions,aswell

as downplaying the importance of external influences. No longer was the Muslim

population presented as Oriental and foreign, but rather it became a community

appreciatedforitsspecialculturalcontribution.Inaddition,theauthorsargued,the

community presentedanability to transform foreign influences intoadeeplyand

uniquelyBosniancondition–onedistinctfromitsSerbianandCroatianneighbours.

VestingBosnianMuslimswith thesenseof regional identityprovidedadirect link

between the local community and the land it occupied. Despite territorial claims

being one of the most ‘important categories through which nationhood can be

Chapter4

164

exploredandarticulated’,inthecaseofBosnia,Buturovihasargued,discussionsof

territorialcontinuitywereconspicuouslyabsent.71

Against trends that disregarded the correlation between people and territory as

importanttonationbuilding,GrabrijanandNeidhardtpresentedananalysisofthe

country’sculturalandarchitecturalheritageasakeytounderstandingtheBosnian

people and culture. Using an archaeological framework, the authors presented a

verticalexaminationofartefactsandobjectsfoundinBosnia.Toaccommodatethe

long historical span, the structures were used as markers of select periods, or

physicalevidenceofthedevelopingand longspanningculture.NotunlikePlenik,

whose inclusionofspecificobjects inhisurbanplanofLjubljanaservedtoremind

Slovenesoftheirhistoricorigins,GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sinclusionofobjectsand

landmarkshelpedBosniansconstructacommonpast.

Aprehistorichouse(sojenica)abovewatermarkedthestartingpoint.Thesojenica

structures,theauthorsstated, ‘act[ed]asremindersofapeacefulcommunitythat

lived and worked there’, but whose ‘open city was destroyed by more aggressive

people’72 [Figure 28]. While discussed, subsequent periods of wars against Celts,

Gaul and Romans were not associated with specific visual markers or structures

fromthoseperiods,butthemedievalstructuresofsteciwereassignedasignificant

role.73

71Buturovi,StoneSpeaker,p.128.72Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.10&15.73 For a detailed discussion of steak, its history and role the tombstones played in the collectiveimaginationofBosniaseeAmilaButurovi’sStoneSpeaker.Buturovi’sstudypresentsanoverview

Chapter4

165

Figure28:Drawingofsojenicastructures.Source:Grabrijan& Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,p.4.

The Middle Ages in Bosnia already occupied a prominent role in the collective

understanding of Bosnian history. Discussion centred primarily on the ‘traditional’

and popularly accepted theory of the role the medieval Bosnian Church played

whenfacedwiththeOttomantakeover.74Thetheoryoriginallypresentedby19th

centuryCroatianscholarFranjoRakiclaimedtheBosnianChurchwasanoffshoot

oftheBogumils,aBulgarianhereticalmovementfoundedinthe10thcenturybya

priest called ‘Bogumil’ (beloved by God).75 The Church preached a Manichean

‘dualist’theology,accordingtowhichSatanandGodwereofalmostequalpower;

the visible world was Satan’s creation and the only way for humans to free

themselvesoftheflawsofthematerialworldwastofollowanasceticwayof life.

of various hypotheses on the origins and symbolism of steak. It also situates the archaeology ofsteakwithintheinterpretativeframeworksthatlocatedtheoriesinscholarlyaswellaslaycircles.74 For further discussion see Malcolm, Bosnia – A Short History, particularly the chapters ‘ThemedievalBosnianstate,1180–1463’and‘TheBosnianChurch’.75Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.28–29.Raki’stheorygainedsignificantpopularityamongboth historiansand politicians.There were,of course, rival theories proposed by mostlySerb andCroathistorianswhoarguedthattheChurchofBosniawasonlyabranchoftheOrthodox/SerbianorCatholic/CroatianChurchrespectively,oracombinationofthetwo.

Chapter4

166

Also important, the Church rejected the traditional hierarchy of church structure

andwealthymonasteries.

AsarguedbyMalcolm,FranjoRaki’sBogumiltheorywaspopularformanyreasons.

It offered an answer to the large conversion of the Bosnian population to Islam

undertheTurks.76Itinterpretedthemassconversionasareactiontothecenturies

ofpersecutionby thecompetingCatholicandOrthodoxChurches.77ThusBogumil

theory became attractive to Muslims as they were no longer seen as ‘renegades

fromCatholicismorOrthodoxy’,butdescendantsof‘anauthenticallyandpeculiarly

BosnianChurch’.78TurningtoIslamwasnotanactofbetrayal,butarejectionofthe

oppressivenatureoftheChristianChurches.79

More importantly, theBogumil theoryexplainedthepresenceof large, limestone,

medieval monoliths distinguished by figural and scenic imagery, found in parts of

Bosnia.80Knownassteci(pluralofsteak)thegravestoneshavebecomegenerally

accepted as common in preOttoman and early Ottoman times [Figure 29]. They

76Acommonlyacceptedview,oftenpromotedbymembersoftheMuslimcommunity,suggeststhatBosnianMuslimsareconvertsoftheformerBosnianChurchandtherefore,ifnottheonlythenthemost, righteous carriers of the Bosnian nation. Donia & Fine present this view as a threefoldargumentunderlinedbytheassumptionthat1)theBosnianChurchwasBogumil;2)themajorityofBosniansweremembersofBosnianChurch;and3)atthetimeofconquesttheBogumils,frustratedbytheCatholicChurchpassedover,withouthesitation,tothenewreligionofIslam.DemonstratingthatconversiontoIslamwasgradual,takingBosniaalmost150yearstogainamajoritypopulationofMuslims, undermines the argument that acceptance of Islam in Bosnia was a result of massconversionoftheBosnianChurch.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.51–52;andDonia&Fine,BosniaandHercegovina.77Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.29.78Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.29.79 Malcolm states modern scholarship presents comprehensive evidence demolishing claims ofmassiveconversionstoIslambymembersofBosnianChurch.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,p.29.80Foradetaileddiscussionofsteak,itshistoryandroleinthecollectiveimaginationofBosniaseeButurovi, ‘Thearchaeologyof thesteak,historicalandculturalconsiderations’, inStoneSpeaker,pp.51–79.

Chapter4

167

wereusedbyallreligiousandsocialgroupsinmedievalBosnia,betraying,Buturovi

hasargued, ‘classand statusonly in lapidary representations’.81Theirpresence in

areasofBosniaassociatedwiththeactivitiesoftheBosnianChurchhelpedestablish

historicallinksbetweenthemandBogumiltheologicalbeliefs.82Despitesubsequent

historicalaccountspresentingconclusiveevidencethatunderminesthoselinks,the

issues concerning the Bogumils’ tradition became entangled with popular myths

andideologies.

Figure 29: Steak from Radimlje, Bosnia. Source: Grabrijan& Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,p.19.

Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s discussion of the Bogumils appears aligned with those

understandings. The book made extensive references to steci and associated

imagery, and argued that the tombstones were visual reminders of the

transformationsof localartisticendeavours.ThereferencetotheBogumilsadded

81Buturovi,StoneSpeaker,p.53.82BosniaandHercegovinaisnottheonlyterritorywheresteciarefound,andabout12percentofsteak cemeteries are found in other parts of former Yugoslavia, namely southern Croatia,Montenegro and Serbia. According to Buturovi, the number of steak cemeteries in formerYugoslaviais2988,whileindividualstecinumber66,663.Buturovi,StoneSpeaker,p.53.

Chapter4

168

anotheranchortotheircontentionofthegenuineandorganicrelationshipbetween

territory,artisticexpressionandthepeopleofBosnia.Theauthorspointed to the

‘unique technique of shallow relief’ used on the steci, which arguably

demonstrated the artists’ connection with the technique of ‘deep carvings of the

Romansarcophagus’[Figure30].83

Figure 30: Neidhardt’s sketch of steak, a medievaltombstone. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.18.

Referencing Riegl’s theories of the interconnected nature of artisticdevelopment,

theauthorspresentedsteakasa localtransformationofthe‘plasticityofantique

decorations’,andareferencepointintheworlddevelopmentofart.84Thediverse

decorative ornament offered proof of the Bogumils’ ‘capacity to accept the

influences that came about’ and adapt them as ‘their own expression’.85 In the

subsequentdiscussionsGrabrijanandNeidhardtconsideredsimilar qualities tobe

atthecoreoftheBosnianculture[Figure31].

83Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.20.84Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.2085 Original quote: ‘Radi se dakle of narodu koji je … prilagodljiv I dovoljno nadaren, da preuzmepostupke okoline, ali toliko samosvjestan, da ne govori kao ostali nego se izražava na svoj vlastinain’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.20.

Chapter4

169

Figure 31: Neidhardt’s sketch of steak ornaments anddecoration. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.18.

GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sinsistenceonestablishingachainofreferencetoexplain

the historical development of Bosnian art not only undermined nationalist views,

butalsoofferedanacceptableconceptualplace for theremnantsof theOttoman

legacy. Interpreted within what historian Maria Todorova has referred to as the

‘separatist’ view, the Ottoman legacy was commonly presented as residue of a

religiously, socially and institutionally alien society.86 Absorbed within the general

title of ‘Oriental’ artistic expression the Ottoman architectural heritage was

presented as synonymous with those of the Islamic and Turkish, and thus of

questionableauthenticity.87

86ThisviewwasbasedonaperceptionofincompatibilityofChristianityandIslam,andbyextensionbetweentheessentiallynomadicOttomansocietyandtheold,settled,urbansocietyoftheregion.Some aspects of this approach supported the ‘mechanical’ or ‘separate spheres’ approach to theOttoman legacy, which identified different aspects of cultural or political life. Todorova, ‘TheOttoman legacy in theBalkans’, inC.L.Brown (ed.), ImperialLegacy,TheOttoman Imprinton theBalkansandtheMiddleEast,ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork,1996,pp.45–77.87Todorovaidentifiestwobroadinterpretationsofthislegacy:theseparatistandtheorganicist.Theorganicist presents the Ottoman legacy as the complex symbiosis of the many influences thatimpacted on the region, namely Turkish, Islamic and Byzantine/Balkan traditions. The underliningrationaleisthatdespiteapparentreligious,socialandotherdifferences,thecenturiesofcoexistencemusthaveproducedacommonlegacythatwouldhavebeenthesameforalltheconstituentpartiesoftheOttomanlegacy.Todorova,‘TheOttomanlegacyintheBalkans’,pp.45–77.

Chapter4

170

Willing to accept the historical condition from which this architecture emerged,

GrabrijanandNeidhardtacknowledgeditsorigins:

ByallmeansthisarchitecturedevelopedundertheinfluencesoftheOrient,butits

elements are not simply [trans]planted from there to here, but grew out of our

peopleandoursoil.BosniawasontheperipheryoftheOttomanEmpire…Turkey

isallingold.[Incontrast]Bosniaissimple.88

Changing the basic premise upon which artistic authenticity could be constructed

allowedforanewinterpretation.AsGrabrijanhadalreadyargued inhispaperon

theBosnianhouse,historicalchangesmadeacrucialimpactonthetransformation

ofthisarchitecturefromits‘Turkish’originstoanauthenticBosnianexpression.The

book extended Grabrijan’s previous discussion concerning the impact of Bosnian

Muslimsculturalpracticesonthetransformationofthetraditionalhouse(changing

‘Turkishness’intogenuine‘Bosnianness’)andpresentedcultureaspowerfulagent

inthereconfigurationsofOttomanarchitecture.

Throughgradualmodificationsandtheevolutionofartisticexperience,Bosnianart

was presented as the embodiment of collective qualities and a reflection of the

society:

He[theBosnianman]makeshispottery,space,cityaccordingtohimself,inhuman

scale, he is not a mystic, but a realist and that is from where all this realistic

architecture [emerges], which is at the same time comfortable, humble and

democratic.89

OnestatementsignificantlyexpandedGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sdiscussionof this

art,suggestingthatwhilethisarchitectureandartwasbuiltby‘localartisans’using


Chapter4

171

thelocalmaterials,theworkwasconducted‘byDalmatianstonemasons–i.e.,all

our[Yugoslav]people’.90

By including Croatian/Dalmatian stone masons in their consideration of Bosnian

identity, the authors confirmed their interest in going beyond a model of nation

framedbystrictboundariesofethnicandreligiousbelonging.Finallydismissingthe

validity of a nationalist argument and their own earlier views, which considered

localartonlyinitsrelationstoits‘origins’,theywrote:

It is of secondary importance who sponsored this architecture [at the time] and

whousedit[atthetime].[Whatisimportantisthat]Itcameoutofourpeopleand

wecanconfidentlysaythatitisthepeople’sart.91

Identifying the human values of Bosnian Oriental expression, they presented the

architecturenotasparochialandinwardlookingbutasexpressiveoftheopenand

democratic principles of the new nation of Bosnians. Highlighting the communal

andthecollectivequalitiesofthisart,theywrote:

Allroofsanddoorsofthesehousesarealmostthesame,wecouldcallthemhomes

foranyone,allofthemaredesignedinhumanscale,havegrownoutoftheland...

[thestructuresrepresent]–architecturethatiswarm,naturalandlocallybuilt.92

The balance between universal and local qualities of Bosnian Oriental expression

finallydemonstratedthatthisarchitectureisauniquecontributiontotheworldof

modernity. It was local, produced by all irrespective of their ethnic background,

inclusive of all and the Muslims in particular. The artistic expression of the new 90Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.12.



Chapter4

172

socialist society was established in a war that was fought by diverse ethnic and

nationalgroupsofYugoslavia,withallparticipantssubsequentlyhavingequalrights

in the new state. Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s emphasis on collective involvement

recognisedaconnectionbetweenconstructionoftheartsandsociety.

ThequalitiesembeddedinBosnianOriental

Bosnian Oriental, Neidhardt frequently stated, would become like ‘French, Nordic

[Scandinavian],BrazilianandAmericanarchitecture’, in thateach ‘contribute[s] to

theworldarchitecture’.93Neidhardt’sdrawings,suchastheonetitled‘Fromoldto

new pyramid’ [Figure 32], presented Bosnian artistic achievements on equal

standing to those of the rest of the world. The drawing represents the ‘five

millenniums’orhumanarchitecturalachievementsanddevelopments,withBosnia

representedbyAliPaša’sMosque[no.12inFigure32].Sarajevo’smosqueappears

alongsidetheworld’smajorhistoricmonumentssuchas thepyramids (no.1)and

Parthenon (no. 2), and more contemporary achievements such as Sydney Opera

House (no. 22). This confirmed Neidhardt and Grabrijan’s adherence to Riegl’s

notionoftheimportanceofsmallculturesinthedevelopmentofworldart.Italso

presented Muslim architectural heritage as a valuable contribution to collective

YugoslavandBosnianculture.

93J.Neidhardt,‘Putevinacionalnearhitekture’(Pathstonationalarchitecture),NašiDani,November,1954,p.5.

Chapter4

173

Figure 32: Illustration titled ‘From old to new pyramid 5millenniums’. Source: Kapetanovi, ‘The architectural workofJurajNeidhardt’;p.464.

Thedrawingtitled‘Urbanandarchitecturalanalysis’depictedBosniageographically

inthemiddleofYugoslavia,cutintwowithalinerepresentingthereligiousschism

ofChristianityandIslam[Figure33].The‘western’sidewasdefinedbytherational

principles of regularity, symmetry, ‘rigid planning’ and ‘corridorlike’ streets; the

‘eastern’sidebyirregularity,fluidity,organicplanningandintimatespaces.Bosnia,

withits‘inbetween’position,wasshownascapableofnegotiatingalldifferences.

Chapter4

174

Figure 33: Bosnia as a place of negotiations, ‘Urban andarchitectural analysis’. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.322.

Theauthors’ faith in thecapacityofBosnia toaccommodateandmediatevarious

changeswasreflectedinthedrawingtitled‘Threeconceptionsofformingtheroom’

[Figure 34]. Its depiction of a mosque’s spatial transformation into a church and

then a monument to Lenin implied Bosnia’s ability to negotiate significant

ideological transformations.The final transformation, represented inamonument

to Lenin, accommodated the positive values of the two previous transformations,

namely the ‘unity of spatial organisation of a church’ with the ‘human scale’ of a

mosque. The drawing confirmed the importance of communist ideology to

Chapter4

175

Neidhardt’s work, as well as his commitment to the secularisation of socialist

Yugoslavia.

Figure 34: Mosque, church and the monument to Lenin.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.238.

ContributionofBosnianOrientaltoYugoslavia

GrabrijanandNeidhardt’scontributionstartedtogainpublicrecognition.When,in

the 1950s, Bosnia began to occupy a special locus in the emerging ‘Non Alliance’

movement Tito was developing, the Muslim representatives played a significant

role.94InanorganisationthatincludedmanyMuslimsfromIndiaandNorthAfrica,

Tito’sabilitytohaveadelegationmadeupoflocalMuslimswasabenefit.Itwasnot

consideredrelevantthattheMuslimsTitosentasrepresentativestovariousforums

were often Communist Party members who had largely abandoned their religion

during the internal secularisation project. With the small ‘m’ Muslim sense of

religious belonging marginalised, the big ‘M’ Muslim identity that was previously

94 The opportunity Tito found was on a tour in Ethiopia, India and Egypt in 1955. Soon after, Titojoined Nasser and Nehru in constructing the new movement, in which being a Muslim wasconsideredbeneficial.Malcolm,Bosnia–AShortHistory,pp.196–98.

Chapter4

176

seenasanobstacletogenuineparticipationinthedevelopmentofaBosniannation

wasconsideredanasset.

GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sviewsechoedasocialistagendathatsupportedthevision

ofBosniaasamulticultural,secularyetformallynationalculture.Theirarchitectural

endeavours also built upon a growing acceptance of the modernist architectural

agenda promoted in the west. The political changes of 1948 provided a sudden

opening for ‘democratic views’ and the acceptance of ‘individual freedom’ in

architecturaldesign.Theseweretheveryinfluencesthathadbeenstronglynegated

intheearlyyearsofsocialism.95Growingacceptanceofsuchideaswasreflectedin

the selection by the Society of Architects of Yugoslavia of Neidhardt’s work for

inclusion in the International Union of Architects (UIA) exhibition held in Rabat,

Morocco in 1950.96 These designs comprised the antituberculosis hospital in

Travnik (1947), the skiing house (1947) on the mountain of Trebevi [Figure 35],

bachelors’ housing in Zenica, Vareš and Ljubija, workers’ housing in Ljubija, a

95I.Štraus,ArhitekturaJugoslavije,1945–1990,(YugoslavArchitecture,19451990),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1991,p.23.ŠtraussitesnumerousinfluencesofLeCorbusier’sandMiesvanderRohe’scontemporarybuildingsonYugoslavarchitects.Referringtobuildingssuchas1953designforArmyPrintingServices(Vojnaštamparija)byarchitectMiloradMacura(ofwhichbuildingcommencedevenbeforeWorldWarTwo);urbanideasembeddedinthedesignofSajmištebyMilovanPantoviorthedesignof‘Hempro’andSocialInsurancebuildingsbyAleksejBrki,ŠtraussuggestsagreaterrecognitionoftheinfluencesofwesternarchitectstoYugoslavcontext,aswellastheacceptanceofarchitecturalexpressionassociatedwiththeInternationalModernism.ForfurtherdiscussionseeI.Štraus,ArhitekturaJugoslavije,pp.2333.96 Neidhardt’s work was selected to represent the country where all republics of Yugoslaviapresented their work. The exhibition brochure showed geography, people, folklore, traditionalarchitecture,andhistoricpartsofYugoslavia,andincludedaselectionofmodernbuildings,amongwhichweresomeofNeidhardt’s.Whentheantituberculosishospital inTravnikwasbuilt in1948,the name of the architect was not mentioned in any of the daily papers (Borba, Oslobodjenje);however, three years later the project and the architect were selected to represent of the newYugoslavia.Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.311.

Chapter4

177

regulation plan in Zenica (model) and some of his collaborative landscape

architectureprojects.

Figure 35: House on the mountain of Trebevi (1947).Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.279.

By the 1950s Neidhardt’s design projects were starting to materialise, and were

publicly promoted in professional papers. His Sarajevo projects such as the

residentialblocksinDjureDjakoviStreetwerefinalisedandtheMuseumofYoung

Bosniawascompleted.97 In1953,Neidhardtcommencedhis involvementwiththe

large urban development of the new Grbavica residential suburbs. These urban

proposals formed part of the Yugoslav display at the World Fair in Brussels in

1958.98 The ‘selection of Neidhardt’s work in the artistic representation of

Yugoslavia evidenced a significant recognition of his achievements that had gone

unnoticed for many years prior’, commented Neven Segvi in his article ‘The

97KapetanovisuggeststhehousinginDjureDjakovistreetwascompletedin1952–53.Theprojectwasdesignedandcommencedin1947andMuseumofYoungBosniawascompletedin1952.98TheBrusselsWorldFair(Expo58)washeldfrom17Aprilto19October1958.ItwasthefirstmajorWorldFairafterWorldWarTwo.

Chapter4

178

creative forces in the architecture of FRY [Federative Republic of Yugoslavia]’.99

Published in a professional journal of the branch of the Society of Architects and

Engineers of Yugoslavia, the article marked a public rehabilitation of Neidhardt’s

architecturalapproach.100Italsomadeanimpactonhisacademiccareer.

In 1952, Neidhardt’s academic career started with his appointment to a lecturer

positionatthenewlyfoundedArchitecturalFacultyinSarajevo.101In1953,hewas

promotedtoassociateprofessor,andin1962becameafullprofessoratthesame

institution. A series of high socialist awards followed: in 1959–60, Neidhardt

receivedOrdenRada(MedaloftheWork),asignificantaward;in1963,hebecame

amemberoftheAcademyofArtandScienceofYugoslavia(artsection);in1964,he

wasarecipientoftheprestigioussocialist27thJulyAward;andin1965arecipient

of the City Award for his work on Sarajevo. While it is not feasible to list the

numerousarticlesindailyandprofessionaljournalsthatwerepublishedthroughout

Neidhardt’scareer, it isworthmentioningthathe initiatedapublicationserieson

Bosnian heritage, which received significant attention. The series included Naše

Starine (OurHeritage)andSlovoGorina (TheGorinLetter),whichpromotedthe

relevance of Islamic cultural heritage and the mediaeval past, respectively, for

modernBosnianculture.102

99N.Šegvi,‘StvaralakekomponentearhitektureFNRJ’,Urbanizam/Arhitektura,nos.5–6,1950,pp.5–40;citedinKapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.309.100Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.310.101Thesuggesteddateofhisofficialappointmenttoapositionofassociateprofessorwas22June1953.Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.310.102 Among some examples are: J. Neidhardt & D. eli, ‘Stari most u Mostaru’, (The old MostarBridge), Naše Starine, no. 1, 1953, pp. 133–40; J. Neidhardt & D. eli, ‘Rješenje Marindvora INarodneSkupštine’,(ThesolutionforMarindvorandtheNationalParliament),NašeStarine,bookI,1956;‘BaštinaInovo’,(Heritageandnew),SlovoGorina,Stolac,1972;‘Smjenakultura’,(Transition

Chapter4

179

Personally,Neidhardtrevelled inhisnewlydiscoveredpopularityandhisabilityto

publiclypresenthisviews.Hisunconventionalteachingmethods ledto interaction

with students that was not common at the time. When in November 1954

NeidhardtpresentedhisworkattheSecondConferenceofStudentsofArchitecture

ofYugoslaviaunderthetitle‘Directionsinnationalarchitecture–studioworkasthe

most contemporary way of studying architecture’, the audience showed great

enthusiasm.Areviewoftheeventnotedthathereceived‘Longstandingovations

andmanypositivecomments’,followedby‘tearsandwordsofsupportfromother

academicsandstudentsalike.’103

ThepopularityandthegrowingpoliticalsupportforNeidhardt’sapproachdidnot,

however, directly translate into uniform professional support. Particularly

prominent in his criticism was Ivan Štraus, a highprofile Bosnian architect and

architectural critic from Sarajevo, who argued that Neidhardt’s reliance on ‘the

traditional’reflectedan‘uncriticalpromotionofregionalism.’104Štrausarguedthat

by following an approach based on principles of the ‘Bosnian Oriental’ Neidhardt

andhisfollowersnegatedthecreativepoweroftheindividualdesignerandwould

ultimatelyderailwork‘fromthecreativepath.’105Neidhardt’sownresistancetothe

broader influences of the world’s architectural trends, Štraus wrote, made his

ofcultures),SlovoGorina,1973,pp.13–20;‘RekreacijaduhaItijela’,(Recreationofmindandbody),SlovoGorina,1974,pp.25–34.103Neidhardt,‘Putevinacionalnearhitekture’,p.5.104I.Štraus,15GodinaBosanskohercegovakeArhitekture(FifteenYearsofBosnia&Hercegovina’sArchitecture),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1987,p.26.105Štraus,15GodinaBosanskohercegovakeArhitekture,p.26.

Chapter4

180

approach ‘self referential’ and not open to the technological and theoretical

challengesofcontemporarymodernarchitecture.

Searching in his own practice for global values of modern architecture, Štraus

remained a lasting critic of Neidhardt’s focus on traditional and local values.

Neidhardt’s ‘mannerism’, Štraus wrote, became accessible to ‘any individual with

anytechnicaleducation’willingtopromotealanguageofthe‘BosnianOriental’.106

Clearly not supportive of such an approach, Štraus commented that the buildings

designedtoadheretotheapplicationofthe‘Bosnianpoleofmodernarchitecture’

[Bosnian Oriental] became visual reminders of the ‘formalistic approach to

design’.107ŠtrausbelievedthatNeidhardt’sdiscussionof the ‘languageofBosnian

Oriental’ stylised the architectural expression to the point that dampened rather

than enlightened the modern debate. Similar criticism was addressed to the

architectswhoatthetimeadheredtoNeidhardt’s‘Bosnianschool’,or‘Bosnianpole

ofarchitecture’.Nevertheless,Neidhardt’scareercontinuedtoadvance.108

In his numerous academic and civic roles, Neidhardt perceived his work at the

interfacebetweendesignandnationalnarrativemaking.HisimagesoftheBosnian

landscape presented new ways of mapping the terrain and towns of Bosnia. The

106 I. Štraus,NovaBosanskohercegovakaArhitektura1945–1975 (The New Architecture of BosniaandHercegovina1945–1975),SvjetlostOOURIzdavakaDjelatnost,Sarajevo,1977,p.26.107Štraus,15GodinaBosanskohercegovakeArhitekture1970–1985,p.26.108Whilehisinterestandenthusiasmfordesigncompetitionsappearedhighatalltimes,thesuccessofhisentriesvaried. In1945Neidhardtwonthedesigncompetitionforavillage library(1945);his1950s’ proposal for a monument to the Liberation Army on the mountain of Trebevi was alsoawardedaprize,but itwasnotexecuted.From1950to1953Neidhardtparticipated inaseriesofurbancompetitions,whichincludedproposalsforthetownsofKonjic(competitionentry),Trebinje(plan accepted) and Zenica (partially executed). For a comprehensive list of design projects andcompetitionentriesseeKapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,pp.647–65.

Chapter4

181

drawingsconnectedtheoldtowns,mostlythoseofOttomanoriginssuchasPoitelj

and Mostar, in a way that disregarded both their real scale and context. The

trajectories in the drawings connected places of tourist interest to those of

historicalrelevance[Figure36].TheapproachaimedathighlightingBosniancultural

diversity, as well as the interconnectedness of the community. The territorial

containmentofthemaps,withinthegeographicalboundariesthatresistednational

divisions, visually confirmed Neidhardt’s belief in the importance of the territorial

integrityofBosnia.Togetherthegeographyandthematerialcultureestablishedthe

boundariesofanewnationofBosnians,peopleunitedbylandandcommonculture

[Figure37].

Figure36:Tourismandrecreationzones.Source:Grabrijan& Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,p.484.

Chapter4

182

Figure 37: Map highlighting important architectural sites.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.442.

Conclusion: Architecture is a carrier of the political message of multiculturalBosnia

The inclusion of specifically Muslim references in Architecture of Bosnia and the

WayTowardsModernityopenupthepossibilitytoincorporateMuslimheritagein

the Yugoslav synthesis. Marking a significant shift away from the nationalist

approach, the book presented a view of the Bosnian nation as forged through a

collectiveartisticexpression.

Chapter4

183

As discussed in the following chapter, ultimately Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s

conflation of ethnic identity and religious meaning reflected their ambivalence

about culturally specific architecture in general and Bosnian national identity in

particular.Thesignificanceassignedtotheoldfabricincreatingthenew,however,

demonstrated their genuine interest in connecting Ottoman heritage to the

specificsofBosnianidentitydebates.

Neidhardt presented the principles of Bosnian Oriental as the theoretical

foundation of his architectural approach. The transformation of his theoretical

agendaintoanarchitecturaloneisdiscussedinPartTwoofthisthesis.Chapterfive

presents thespecificnatureof this transformation,andGrabrijanandNeidhardt’s

developmentofanarchitectural‘dictionary’ofBosnianOrientalexpression.Chapter

sixanalysesthedictionary’sapplicationtolargeurbanprojects:thehypotheticalbut

influentialproposalforthedevelopmentofBašaršijaandthewinningproposalfor

theBosniaandHercegovinaParliamentbuildinganditssurrounds.

PARTTWO:Application

Chapter5TransformingtheTheoreticalintoanArchitecturalAgenda:theMahalaandaršijaasArchitecturalPrototypesofBosnianModernExpression

GrabrijanandNeidhardtgroundedtheirdiscussionofBosnianOrientalarchitectural

expressionuponthearchitecturalandspatialprincipleswhichthey identifiedwith

the historic fabric of Bašaršija. Presenting this fabric as inherently rational

pragmatic and modern. The pair connected their architectural discussions to the

values promoted and appreciated by the Yugoslav socialist government. This

chapter argues that such an alignment provided a framework for Grabrijan and

Neidhardttopresentthebuilt fabricofBašaršija’smahalas (residentialarea)and

aršija (businesssector)asappropriatereferencepoints for thedevelopmentofa

uniquelyBosnianmodernarchitecture.Thechapterpresentstheprocessbywhich

Grabrijan and Neidhardt transformed their theoretical concepts into architectural

andspatialconstructs.

TransformingBašaršija:anewapproachtothestudyofaršijaandmahala

In his preface to Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity, Le

CorbusiernotedthatGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sintegrationoftheoldfabricwithin

newarchitecturalexpressionwentagainstthe‘common’andsuperficialmethodof

Chapter5

188

usinga‘varnish’ofoldfabriconnewdesigns.1Theirapproach,hestated,presented

a deeper and more meaningful relationship between old and new in architecture

and urban planning. This method, Le Corbusier claimed, promoted the role of

creativeartsinthedevelopmentofthehumancondition,reflectingthe‘continuity

ofspiritandevolvingchanges’.2Assuch,BosnianOrientalexpression,heconcluded,

was not only a local expression but also a contribution to the development of

modernarchitectureoftheworld.

GrabrijanandNeidhardt,also,perceivedtheirworkasintegraltotheadvancement

ofmodernsocietyanditsartisticexpression.Thegroundingofcontemporaryworks

upon the old fabric of Bašcaršija, they argued, advanced the Marxist ‘dialectical

position’, which promoted the identification and separation of ‘positive from

negative values’.3 Presenting Marx’s concept of history as a record of an ongoing

and everimproving human development, allowed them to argue that the urban

fabricofBašaršijawascleansedof religiousassociationsbythepassageof time.4

Thestudyofthearchitecturalheritagewithhindsightallowedthemtoforeground

the valuable lessons from the past whilst rectifying past mistakes.5 Thus,

1Fullquote: ‘It iseasy,bythismethod, togivebuildingsand interiorsa“vanish”ofculture,whichseems automatically to invest them with a definitive character, a kind of national local, patrioticvalue,etc.Lazyandstupidpeoplearesatisfied[withthisapproach],firstbecausetheymakeagoodbusiness this way, and others because they feel that they have saved themselves any efforts ofthinkingandsearchingfortheirown[architectural]expression’.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.6.2Fullquote:‘Thereisstillanothermethod,methodofcontinuity–continuityofspirit,continuityofevolution … Grabrijan and Neidhardt have felt all this. The extraordinarily copious book they arepublishing needs no commentary. These pages will speak eloquently of their sentiments, theirtechnique,theiraesthetics’values,etc.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.6.3Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.11.4Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.11.5Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.11.

Chapter5

189

overcomingtheirinitialhesitationtowardstheOttomanandIslamicpast,expressed

in ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, their study of the historic fabric presented in

ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity identifiedBašaršija’sbuilt

fabric as a ‘source for modern architecture’ and ‘inspiration’.6 The approach was

documented through a series of detailed urban maps and elaborated through

individualbuildingsanalysis.7

Unliketheirearliermajorpublication,inwhichBašaršijawasdescribedasa‘bazaar

bijouterie’andnoelaborationofitsworkinglifewaspresented,herethediscussion

centred on its daily life and associated patterns of human labour. A series of

analytical maps documents the diverse crafts that were traditionally practiced in

this precinct. Thesymbols representing oldcrafts are superimposed on the urban

fabric,recallingtheoriginalassociationsbetweencraftguildsandtheurbancontext

[Figure 38]. An extensive list of trades accompanies these maps highlighting the

diversityofcraftgroupsandmanufacturingtechniquesintheoldprecinct.

6 Full quote: ‘Is aršija not a source of modern architecture? Why do we look for inspirationelsewhere,continuouslygettingitfromsecondhandsources,whenweareatitsorigins?’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.14.7Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.11.

Chapter5

190

Figure 38: Division of precinct based on crafts. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.64.

Theprofessionalandeconomicorganisationoftheguilds,oresnafthatoriginatedin

Ottoman times supported the precinct’s production of goods.8 While essentially

craftassociations,esnafalsohadastrongsocialrole.BehijaZlatar’sstudyof16th

century Sarajevo suggests that more than half of the city’s income earners were

8EsnafisanOttomantermcommonlyreplacedwiththelocalwordceh.ForathoroughdiscussionoftheSarajevo’sesnaforganisation, seeH.Kreševljakovi,Esnafi iObrtiuStaromSarajevu,NarodnaProsvjeta, Sarajevo, 1958, pp. 47–65. The wordesnaf, Kreševljakovi suggests, is the plural of theArabicwordsunufun,whichmeansclass,orderor,broadly,organisation.Forawiderdiscussionofthis organisation, see N. Todorov, The Balkan City 1400–1900, University of Washington Press,Seattle,1983,p.108.

Chapter5

191

members of esnaf, making it the economic support structure of the time.9 As

Sarajevogrewanddemandforproductionincreased–fromsupportingdailylifeto

meeting the more extensive needs of the Ottoman army – the social influence of

the institution of esnaf also amplified. Consequently, over time certain esnaf

became more powerful than others, and certain crafts associated with specific

ethnicgroups.Forexample,thelucrativemetalmakingcraft(kujundjije)wasunder

thecontrolofOrthodoxChristians.Jewsexclusivelyoperatedthesheetmetaltrade,

butwerealsopotmakersandtailors.10Whiletheethnicbasedassociationsinsome

waysthreatenedtounderminetheintegrityandegalitarianvaluesoftheinstitution,

theesnaf’s organisational focus on finance and professional experience offered a

structurethattranscendedethnicity.

Grabrijan and Neidhardt praised the organisation’s success in accommodating a

multiculturalsystemofcraftbasedproduction.They identified72craftsoperating

withintheprecinct,rangingfromswordcutterstosandalmakers[Figure39].Their

maps presented the precinct as an urban whole that almost solely relied on the

establishedrelationshipsandinterdependencyofartisanproduction.

9Zlatar,ZlatnoDobaSarajeva,p.129.10Kreševljakovi,EsnafiiObrtiuStaromSarajevu.

Chapter5

192

Figure 39: Division of precinct based on crafts. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.65.

Providing evidence to the collaborative and cooperative nature of artistic

productionwerethehistoricalphotographs,mostcommonlytakenbyGrabrijan,of

individualstores,storeownersandstreetlifeinBašaršija[Figure40].Thesefocused

on the intimate relationship between owners/sellers and the street, and were

meant tosuggest the important rolecraftsplayed in thedaily lifeof thecity.The

images are suggestive of the authenticity of local labour and production, and the

Chapter5

193

harmoniousrelationshipbetweenthetwo.Furtherbyshowingtheshopownerasa

productmakeraswellasaseller,allowedGrabrijanandNeidhardttodownplaythe

capitalist economic structure that underpinned Bašcaršija’s small scale business.

Indeedtheidentificationofthebusinessownerswiththecraftstheyproduce,and

not the profit they potentially make, provided grounds for reconciling the old

modes of production with socialist values. They particularly emphasised the

efficient nature of specialised labour that, in their reading, was inherent to this

modeofproduction:

Inthearšijatheproductionwasplannedandorganized.Thearšijawasmadeup

ofartisansspecialistseachofwhichwasallowedtomanufactureonlyonedefinite

articlesothatwemightcomparetheworksdoneherewiththatontheassembly

line.Thus,forexample,ariderwithhishorsehadtopass14differenttradesuntil

bothwerecompletelyoutfitted[Figure41].11

Figure40:‘Storebesidestore,handicraftbesidehandicraft’.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.66.

11 Original quote: ‘U aršija mogao je svaki od njih izradjivati samo odredjeni dio cjelokupneproizvodnjetako,daseradovauaršijimoguusporeditisaproizvodnjomnatekuojvrpci.Biloje,naprimjer, za izradu opreme vojnikog konja s konjanikom potrebno etrnaest zanata koji su jedandrugogdopunjavali.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.67&77.

Chapter5

194

Figure41:Bašaršijaasaproductionline.Source:Grabrijan& Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,p.66.

ByestablishinganewreadingofBašaršija’sorganisationalstructureasprefiguring

modern production methods, Grabrijan and Neidhardt were providing conceptual

grounds upon which their shifting interest in this old fabric could be validated as

beneficial toboth themulticulturalismof thenewstateand theassociateddesire

forefficientandcollectivesystemsofproduction.

Thevaluesofmonuments:abstraction,lightandscale

Inadditiontomaps,aerialimagesofBašaršijapresentedtheprecinctasacomplex

andhighlyintegratedentity.Thelocationsofthesignificantmonumentsweremade

more legible by superimposed outlines of their parameters. An additional sketch

presented the monuments as freeform objects extrapolated from their

surroundingcontext[Figure42].

Chapter5

195

Figure42:Monumentsandsignificantstructuresoftheoldprecinct. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.61.

It was the modernist fascination with form and the presentation of buildings as

isolated objects that characterised Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s analysis here. As

discussedinchaptertwo,inhisarticle‘LeCorbusierandSarajevo’(1936)Grabrijan

argued that the forms of the traditional Bosnian architecture presented

commonalitiesbetweenthelocalexpressionandtheuniversalqualitiesofmodern

architecture.Similarly,Neidhardt’sminingworkers’housing inZenicamadeuseof

the ‘elements’ of the traditional house, extending the argument that the existing

fabricpresentedformalqualitiesinaccordwiththemodernistvocabulary.

Chapter5

196

Buildingonthis,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernitydevotedan

entirechaptertotheanalysisoftheformalqualitiesoftheprecinct’smonuments.

Thesketchofthemainmosque,forexample,highlightedtherelevanceofitsform

tothesearchforauniversallanguageofmodernarchitecture.ReferencingAuguste

Choisy,whoseapproachtoarchitecturalhistoryGrabrijanhadstudied,thedrawing

ofGaziHusrefBeg’smosqueshowsthebuildingslicedopenandseenfromabove

[Figure43].12LikeChoisy’sdrawingofHagiaSophia,Beg’smosquewasshownnot

asamosquebutasadrawingofan‘ideaofamosque’[Figure44].13

Figure 43: Beg’s Mosque, crosssection and axonometric.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.83.

12 Grabrijan was aware of Choisy’s work as he published a textbook titledZgodovinaArhitekture,svobodno poChoisyju (Historic Architecture, Based on Choisy), by University of Ljubljana 1949. A.Choisy,HagiaSophia,fromHistoried’Architecture(1899);reprintedinA.Forty,WordsandBuildings,AVocabularyofModernArchitecture,Thames&Hudson,London,2004,p.23.Thesectionandaplandrawing[Figure43]werecreditedtoanengineer,I.Štrukelj.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.83–84.13Forty,WordsandBuildings,pp.23–24.

Chapter5

197

Figure 44: A. Choisy, Hagia Sophia, from Historied’Architecture (1899); reprinted in A. Forty, Words andBuildings,AVocabularyofModernArchitecture,Thames&Hudson,London,2004,p.23.

Describingthemosque’sinterior,theauthorsfocusedontheformalandstructural

qualities independently from the program. Their emphasis disassociated the

architectural work from its religious function. Further, the formal qualities of the

workwerealignedwithuniversalgeometricprinciplesratherthantheparticularities

ofreligiouspractices:

Thestructureisneitherlargenorsmall.Theinteriorisahollowcubecoveredwitha

calotte. The entrance lies in the longitudinal axis of the structure. The pulpit,

showingcleanstraightgeometrical lines, stands free…Sincethisarthasadopted

manforitsbasicyardstickweshallcallitherehumanscalearchitecture’.14

Presenting the mosque as an abstract form, free from its specific context, the

discussion presented monumentality of this structure as an outcome of diverse

spatial relationships. This mode of analysis continued with reference to other

themessuchasscale:

Beg’smosqueisahugestructurethattowersovertheprecinct.However,despite

itssize,thestructuregivestheimpressionofbeingaccessible.Itriseslikeapyramid


Chapter5

198

from the narrow streets, from a human scale to the scale of small shops, to the

basilica likehanstructures,uptothesmalldomesoffountains,andstillhigherto

thehugecentraldomeandtheminaret.15

In this reading the monument is presented as worthy of attention because it

exemplifies an ‘accessible’ monumentality, mediating the human scale and the

grand architectural gesture. Free hand interior sketches further elaborate the

interiorspatialsequenceandquality.Aninteriorsketchofthemosque,forexample,

describes the relationship between the sky light apertures and inner curve of the

dome,suggestingthedynamiccharacteroftheinteriorspace.[Figure45]

Figure 45: Lighting in Beg’s mosque. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way TowardsModernity,p.87.

The atmospheric quality implied in this sketch is characteristic of the broader

representational techniques employed in the book, whereby descriptive

orthographic drawings are complemented and contrasted with Neidhardt’s free

15Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.83–84.

Chapter5

199

hand sketches. The latter generally offer abstracted renderings of the studied

forms,championingtheircontemporaryrelevance.

This manner of formal abstraction is for instance evident in the sketch of the

mosque’s internal elements, the mihrab (qibla wall) and mimber (pulpit).16

Presentedinthreedimensionsthedrawingsemphasisedtheeffectsofdaylighton

thesearchitecturalelements.Theirpresence isherenotednotfortheir important

roles in religious ceremonies, but for their spatial and atmospheric impact on the

mosqueinterior,oncelit[Figure46].

Figure 46: ‘Mihrab, pulpit, carpet’, abstracting the space.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.284.

Theapproachdeliberatelyavoidedthereligioussignificanceattachedtothesebuilt

components,foregroundinginstead,theaestheticimportanceofabstractbeauty.In

elaboratingtheformalsophisticationofBašaršija’shistoricmonuments,Grabrijan

16AmihrabisawallnicheinamosqueindicatingthedirectionoftheKaabainMecca,andhencethedirection that Muslims should face when praying. Amimber is the pulpit in a mosque where thereligiousleaderImamstands.

Chapter5

200

and Neidhardt’s discussion in this text, displayed a radical departure from their

position in ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, where they critiqued the precinct for its

impoverishedstandardsandamenityanddismisseditscontemporaryrelevance.

Thevaluesofthetraditionalhouse(Bosanskakua)

Thediscussionofthetraditionalhousein‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’primarilyrelied

on external sketches of themahala fabric. InArchitectureofBosniaand theWay

Towards Modernity, the representational strategies became more extensive and

detailed.Theyincludedmeasureddrawingsanddiagramsofthelayouts,presenting

theinteriorworkingsascentraltounderstandingthetypology.

In the early years of socialist government Neidhardt avoided making explicit

reference to the traditional house, presenting his mining housing projects not in

relation to the traditionalmodelbut in termsof its capacity toaccommodate the

proletariat. With the official priority for architects described as providing ‘a roof

over the heads’ of the thousands made homeless by war, Neidhardt focused his

attention on developing a standardised housing solution and considered mass

production as the appropriate way of responding to the specifics of the Yugoslav

condition.17 His 1945 design for temporary homes proposed buildings made from

17 Štraus,NovaBosanskohercegovakaArhitektura1945–1975, p. 8. Despite collective efforts, thepostwar urban conditions of Sarajevo were improving more slowly than expected. According to1954censustherewerestillabout2,240familieswiththeirhomesleftinruins,and13,000familieswho livedinunacceptableconditions invariouskindsoftemporaryhousingstock.Asplansforthehousingdevelopmentlagged,atleast10,000familieswereinaneedofappropriateaccommodation.For further discussion see L. Zubevi, ‘Sarajevo (Area, population, employment, communications,traffic connections)’, in M. ankovi (ed.), Sarajevo u Socijalistikoj Jugoslaviji odOslobodjenja doSamoupravljanja,1950–1963(SarajevoinSocialistYugoslaviafortheLiberationtillSelfgovernance,1950–1963,IstorijskiArhivSarajevo,vol.2,Sarajevo,1988,pp.9–23.

Chapter5

201

‘bent cane sticks’, a system that would provide efficient, cheap construction

appropriate for a country founded on guerrilla resistance. Importantly, such

structureswerefreefromhistoricalassociation[Figure47].18

Figure 47: Neidhardt’s proposal for temporary shelters,1945.Source:Kapetanovi, ‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.269.

Presenting a significant shift in attitude, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way

TowardsModernityidentifiedthetraditionalhomeasavaluablemodelforhousing

withinthenewcityfabric.Underaseriesofheadings,includingthe‘Organisationof

dwelling spaces’, ‘Furnishingandutensils’, ‘Sanitary installations’and ‘Methodsof

construction’, the discussion offered the house as a model of rational,

contemporary living. Numerous plans and sections, diagrams and analytical

drawingsidentifiedtherelevanceofthisbuildingtypetothecontemporarysociety.

18Kapetanovi,‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’.

Chapter5

202

ThepragmaticsofBosanskakua:thesecularvaluesandrationalgroundingofthetraditionalhouse

Referencetotraditionalarchitecturaltypes,GrabrijanandNeidhardtargued,when

approachedthroughdialecticalanalysis,allowedfortheseparationofthe‘positive

fromnegative’andpresentedacriticalconceptualdevicefordevelopingnewideas.

Accordinglyreference to the traditionalhouse, theyclaimed,offeredaproductive

modelforintegratingthepositivevaluesoftheoldfabricandthatofthenew.

Ofcentralimportancewastherecognitionofthehouse’sorganicdevelopment.This

ideawasschematically illustrated inadrawing titled the ‘Embryonicdevelopment

ofanoldhouseinSarajevo’[Figure48].Thehouse’sinternallayoutwaspresented

as an outcome of progressive permutations, from simple to complex basicroom

arrangementsovertime.Usingtheanalogyofstonefruit,NeidhardtandGrabrijan

identifiedthehajat(anteroom)asthepipandthehalvat(room)asthesurrounding

flesh. The terms ‘embryonic development’ in the title of their drawing suggested

that this simple addition of spaces within the house aligned with the biological

developmentofalivingcell.19

19AversionofthisdiscussionwaspresentedinD.Ali,‘Theroleofrationalandscientificargumentsinthepromotionofideologythrougharchitecture’,inF.G.Leman,A.J.Ostwald,A.Williams(eds.)Innovation,InspirationandInstruction:NewKnowledgeinArchitecturalSciences,Proceedingsofthe42ndAnnualConferenceontheAustralianandNewZealandArchitecturalScienceAssociation(ANZASca),Newcastle,Australia,2628November2008,pp.161168.

Chapter5

203

Figure 48: Embryonic development of an old house inSarajevo. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.166.

Thisideawasreinforcedbythedrawing’sfocusonthehouseplanasthekeyfactor

initstransformationfromhajatintohall.Analogoustobiologicaldevelopmentfrom

singlecell to multicell organisms, the simple oneroom traditional house was

transformed into a multifunctional family home, an expansion presented as a

natural and organic process. Framed within an evolutionary paradigm, the

discussionpresentedarationalyetapoliticalinterpretationofthelayout.Thisview,

inturn,offeredanalternativetothemorecommonassociationofthehousewith

thesocioeconomicpositionoftheMuslimelitethathistoricallyinhabitedit.

Chapter5

204

In addition to the lengthy discussion of the functional and pragmatic values of

architectureandbuiltfabric,thechaptersonthehousealsoaddressedculturaland

everyday practices associated with its interiors. A series of scaled drawings

presentedaninventoryofhouseholditemsandutensils[Figure49];groundedinan

anthropologicalapproach,thedrawingshighlightedthedelicateanddetailednature

ofobjectsforeverydayuse.Theirsimplicityoverusefulnessimpliedtheirrelevance

totheneedsofcontemporarydwelling.

Figure 49: Furnishings and utensils of a traditional house.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.204–05.

Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s discussion of the Bosnian house served to support the

government’s increasing interest inopeningtheprivate interiorsofthetraditional

housetogeneralpublic.20InadeclarationpassedbytheNationalCommitteeofthe

20 Numerous new institutions were established and new laws passed that aimed to preserve andmaintain the nation’s material heritage. In July 1945, the law for the Protection of Cultural and

Chapter5

205

Liberation of Yugoslavia in February 1945, the state claimed responsibility to

‘protect all objects of artistic and scientific value, that included, (but was not

restrictedto)publicmonuments,sculptures,librariesandarchives…’21Byextending

an understanding of heritage beyond major monuments, a context for a more

focusedapproachtoheritageprotectionwasestablished.TheMuseumofSarajevo

(MuzejGradaSarajeva),forexample,whichwasfoundedin1949,defineditsmain

purposeas‘assembling,studying,preserving,publicisingandpresentingthesocial,

economicandculturalhistoryofSarajevo’.22Itsethnographiccollection,comprising

items of ‘domestic, craft and factory production’, was intended to illustrate the

‘materialandspiritualcultureofthecity’.23Withinit,thetraditionalorthe‘Turkish’

house, its interiors and domestic items, played a significant role. The Museum of

Sarajevo includedadioramaofaMuslimfamily ina traditionalhomesetting,and

the ethnological collection of the Zemaljski Museum was updated to include a

similardisplay.PlacedinrelationtogovernmentinitiativesstudiessuchasGrabrijan

andNeidhardt’s,thesedisplaysprovidedthenecessarylinksbetweenthematerials

collected by institutions and their relevance to the contemporary society.

Architecture of Bosnia and theWay TowardsModernity incorporated sketches of

internal layouts of numerous historic homes in the city recently opened to the

NaturalHeritage(ZakonozaštitispomenikakultureandprirodnihrijetkostiuBosnia IHercegovini)wasintroduced.Itwasfollowedbyadditionallawsdesignedtoprotectheritageitemsunderthreat.The Institute for Research and Protection of Cultural Monuments and Natural Resources startedoperating independently in 1947 (Zemaljski Zavod za Zaštitu I Nauno Prouavanje SpomenikaKulture i prirodnih rijetkosti BiH). Serdarevi,Pravna zaštita kulturnohistorijskog naslijedjaBiH, p.35. Also see N. Šipovac, Kultura u Socijalistikoj Republici Bosni i Hercegovini (The culture of theSocialistRepublicofBosniaandHercegovina),NISPOslobodjenje,Sarajevo,1976.21Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.37.22 Vodi krozMuzej Grada Sarajeva (Guide Through the Museum of the City of Sarajevo), MuzejgradaSarajevo,Sarajevo,1976,p.5.23VodikrozMuzejGradaSarajeva,pp.17–21.

Chapter5

206

public [Figure 50 & Figure 51].24 Combined with an extensive collection of

Grabrijan’sunpublishedprimaryresearchonthetraditionalhouse,thediscussionof

theconceptualandphysicalfoundationsofSarajevo’soldhomesofferedtoprovide

thegroundsfortheirintegrationwithinthenewandmoderncity.

Figure50:Neidhardt’sdrawingofSvrzo’shouse;layoutandcross section. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.183.

24 Vodi kroz Svrzinu kuu (Guide Through Svrzo’s House), Muzej Grada Sarajeva, Sarajevo 1976.Svrzo’shousebecameapropertyoftheMuseumoftheCityofSarajevo(MuzejGradaSarajeva) in1952;by1953itwasopenedtothepublicasamuseumhouse.

Chapter5

207

Figure 51: Inner courtyard and a room in Svrzo’s house(Svrzinakua),openedtothepublicin1953.Source:MuzejGrada Sarajeva, Stambena Kultura Starog Sarajeva, DES,Sarajevo.http://www.muzejsarajeva.ba/content/view/37/52/lang,en/

Transformingreligiousintosecularvalues

Inanattempt toavoidadiscussionconcerningthe impactof religiouspracticeon

thespatialconfigurationofthetraditionalhouse,GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sanalysis

deliberatelypresentedtheinteriorinpragmaticterms.Thisapproachisforexample

evident in their description of treatment and frequency of the ‘sanitary areas’.

Termed abdesthana, these spatial alcoves were associated with each individual

room and traditionally facilitated the Muslim practice of ablution (abdest)

proceeding daily prayers [Figure 52].25 The authors interpreted the multiple

abdesthana as indicative of the superior hygienic nature of the traditional house.

The religious rituals crucial to the logic of this spatial organisation were however

overlooked. Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s desire to retain abdesthana in the

25Inrelationtothediscussionof‘wetareas’GrabrijanandNeidhardtalternatetheterms‘banjica’(usuallyrelatedtoaslightlylargerwetarea)andabdesthana(smalleralcovesusuallywithinalargerroom).


Chapter5

208

contemporary domestic space was described not as the promotion of religious

practice, but as reflective of ‘the culture’s high standard of living’.26 This

interpretation is suggestive of their determined effort to secularise the domestic

house,presentingitasrelevanttotheirvisionforacontemporarysocialisthome.

Figure 52:Abdesthana andbanjica space inSvrzo’shouse.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.138.

A similar approach was taken in relation to the division of internal spaces into

‘men’s and women’s houses’. Contradicting their earlier interpretations of the

femaleinteriorastheexoticcoreofthehouse,theynowattributedthisreadingto

somewhatnaiveanduninformedforeignvisitors.Theywrote:‘Europeansareprone

toregardtheharemasahotbedofcarnalpleasures,whereasinrealityitisnothing

butthatpartofthehousewhich isoccupiedbythefamily’.27Withoutmentioning

thehistoricalorreligiousreasonsgoverningthedivisionofthehousealonggender


Chapter5

209

lines, the authors reframed the centre core as private family quarters. The

expansive layoutof theground floorwasalsonotpresented inrelationtogender

separation,butratherinitsresemblanceto‘iconsofmodernhousing’[Figure53].28

Figure 53: ‘Modernity of the traditional house’s interior’,erzelezhouse.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.208.

Ultimately it was the framing of the traditional house within the modern and

rationalvaluesofthesocialistgovernmentthatallowedGrabrijanandNeidhardtto

negotiate Muslim culture within the Marxist search for universal culture. Making

use ofGrabrijan’searly writings,whichconnected theBosnianhousewithhouses

designed by Le Corbusier, the book presented numerous drawings that offered

visualproofofthemodernityoftraditionalforms.Thesedrawingsincludedacross

section that identified an efficient passiveventilation system in a generic two

storeyhousedesign;andasketchofthekitchenarea,whichshowedthebenefitsof

goodinternalorganisationtotheoverallefficiencyofthedesign[Figure54].


Chapter5

210

Figure 54: Modernity of the traditional home: crossventilationandaninteriorofamutvak(women’skitchen)oftheDjerdjelesfamilyhouse.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity,p.208.

The authors’ emphasis on the building type’s organisation, their discussion of its

development and the documentation of the house’s architectural qualities was

presented as a search for universal values in the existing fabric. The relationship

betweenspecificculturalandreligiousvalues–inthiscasetheconnectiontoIslam

andsocialism’s search for itsown ideologicalgrounding–waspresentednotasa

clash of disparate identities, but as what political theorist Ernesto Laclau has

describedas‘apartofanallembracingandepochalstrugglebetweenuniversality

Chapter5

211

and particularism’.29 In this instance, the specific cultural and religious values

attachedtoIslamandtoMuslimidentitywereincludedwithinthebroadersearch

forYugoslavculture.Asaresult,itwasnolongerpossibletodifferentiatebetween

the particularism of traditional architecture and the universalising notions of

modern architecture. However as Laclau has suggested the problematic aspect of

Marxist rejection of the relationship between particularity and universality is that

the ‘universal had found its body, but this was still the body of a certain

particularity’.30Bynegatingthedifferencesbetweentheuniversalvaluespromoted

by socialism and the traditional values embedded in the house, Grabrijan and

Neidhardtuniversalisedthehouse’sparticularity.

TheemotionalvaluesattachedtoBosanskakua

Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s analysis of the traditional house also extended to the

impact of this accommodation on the psychological mood of the inhabitant. The

socialistinterestinthistopicwaswellknowntoNeidhardtthroughhisinvolvement

inthepropagandaeffortsof‘manifestation’architecture.ArchitectssuchasHannes

Meyer considered that building is ‘a factor in mass psychology’, and promoted

certainapproaches,suchas intensifyingtherawqualityofmaterials,asnecessary

tacticsusedinadvancingtheMarxistagenda.31InhisÜbermarxistischeArhitektur,

Meyer argued that ‘the elements in a building that have a telling psychological

effect (poster area, loudspeaker, light dispenser, staircase, colour, etc.) must be

29 E. Laclau, ‘Universalism, particularism and the question of identity’, in J. Rajchman (ed.), TheIdentityinQuestion,Routledge,NewYork,1995,p.97.30Laclau,‘Universalism,particularismandthequestionofidentity’,p.97.31K.M.Hays,‘DiagrammingtheNewWorld,orHannesMeyer’s“Scientization”ofarchitecture’,inP.Galison&E.Thompson(eds),TheArchitectureofScience,MITPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1999,p.246.

Chapter5

212

organicallyintegrated’intodesign,asthoseeffects‘accordwithourmostprofound

insightsintothelawsofperception’.32

Inhis1937article‘Turkishhouse, itssourcesandprinciples’,Grabrijanhadargued

fortheconnectionbetweentheemotionalvaluesofpeopleandthespatialqualities

of the houses they inhabit.33 However, in the discussion of this relationship in

‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’ he and Neidhardt equated the emotional with the

sexual, presenting the house as an enclosure that encapsulates the man’s power

and his dominance over women. Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards

Modernity underplays these sexual references, returning to Grabrijan’s earlier

position, which highlighted the house’s capacity to care for the emotional well

beingitsinhabitants.

Thedictionary:integratingthepragmaticsandpoetics

Concluding thediscussiononthecapacityof theheritage fabric toprovidespatial

prototypes useful in the development of modern architecture of socialism was a

table of 24 sketches accompanied by individual, succinct and directive captions

[Figure 55]. The table presented a summary of the ‘positive’ values identified in

theiranalysis.34

32Hays,‘DiagrammingtheNewWorld,orHannesMeyer’s“Scientization”ofarchitecture’,p.246.33 D. Grabrijan, ‘Turska kuaOsnove i porijeklo’ (Turkish house, its roots and origins), in D. eli,GrabrijaniSarajevo,pp.37–43.34Forarelateddiscussionofethnographicandarchitecturalstudiesofthe‘Algerianhouse’andtheprototypes that emerged, see Z. Çelik, Urban Forms and Colonial Confrontations, Algiers UnderFrenchRule,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,1997,pp.87–113.

Chapter5

213

Figure 55: The city, aršija, mahala, house, 24 sketches.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.56–57.

Chapter5

214

For example, the caption to the sketch no. 1 referred to the openness of the

suburban layouts of mahala, as ‘a neighbouring unit in a contemporary sense’.

Likewise,thecaptiontothesketchno.15referredtothelayoutofinternalspaces

as ‘themeanderandtheatrium–thetwofundamentalforms’.Mostsignificantly,

subtitlessuch‘Koranproclaimedneighbourliness–nexttoAllahthoushalllovethe

neighbour most’ made explicit the capacity of new urban forms to absorb the

former values, thus translating specific references to Muslim families into secular

valuesrelevanttoall.35

Thenotetothedrawingofanurbanmahala layout,thecaptiontothesketchno.

13,explained its relevance in termsof ‘contemporary urbanismofmicro regions’.

The caption to a typical site of suburban blocks stated that the three aspects of

‘house, courtyard [avlija], and garden’ were the ‘most essential elements of

[contemporary] urbanism’.36 These images, and associated short captions,

presented a powerful summary of Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s analysis; making

explicit their argument for the contemporary relevance of Ottoman architectural

precedents.

In developing these propositions, Neidhardt proposed a system of modular

elements titled as ‘dictionary’. Unlike the freehand sketches in Figure 55, which

commonly includedthebuilt form,thecontextandtheoccupants,the‘dictionary’

sketchesformalisedtherelationshipbyattachingathreedimensionalshapetoeach

35Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.56–57.36Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.56–57.

Chapter5

215

concept. The drawing titled ‘Uptodate architectonic dictionary alphabet of the

carpettown’ presented a series of threedimensional building typologies as a

dictionary for new architectural forms [Figure 56]. The intent was stated in the

subtitle: ‘The glossary complied in an attempt to find a new vocabulary based on

theexperienceofthepast’.37

Figure 56: Neidhardt’s ‘Uptodate architectonic dictionaryalphabet of the carpettown’. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way TowardsModernity,p.324.

Grabrijan and Neidhardt suggested that using these forms would allow for the

integrationoftheoldfabric’svaluesintonewdevelopments.Thedictionaryoffered

tocaptureanimportantcorrelationbetweenthephysicalqualitiesofrooms–their

depth,shapeandleveloflighting–andtheemotionalandpsychologicaleffectthey

haveonpeople.NeidhardtandGrabrijanarguedthatcombiningdictionaryentries

in mathematical equations could provide successful and useful formulas for new

creations. For example, Neidhardt presented his ‘design idea’ for a pavilion for


Chapter5

216

picnics, or teferi, as an architectural solution that combined the ‘relationship to

nature’,withthe‘rightofview’,the‘waterasthesoul’anda‘righttosun’.38Many

other architectural propositions presented in the bookArchitectureofBosniaand

theWayTowardsModernitystatedtheirrelianceonsuchformulas.Theuseofthe

‘dictionary’ofBosnianOrientalarchitecturalexpression,theyclaimed,providedfor

thetranslationofcollectivememoryimbeddedintraditionalhousetothemodern

context.

Thedictionaryrepresentedasubstantialextensionof‘elementalanalysis’presented

in ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’. As with the ‘elemental analysis’, the dictionary

prototypes reference the formalandaestheticqualitiesofhistoricalbuildings,but

only inthe lattertheauthorsattemptedthemoreambitioustaskof incorporating

the emotional and psychological factors. Their reliance on a seemingly rational

argument in pursuit of emotional, arguably subjective, impact allowed them to

absorblocalIslamicculturalreferencesintothe‘civilisingmission’ofthecommunist

government. Most importantly and despite the authors’ previous insistence on

divesting the urban form of religious meaning, the spatial constructs in the

‘dictionary’ included explicit reference to Islam albeit muted by the rational

framework of thisdevice.Theurban fabricofBašaršija, formerlyassociatedwith

thecolonialandfeudalsociety,becamerepresentativeofthearchitecturallanguage

associatedwiththenewsocialistsociety.

38 The formula was presented as a design idea equalling a series of concepts:IP=ODP+PNV+VDN+PNS+UP+ANDR+KK+KNS+JS. Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.333.

Chapter5

217

Demonstrating the capacity of the traditional house to accommodate significant

socialchangeswasadrawingofayounggirlwithinthedomesticsetting[Figure57].

Thesketchshowsagirlathomeholdingaviolin.Thepictureofamosqueonthe

wallandthelatticewindowscreenssuggeststheinteriorofaMuslimhome,butthe

scene is suggestive of a contemporary period. The young girl holds a Western

instrument,andsheseemsfreeandunconstrainedwithin theenvironmentof the

traditional home. In contrast to the static and disengaged images of covered

womenin‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’,theyounggirlshownhereencapsulatesthe

societalchangebroughtaboutbythenewsocialstructures.

Figure 57: Neidhardt’s illustration of a traditional interior.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.230.

Conclusion:theuniversalandtheparticularoftheBosnianOrientalhouse

Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s ‘dictionary’ of Bosnian Oriental architecture referenced

specificformalrelationshipspresentinthetraditionalarchitectureofBašaršija.In

this interpretation the traditional house embodied the socialist objectives of

rationalism and pragmatism. This emphasis informed the systematic character of

Chapter5

218

GrabrijanandNeidhardt’sresearchandresultingpropositions.Whiletheirformula

basedapproachcouldeasilybedismissedasascepticalexercise inadvocatingthe

rational values and scientific approach embraced by the ruling Communist Party,

their integration of emotional values appears as a genuine effort to appeal to a

broadersenseofwellbeingintermsthatwereacceptabletothesocialistideology.

Neidhardt’sintegrationofemotionalvaluesintheotherwiseformulaicapproachto

designfavouredbythesocialistgovernmentshiftedtherelevanceoftheOttoman

built heritage in the creation of a socialist architecture. It provided a model for a

modernarchitecturethatallowedtheIslamicheritagetobepresentandcontribute

toa‘synthetic’Yugoslavia.

The visual and theoretical propositions developed in the dictionary, provided the

foundationforanumberofNeidhardt’sdesignpropositions.Theseincludedurban

proposals for the town of Zenica (1950–54), the development of the suburbs of

Grbavica(1953)andaproposalforamonumenttoMarxandEngels.Inapplyingthe

Bosnian Oriental formulas to the development of the ‘design idea’ for these

projects, the meaning and significance attached to traditional buildings was fully

transformed. Bosnian Ottoman history was no longer placed in the distant and

controversialpast,butwasseenasapowerfultooltocreateanew.

Chapter6TransformingtheCity:theNewaršijaastheThemeParkofSocialismandtheDesignoftheParliamentHousePrecinct

Neidhardt’s active academic and public profile grew with his continuing

involvement in architectural and urban competitions and design proposals. From

thepublicationofArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernityuntilthe

late 1970s he participated in more than 30 large urbanplanning competitions,

almost 100 designs for individual buildings, and more than 20 smallscale design

idea competitions. Neidhardt maintained that the ‘dictionary’ of Bosnian Oriental

design principles underwrote all his architectural propositions, regardless of

differencesinthescale,contextandtypologyoftheprojects.

Thischapteranalysestwoproposalsdevelopedover1950–55:hisproposalforthe

transformation of the business sector of Bašaršija into the ‘New aršija cultural

centre of socialist society’ and his winning design entry for the Bosnia and

HercegovinaParliamentbuildinganditssurrounds.1IntheproposalforNewaršija,

theprinciplesofBosnianOrientalallowed for the reorganisationofexisting fabric

intoasocialistthemepark.InthecaseoftheParliamentprecinctatMarindvor,the

BosnianOrientalwasvestedwiththecapacitytoextendbeyondthespecificsofthe

1BothprojectsareincludedinGrabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity. The project’s title New aršija refers to the business section (aršija) of the Bašaršijaprecinct.

Chapter6

220

old fabric and was presented as an abstract force capable of informing the new

architecture.Thischapterdemonstratesthatbygroundingsuchdiverseprojectson

the principles of Bosnian Oriental, Neidhardt could present this architectural and

cultural expression as capable of negotiating competing national discourses while

contributingtotheconstructionofsocialistideology.

Bašaršijaandsocialisturbanpolices

Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s engagement with the precinct of Bašaršija extended

over 20 years. First discussed by Grabrijan in 1930s and then negotiated by

Neidhardt in his numerous design proposals, the precinct dominated their urban

explorations.Indeed,asalreadydiscussed,theoldtownstructuredthecity’surban

debatesbothasanurbanentityandaplaceofsymbolicsignificance[Figure58].

Figure 58: Bašaršija precinct during the socialist period.Plan indicating the chronological development of theprecinct:A)GaziHusrefBeg’smosque;B)Orthodoxchurch;C) Jewish synagogue; D) Brusa bezistan; E) Rustem pashaBezistan; F) Czar’s mosque; G) Town Hall. Originallypresented in JSAH, vol. 51, no. 1, March 1991, drawingadjusted from the map used in A. Bejti, Stara Sarajevskaaršija–juer,danasIsutra.

Chapter6

221

However, despite the public debates and the controversies that surrounded

Bašaršija, government policies rarely admitted the impact of nationalist tensions

on such city debates. Only a few indirect references indicated the difficulties

Neidhardtfacedinintegrating‘Islamic’culturalreferencesintohisexperimentation

with modernism. His academic assistant Jelica Kapetanovi, for example, briefly

alludestotheproblematicpositionofIslamicculturalheritageinNeidhardt’swork.

DescribinghisongoinginvolvementwithBašaršija,shewrote:

[The] old parts of the city built during the Ottoman period disturbed certain

intellectual circles close to the regime, which basically denied any cultural

specificity or integrity of Bosnia. Their views on buildings such as the mosque,

medresaandTurkishgraveyardsweretaintedbythecenturyoldbitternessagainst

theoldcolonisers.2

It was for those reasons that, initially, the new post–World War Two communist

government perceived the precinct as nothing but a burden of the past, and

proposedplanstodemolishsignificantpartsofBašaršija.In1945,theCityPeople

Committee formed a ‘demolition board’ to take charge of the clearance. It was

responsibleforthedestructionof246smallshopsoveraperiodoffiveyears.With

declarationssuchas ‘ourhistory isnot inoldtimbershutters’, ‘theshopshaveno

2 Original quote: ‘Stari dijelovi grada, izgradjeni u osmanskom periodu smetali su u ono vrijemepojedinim intelektualcima bliskim režimu koji su u osnovi negirao svaku posebnost I kulturniintegritet Bosne. Kroz gledanje na objekte džamija, medresa I turskih groblja provejavala je Ivjekovna gorina porobljenog naroda. Naprotiv, ti objekti zadivljavali su došljake, intelektualce izdrugihsredinakojisusetunastaniliIdjelovali.TakvisubiliVancaš,Pospišil,Grabrijan,Najdhardt…Oni su svaki na svoj nain u ovim bosanskim gradjevinama vidjeli jedan suptilni orijentalni duh Iestetiku, izazov za prouavanje, ouvanje I poticaj za novo stvaralaštvo’. Kapetanovi, ‘ThearchitecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt’,p.248.

Chapter6

222

historic or cultural value’, and they are only a ‘fire hazard’ and a ‘source of

infection’,thegovernmentjustifiedtheseplanningdecisions.3

Despite efforts by the Institute for the Protection of Natural and Built Heritage

(ZemaljskiZavodzaZaštituSpomenikaKultureIPrirodnihRijetkosti),establishedin

1945tohalttheclearances,significantpartsoftheprecinctweredemolished.4The

individual buildings affected included Gazi Isabegova tekija (a lodge of a dervish

order) and amusafirhana (inn), possibly the oldest structure of its kind in Bosnia

andHercegovina,builtin1462.5ThebuildingofthetekijaintheareaofBendbaša,

which was surrounded by a graveyard that was in use until 1924, was under a

heritage protection order when it was demolished in 1957.6 That is, it was a

3A.Bejti,StaraSarajevskaaršija– juer,danas i sutra (OldSarajevoaršija–Yesterday,Today,Tomorrow),GradskiZavodzaZaštituIuredjenjeSpomenikaKulture,Sarajevo,1969,p.61.4 The demolition process was finally slowed down due to significant protests by prominent cityfigures. While Neidhardt was ultimately among those who objected to the precinct’s destruction,initially he was a ‘committee’ member in charge of the demolition. On the 29 April 1949, acommittee (Komisija pri Gradskoj upravi) was formed to oversee the demolition process. Itsmembersincluded:engineerEmanuelŠamanekDirectorofUrbanDevelopment,engineerMuhamedKadi, professorHamdijaKreševljakovi,DrVlado Jokanovi,DirectorofZemaljski Zavodzazaštituspomenikakulture,engineerJurajNeidhardtandVeraKrstiGaleb.V.KrstiGaleb‘Cultureandartsintheearlyyearsofpostwardevelopment’(KulturaIumjetnostuprvimposlijeratnimgodinama),inM.ankovi,SarajevouSocijalistikoj JugoslavijiodOslobodjenjadoSamoupravljanja,1945–1950,vol.I,p.478.5DemolishedpartsoftheprecinctincludedthesouthsidefromtheareaofSaraitoKazazStreetontheeast,numeroussmallshopsofUpperandLowerTrgovke,almostallshopsthatsurroundedBrusabezistan,theeasternendofKolobarahan,alltheshopsandstoresbetweentheMilosObiliaStreetandSagrdjija.Kostovi,Sarajevoizmedjudobrotvorstvaizla,p.135.6TheofficialwebsiteoftheKomisija/PovjerenstvozaOuvanjeNacionalnihSpomenika(CommissiontoPreserveNationalMonuments)presentsanoverviewofthehistoricaldevelopmentofIsabegovatekija(zawija).In1878,theAustro–Hungarianauthoritiestemporarilybannedthemusafirhana,andthus also the tekija, from operating. The tekija, however, remained in use until 1924, and wasmaintainedfromtherevenueofvakif(patron)FadilpašaŠerifovi.In1941,claimingthatitneededto regulate traffic, the government of the Independent State of Croatia issued plans for the area,proposingthedemolitionofIsabeg'stekija.ThecommencementofWorldWarTwopreventedtheplansbeingcarriedout.In1950,theexecutivecommitteeoftheSarajevoCityPeople'sCommitteeresolvedtocarryoutanewregulatoryplan,whichagainproposedthedemolitionofthetekija.Thisbegan on 23 June 1950 and, despite protests, the tekija was demolished in 1957; its foundationswerefilledwithlayersofsoiltoregulateandleveltheterrain.Thecommissionfoundthatgravesofsomeleadingfiguresfromthetekijawerecoveredbydemolitiondebris,withnorecordofwhether

Chapter6

223

registered monument, documented and described in literature and in receipt of

somefundingforrestorationearlyon.Itsdestructiondemonstratedthelowregard

inwhichheritagewasheldbysocialistauthorities.7

Government efforts to document the heritage precinct and identify structures

worthy of preservation paralleled the demolition. In 1949, the government called

forthesubmissionofafullreportontheprecinct’sstate,whichwouldrepresent‘a

scientificelaborationofSarajevoaršija’.8Withinthiscontextofthegovernment’s

search for the objective significance of individual buildings, Neidhardt’s proposal

begantomakeanimpactonurbanpolices.

In 1950, a new executive body, the City Committee (Gradski Odbor), was

established. Ithad the taskofputting together theoutcomesof thereport intoa

comprehensive study and historical record of the precinct.9 Neidhardt’s previous

plansfortheprecinctprovidedastartingpointforthebroaderdiscussion.By1953,

Neidhardt was in charge of team studying Bašaršija’s urban future. Among the

outcomesofthisstudywasasitemodelthatwasconsidereda‘masterpiece’,andit

becameoneofthecentralexhibits intheSarajevoCityMuseum,whichopenedin

or not the graves had been exhumed beforehand. For more information see the Commission toPreserveNationalMonumentswebsiteat:http://www.aneks8komisija.com.ba/main.php?id_struct=6&lang=1&action=view&id=2539;http://www.aneks8komisija.com.ba/main.php?id_struct=50&lang=4&action=view&id=25397Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.36.8 In February 1949, an administrative and executive body of the city committee (Gradski Odbor)calledforacompetition.In1951,thecommitteepronouncedHamdijaKreševljakovi’sstudy‘Historyof Sarajevo’ as the winning entry. KrstiGaleb ‘Culture and arts in the early years of postwardevelopment’,inankovi,SarajevouSocijalistikojJugoslavijiodOslobodjenjadoSamoupravljanja,1945–1950,vol.I,pp.477–78.9 The chapter on the old aršija presented various aspects of the study and included historicalimages, numerous sketches and annotated diagrams of the precinct. Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.60–109.

http://www.aneks8komisija.com.ba/main.php?id_struct=6&lang=1&action=view&id=2539

http://www.aneks8komisija.com.ba/main.php?id_struct=50&lang=4&action=view&id=2539

Chapter6

224

1954 [Figure 59].10 Neidhardt’s ongoing interest in using his studies of the old

precinctinhismodernistendeavoursfinallyappearedrealistic.

Figure 59: Model of Bašaršija. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way TowardsModernity,p.98.

Past and present reunited in theNew aršija project: a theme park of socialistBosnia

Designedin1953,theNewaršijaprojectproposedthattheoldOttomanprecinct

beredevelopedintoaregionalculturalcentre.11Neidhardtarticulatedthisproposal

inArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,andreliedonaseriesof

urban strategies that included massive demolition, selective restoration, the

10Themodelwasdonetothescaleof1:100;itcoveredanareaintheoldprecinctof500metresby500metressquare(model50mx50m).ThemodelmakerwasMrHuseinKarišik,withNeidhardtthearchitect in charge. KrstiGaleb ‘Culture and arts in the early years of postwar development’, inankovi,SarajevouSocijalistikojJugoslavijiodOslobodjenjadoSamoupravljanja,1945–1950,vol.I,p.478.11AversionofthisdiscussionwaspresentedinD.Ali&M.Gusheh,‘ReconcilingcompetingnationalnarrativesinsocialistBosniaandHerzegovina:Bašaršijaproject(1948–53)’,JournaloftheSocietyofArchitecturalHistorians,vol.58,no.1,March1999,pp.6–25.

Chapter6

225

introductionofnewstructuresandtheimportationofexistingstructuresfromthe

suburbs.ThemostprominentstructuresofBašaršijawouldbepreserved,agesture

accompanied by the clearing of small surrounding structures. Religious buildings

suchasGaziHusrefBeg’smosque,withthešadrvan(waterfountain),turbe(tomb)

andmedresa (religiousschool),aswellasothersignificantstructureswereamong

thoseselectedforpreservation.Clearedofthesurroundingfabric,themonuments

appearedisolated–objectsseveredfromtheeverydaylifeofthecity.Positionedin

large open areas and parks, these ‘jewels of the past’, as Neidhardt called them,

becamepowerfulremindersofthesuccessiveperiodsofBosnianhistory.Devoidof

their immediate context, the buildings became part of a cultural ‘theme park’

removedfromtheeverydaylifeofthecity[Figure60].

Thevast,openspaceprovidedbytheclearancesallowedNeidhardttoproposenew

connections, linking existing structures to each other as well as to the newly

proposed monuments to socialism. New vistas, configured to emphasise the

multicultural nature of Bašaršija, provided visual clues so that the visitor to New

aršijacouldeasily see thevariedreligious traditions ofBosnia.Within thisurban

framework, the old precinct was presented asa most suitable place for collective

representation:

Thereisnodoubtthatitwouldnotonlybedesirablebutalsofeasibletoremould

the aršija located at the crossroads of the Balkans into the cultural centre of

Bosnia and Herzegovina. In cultural centres, records are kept of traditions which

enlightenfuturegenerationsandrepresentthesuperstructureofacivilization.12

12Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.111&136.

Chapter6

226

Figure60:ViewoftheBašaršijaproposal.Source:Grabrijan& Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaand theWayTowardsModernity,p.139.

Consistentwith socialist policy, Neidhardt’s proposal ignored the principles of the

vakuf.13 In 1946, the socialist government, through the Land Nationalisation law

13GaziHusrefbeg’sbezistan(marketplace)wasbuilttotheeastofTašlihan.Thetwobuildingswereconnected,enablingtradersinthebezistantomakedirectcontactwiththemerchantsfromVeniceandDubrovnikbasedintheTašlihan.Thebezistanwasusedforitsoriginalpurposeuntil1879.ThecommencementofWorldWarOneprevented thebuildingbeingentirelydemolished,althoughby

Chapter6

227

(Zakononacionalisaciji),reducedtheauthorityofthevakufandin1958thelawof

Nationalisation of Rental Properties and the development sites (Zakon o

nacionalizacijinajamnihzgradaIgraevinskogzemljišta)madetheauthorityofthis

institutionalmostnonexistent.14ThebreakbetweenOttomanpublicandreligious

institutions and the commercial units that formerly provided financial support

allowedthesebuildingstobecomefinancedandmanagedbythestate.Mostwere

leftunattendedorweresupposedlyhandedovertothestatewillingly.15The1965

Heritage preservation legislation recognised the relevance of ‘scientific and

technicalaspects’ofoldfabric,butreferredonlybrieflyto‘othervalues’,itsstated

main purpose being to protect all ‘important periods of history’, excluding the

Ottomanperiodasirrelevant.16

Referringtothefabricemptiedofitscontentanditscivicpurpose,Neidhardtstated

that ‘Tothesebuildingsof suchhistorical importance,asociopoliticalsignificance

should be added’.17 His utilitarian approach and focus on function echoed the

government initiative of finding new uses for old structures. Numerous historic

structuressuchastheGaziHusrefBeg’shamam (publicbath),mentionedinvakuf

1913muchofithadbeenpulleddowntoallowforthevakuf’sinitiativeofdevelopingtheTašlihansite.www.aneks8komisija.com.ba/main.php?id_struct=50&lang=4&action=view&id=285714Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.40.Paradoxically,alackoffundsalsopreventedthemodernisationandupgradingofthevakuf’ssites.Sufferingthisfatewasthe1939design competition for the New Tašlihan (Novi Tašlihan) business building, which remainedundeveloped.15Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.76.16Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.35.17 Original quote: ‘Da bi te muzejske vrijednosti bile što životnije, želimo im dodati još društvenopolitike. Istodobno emo optiki poveati utisak oko Begove džamije i Brusa bezistana saspomenikom NOB. Ne znamo naime zašto ne bi smjestili u aršiju u mauzolej NOB…’ Grabrijan &Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.111&137.

Chapter6

228

documents from 1535, were affected by this approach.18 Despite the hamam

historically providing a sacred space for abdest (ablution), Neidhardt proposed

convertingthebuildingintoawinecellarandrestaurant.Oblivioustotheimpactof

his proposal on the wider urban context, he rationalised his approach by stating

that ‘since the building is slightly sunk into the ground, the rooms on the ground

floorarecoolandwouldlendthemselvestobeingutilizedasacellarorawineshop,

andarestaurant’.19

Furthermore, in the New aršija proposal Gazi Husref Beg’s bezistan became a

national restaurant, the hanikah an ethnographic museum and the medresa a

library[Figure61&Figure62].20NeidhardtalsosuggestedconvertingBrusabezistan

to a museum of the socialist revolution.21 Presenting the picturesque qualities of

the heritage fabric as a rationale for his approach, he stated: ‘In this way, Bey’s

Mosque[asbackground]andtheBrusabezistanwouldmakeafinebackgroundfor

theNationalLiberationMemorial…’[Figure63].22

18Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.76.19Originalquote:‘Zgradajedaklekaostvorenazapivnicuustilunašihvinskihpodruma.Utubisvrhumogli iskoristiti i ‘koje’ na zapadnoj strani, koje se otvaraju prema Begovoj džamiji. Kod takvogpreuredjenjaunutrašnjihprostorijausavremenesvrhe,moralibibudnopaziti,davanjštinaneizgubisvoju historijsku vrijednost’. Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and theWay TowardsModernity,p.93.20Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.137.21 The selected artwork dealt with the themes of the revolution was done by recognisedrevolutionary artists. It included a sculpture of ‘Mother and child’, a scene from the NationalRevolution War; ‘Ploughing’, a scene from World War Two by Kostovi; ‘Mother’ by Meštrovi;‘Hostage’, a scene from the National Liberation Struggle by Baki; and a relief from the NationalLiberationWarbyMujezinovi.Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.120–37.22 Original quote: ‘Da bi te muzejske vrijednosti bile što životnije, želimo im dodati još društvenopolitike. Istodobno emo optiki poveati utisak oko Begove džamije i Brusa bezistana saspomenikom NOB. Ne znamo naime zašto ne bi smjestili u aršiju u mauzolej NOB…’ Grabrijan &Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.111&137.

Chapter6

229

Figure 61: The New aršija proposal: view of new artistsstudios above the Old Orthodox church (top and bottomleft);proposedchangeofGaziHusrefBeg’sbezistan intoabar(topright);aninteriorofthenewTownMuseumtobehousedintheformerSheriat(MuslimLaw)School.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.114.

Figure62:InteriorviewoftheproposedadaptationofBrusabezistan. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.56–57.

Chapter6

230

Figure 63: Proposal for the New Museum of RevolutionwithintheoldGaziHusrefBeg’sbezistanthatwouldincludeart celebrating ‘Liberation war’. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way TowardsModernity,p.126.

In regards to the more incontrovertibly religious buildings such as mosques,

Neidhardt’s proposal for New aršija honoured their original functions, although

theirindependentstatuswouldhavebeenalreadyjeopardisedbysocialistpolicies,

whichinsistedonsupervisionofreligiousactivities.Thegovernment’sstrictcontrol

limited them to the most essential daily services performed exclusively inside

religious buildings.23 The urban isolation proposed in the plan furthered social

segregation of religious communities and enhanced the spatial terms of their

marginalisation.

Aswellasreducingreligiousbuildingstosymbolicmonumentsandtopropertiesof

thestate,Neidhardt’sprojectintroducedanorganisationalprinciplemoresuitedto

23Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,p.76.

Chapter6

231

socialist rule and a Marxist view of history. Based on the belief ‘that historical

continuity was to be maintained at all costs,’ Bosnian history was portrayed as

linear and progressive, and displayed within Bašaršija’s redefined boundaries.24

Lowscale rows of shops, arcades and walkways wrapped around New aršija,

defining its new perimeter. A monumental portal marked the entrance to the

precinct. Utilising the same design presented in ‘Sarajevo and Its Satellites’, the

gateway was a threshold separating the Bašaršija district from the Austro–

Hungarianquarterandopeningvistastoanumberofmonumentsondisplay[Figure

64].

Figure 64: The proposed gate to the Bašaršija precinct.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.109.

24 W. Lesnikowski (ed.), East European Modernism, Architecture in Czechoslovakia, Hungary andPolandBetweenWars,1919–1939,Thames&Hudson,London,1996,p.10.

Chapter6

232

Passage through this gateway would mark the beginning of a journey that

demonstrated Bosnia’s history from prehistoric times through to the Illyrian, the

Bogumil and the Bosnian Oriental, culminating in the socialist era.25 The

representationoftheprehistoric,theIllyrianandtheRomanerasreliedprimarilyon

ancient archaeological finds categorised and displayed in the proposed museums.

These objects included ceramic artefacts, mosaics, costumes and decorative

elements.

The inclusion of Bogumil steci (gravestones) in the New aršija was aimed at

highlightingaperiodrepresentingBosniaasanindependentstate[Figure65].The

BosnianBogumil’sresistancetoboththeCatholicandtheOrthodoxChurchwas,as

discussed,commonlyassociatedwiththerebelliousnatureofBosnians.26

Figure 65: Proposed Bogumil gravestones in the precinct.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.113.

25AlthoughthedrawingofBašcaršija’sgatewayappearsasanopenertoNeidhardt’schapterontheNewaršijaproject,heborrowedthe imagefromthepartialanalysishemadeofBašcaršija inthe1940s.26 Referring to the 1950 Paris Universal Exposition, where steci represented the Bosniancontribution,Neidhardtstated:‘theworldwasimpressed[byBogumilheritage]…theyaretheprideof our people … [the] story of our distant and close past’. Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.112.

Chapter6

233

Contrary to the government position in Neidhardt’s proposal the Ottoman period

was represented through Bašaršija’s mosques, the existing graveyards and other

urbanremnants. Itwas tobeextendedby introducingrestoredresidentialhouses

fromthesuburbsandbytheconservationof isolatedstreetsthatrepresentedthe

craftgroups that onceoccupied Bašaršija. DeconstructingBosnian historic legacy

into its supposed constituent elements endorsed the presentation of different

periodsintheirvaryingrelevancetothecontemporarycontext.

Extending the theoretical and historical discussion presented in other chapters of

ArchitectureofBosniaandthewayTowardsModernity,Neidhardtstated:

We see in this development a consistent historical continuity: some architectural

creations,havingbecomeunnecessaryandantisocial,willgraduallydieout,others

will change as the new ones are being born, because they are demanded by

conditionsandthewayoflife.27

TheperiodofBosnia’shistorythatNeidhardtbelievedtobethemostrelevanttoits

currentstatewasclearlylocatedintheoldprecinct.Withhisfocusonarchitectural

formandnotthehistoriccontext,hewrote:

Feudal social structure [of theOttomans]and thewayof life in those timeshave

given us three fundamental architectural forms, the expression of three various

functions: the ‘ošak [corner]’, the dome and the minaret, i.e. cube, sphere and

cylinder.28

27 Original quote:’ Mi vidimo u tom razvoju logian historijski kontinuitet: neka arhitektonskaostvarenja, kaoekonomskenepotrebna i asocijalna,postepeno izumiru, drugase transformiraju,atrea, sasvim nova, se raaju, jer su uslovljena novin uslovima i nainom života’. Grabrijan &Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.322.28 Original quote :’Feudalna društvena struktura I tadašnji nain života dali su nam na poljuarhitektureuglavnomtrielementarnaoblika,kojisuproizašliiztrijurazliitihfunkcija:ošak,kubeimunaru.Daklekocku,polukugluivaljak.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,323.

Chapter6

234

Skilfully using aspects of previous arguments developed in collaboration with

Grabrijan, Neidhardt reminded the reader that it was thisvery similarity between

moderncubicformandOttomanarchitecturethatshouldbeappreciated:

Here we may find origins of cubism, a predecessor to modernarchitecture, since

theseverygeometricalbodiesarethefirstlettersofitsalphabet.Lookingatthese

geometrical figures in nature we automatically recognize that oriental, as well as

modernarchitecture,isbasedonthecontrastbetweentheseverityofgeometrical

bodiesandthegaietyofnature.29

Presented as pure geometric shapes of cubes, spheres and cylinders, the

monumentsofBašaršijawerenolongerconnectedtothepastbutdemonstrated

‘howthepositivevaluesofour inheritance–divanhana (veranda),doksat (porch),

meanderetc.–passimperceptiblyintomodernarchitecture’.30

Having redefined the role and function of existing buildings by stripping them of

historical context, Neidhardt’s plan emphasised new links between isolated

monumentsinBašaršija.ThepresenceofChristianandIslamicreligiousinstitutions

as‘sparklingjewelsofthepast’enabledareadingofBašaršijaasaplacewhereall

culturesand religionswereunited.Numeroussketchesshowedviewsof churches

and mosques in close proximity. The sketch of the entry gate showed the

architecture of Austro Hungarian period located just outside the precinct of

religiousandhistoricmonuments[Figure64].Thesketchesofinteriorsofproposed

29Originalquote:‘Upravonaovommožemotemeljitiporijeklokubizma–likovnogpokretapreteumodernog arhitekture, jer su upravo ova primarna geometrijska tjela poetna slova njegoveabecede.’Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,323.30Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.330.Neidhardtlinked his interest in a geometric and elemental approach to his time in Le Corbusier’s office. Forfurther discussion of Le Corbusier’s use of primary forms see, A. M. Vogt,LeCorbusier, theNobleSavage,TowardanArchaeologyofModernism,MITPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1998,pp.153–82.

Chapter6

235

restaurant conveniently included the Orthodox Church and the minarets of Beg’s

mosqueinthebackground[Figure66].

Figure 66: Interiors of proposed restaurant ‘Aeroplane’.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.294.

The plans shown and the crosssection through the precinct shown in Figure 67

extend the notion of diversity further. The latter included domestic dwellings,

religiousbuildings,thenewscientificinstitutionsandtheformerTownHall,nowa

library, together highlighting the architectural and cultural diversity of Bašcaršija

withinthecontextofthecity.

Chapter6

236

Figure67:LongitudinalsectionthroughthenewBašaršija.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.120–21.

Chapter6

237

Neidhardt’s purpose for including all the main religious institutions was clear. By

extending the area of Bašaršija to the south, he incorporated the existing St

Anthony (Sveti Ante) Catholic Church of the Franciscan Order, located on the left

bankof theriver,31 resulting in theNewaršija featuringbuildingsofall themain

religiousgroups:theJewishsynagogue,theCatholicandOrthodoxchurchesandthe

Muslim mosque. Tourists and visitors would be presented with an exceptional

opportunity to see the places of worship of the main religious faiths – their

proximitytooneanothergivingtheimpressionthatthesocialist‘brotherhoodand

unity’wasbasedonsolidculturalfoundations[Figure68].

31TheoldCatholicchurchinBašcaršijawasburntdowninthefireof1697.TheAustro–HungariansbuiltanewRomanCatholiccathedral.StAnthonyCatholicChurchwasdesignedbyJosipVancašandbuiltintheperiod1911–13outsidetheoldprecinct.ForfurtherdiscussionofthenewcathedralandVancaš’sdesignsseeKurto,‘ArhitekturaSecesijeuSarajevu’.

Chapter6

238

Figure68:PlanoftheNewaršijaproposal:A)GaziHusrefBeg’smosque;B)Orthodoxchurch;C)Jewishsynagogue;D)Catholic churchofStAnthony;E) new graveyard; F) Czar’smosque; G) new public/cultural buildings; H) newresidential area for cultural workers. Source: Grabrijan &Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way TowardsModernity,p.117.

Newaršijaobjectsandmonumentswereintendedonlytobeviewedinrelationto

eachother,orasbackdrops to the newstructures thatwouldbe introduced.The

narrativeestablishedconcludedwith thesocialist revolution, representedthrough

modernstructuresandmonumentsthroughouttheprecinct.Thesignificanceofthe

modernstructureslayintheirauthoritytomarkthebeginningofthesocialisteraas

Chapter6

239

well as their capacity to represent the continuous development of humanity. The

newstructuresincludedanamphitheatre–withastageforfolkloricperformances,

cultural political manifestations and festivals – a cinema and a number of new

museums. The most prominent modern monument was the Academy of Science

andArts[Figure69]:

At the far [western] end of the aršija might be erected, as a symbol of socialist

progress, a tall building which would house either the Balkan Institute or the

Academy of Sciences and Art … [This zone] could represent one of the finest

architecturalachievementsinYugoslavia’.32

Figure69:ProposalfortheAcademyofArtsandSciencesofthePeople’sRepublicofBiH.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.113.

According to Neidhardt, the buildings’ designs were all based on the modern

qualitiesof the traditionalhouse, thescale,materials,geometriccompositionand

32 Original quote: ‘Zašto da ne zakljuimo arsiju sa takvim objektom u obliku savremene kuleznanostiismjestimounutraorijentalniibalkanskiinstitutiliAkademijuznanostiiumjetnosti.Kojibise grad [u Jugoslaviji] mogao ponositit takvim profilom koji bi obuhvaao cijelu arhitektonskuklavijaturu BiH’. Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture of Bosnia and theWay Towards Modernity,pp.112&137.

Chapter6

240

rhythmofwhichwereallincludedinthearchitecturaldictionaryofBosnianOriental

expression[Figure70].

Figure 70: Collection of architectural ‘elements’ includessteak; traditional house and mosques’ domes. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.416.

Ultimately, Neidhardt’s Bašaršija project became an architectural synthesis of

nationalist ideologies, where the heterogeneous, progressive and secular Bosnia

confidently represented a socialist Yugoslavia. His modernist reading and the

secularisationofOttomanarchitecturerespondedtotheBosniannationalclaimofa

unique culture, while representing Bosnia as an essentially multicultural state

secureditspositionwithinthebroadersocialistandYugoslavproject[Figure71].

Chapter6

241

Figure 71: Images of New aršija, photomontage. Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.120&121.

Marindvorprecinctandthedesignofsocialistmodernism

In 1955, a national design competition called for masterplan proposals for the

Marindvor precinct, which included the new National Assembly;33 a team lead by

Neidhardtwonthecompetition.34 It is inthisprojectthathis interpretationofthe

Ottoman legacy as a tool for architecture of the new state is most clearly

attempted.HisproposalforapoliticalandadministrativecentreofSarajevoandthe

Republic of Bosnia and Hercegovina established the relevance of the Bosnian

Orientalnotonlytothehistoricalfabricofthecitybutalsotonewarchitecture.

33 An earlier discussion of this project was presented in D. Ali, ‘Sarajevo and the making ofmonuments(1945–1992)’,inM.Ghandour,M.Labban,M.Lozanovska(eds),SitesofRecovery,TheFourth'OtherConnections’Conference,Beirut,Lebanon,October1999,pp.11–18.34Neidhardt’sassistantswerearchitectsD.eli,E. JahiandB.Mileusni,architecturestudentZ.Ugljen,artconsultantR.Miševi,modelmaker I.Komsi.Theprojectwaspublished inGrabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.408–26.

Chapter6

242

Neidhardt’sproposalincludedavastrangeofculturalandpoliticalbuildingsinwhat

appearedtobefreeurbanorganisation.‘Thestructuresare’,hesaid,‘bynomeans

placed on the basis of some rigidprinciples but are laidout in a flexible and free

manner,nowononeside,nowontheother,with theaimofmaking them…the

visual markers of the new areas of Sarajevo.’35 In this seemingly casual spatial

arrangement, the geometric volumes of cubes, spheres and cylinders housed the

new activities of socialism. Uninhibited by the relationship between form and

function, the buildings of the new opera, exhibition centre, radio and television

centre,commercialhotel,departmentstoreandsupermarketsinvokedNeidhardt’s

liking of pure geometrical forms; he stated in a discussion of his design approach

thattheseformswereintendedtorepresentsocialistarchitecturalaspirations:‘The

basicideaoftheprojectisreflectedintheattempttointerconnecttheideological

andurbanconceptsintoanorganicwhole’[Figure72].36

Neidhardt claimed the design as an opening episode representing the new era in

Bosnianurbanism:

Todayweareinafortunatepositionthatitiseasyforustomakeourcontribution

tothealtarofcommunity…Wearenotallowedtotakearest,butmustcontribute

whatexperienceswehave,tothemakingofanewarchitecture.37

He believed the ‘new architecture’ would soon transform the capital, making his

ideasstandoutastemplatesforurbansuccess[Figure73].

35Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.416.36Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.427.37Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.14–15.

Chapter6

243

Figure 72: Masterplan view of the new Marindvorproposal. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.414.

Figure 73: The map of Marindvor precinct and Sarajevo,drawn by Neidhardt. ‘Dwelling complex in Yugoslav ArmyStreet (196647). First [example] in the history of Sarajevo[where] the principle of a spacious meander street isapplied’. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt, Architecture ofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.408.

Chapter6

244

Historicalcontinuityandprogressivedevelopmentofculture

The site covered a large triangular area, loosely framed on one side by the main

east–west traffic route through the city; on another by the diagonal route that

connectsthelargeresidentialblockcalledMarindvoratoneendandthesiteofthe

new railway station at the other; and on the third side by a street aligning three

existingbuildings:theNationalMuseum,theTechnicalSchoolandthenewrailway

station.38 The brief described the site as a flat area interrupted by a number of

significantpublicbuildingsdatingfromdifferenthistoricalperiods.Thesewerethe

NaturalMuseumbuildings,describedasrepresentingtheneorenaissancestyleand

consideredbythejurytobe‘thebestexampleofthearchitectureof lateAustro–

Hungarianperiod’;theHighTechnicalSchool,representing‘oldurbanbuilding’from

theperiodbetweentheworldwars,andthenewrailwaystation,builtduring the

socialistgovernmenterabyCzecharchitects.39

Thejudgingpanelcomplimentedthewinningschemeonitssuccessfulresolutionof

the relationship between the heterogeneous existing buildings and the proposed

new structures. Neidhardt’s sketches, however, hardly showed the buildings

mentioned by the jury, but rather indicated his interest in relating the site to the

greater city area. Presenting the city in its natural setting along the river valley,

Neidhardt’sdrawingsidentifieddifferentstagesofitsdevelopment.Itseasternend

–markedby theOttomanestablishedBašaršija– is followedby thecentralpart,

developedby theAustro–Hungarians,and then thegrowingnewsocialist suburbs

38KarliKapetanovi,JurajNajdhart,životidjelo,p.171.39KarliKapetanovi,JurajNajdhart,životidjelo,pp.171–72.

Chapter6

245

thatstretch towards itswesternend.Neidhardt remarked, ‘If thedevelopmentof

Sarajevo isapproachedfromthepointofviewofhistoricalcontinuity then, in the

line of continuity with the ancient town of guilds [Bašaršija] and the later of

capitalists [central part], the construction of Marindvor is an expression of the

socialistsociety’[Figure74&Figure75].40

Figure74:Source: ‘Graphicanalysisof theelementsoftheurban solution’ described through use of keywords (fromtop) ‘zone’; ‘zigzag space’; ‘visual markers of heights’;‘space’; ‘views’, ‘traffic’; ‘historic precinct’; ‘continuity’;‘pedestrian zones’ and patterns’; ‘squares’ and ‘city as acarpet’. Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.415.


Chapter6

246

Neidhardt’ssketchespresentedMarindvorandBašaršijainrelationtoeachother,

despitebeingphysicallydistantfromeachotherandseparatedbythelargestpart

ofthecity.‘Marindvor’,hesaid,‘isrepresentingthedemarcationlinebetweenold

andmodernSarajevo’.41Neidhardtdisregardedthecentralpartofthetown,dating

fromtheAustro–Hungariantime,asirrelevantanddescribeditas‘anaberrationin

thedevelopmentof thehistoriccontinuityofBosnia’.42Herestatedhisconviction

thatthehistoricalmooringofhisworkwasintheOttomanarchitecturallegacy

Figure75:Fromtop:urbansolutionforMarindvorprecinct.Bird’seye view of ‘Manifestation square’ and theparliament House building. Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,pp.410&413.


Chapter6

247

ThebuildingoftheNationalAssembly

The belief that the architecture of the new National Assembly building ought to

representallthepeopleofBosniawasatthecoreofNeidhardt’sdesignapproach.

‘[Theassembly]house [isahouse]of thewholenationandassuch itssymbolism

needstoberecognisabletoall’,Neidhardtwrote inhisproposal.43Hisdesignwas

conceived as a cluster of three buildings: the office tower, the ‘freeshaped’

conferencebuildingandthehorizontaladministrativeblock[Figure76&Figure77].

Figure 76: ’Elements’ of the new National Assemblybuildings: tower, atrium, shells, balcony and veranda.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.417.

Figure 77: Design for theNationalAssemblyofBosnia andHercegovina.Source:Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.417.

43KarliKapetanovi,JurajNajdhart,životidjelo;p.175.

Chapter6

248

Thespatialarrangementsofindividualbuildings–theirvolumesandshapesaswell

as the treatment of their elevations – were all based on the relevant historical

precedents.44 Neidhardt wrote, ‘The collection of the old Bosnian architectural

elements:tower,atrium,balcony,pillarhall(triem),cupolasandrusticwallsserved

as basic elements for the composition of the design (in a modern sense)’.45

Accordingly,Neidhardtsuggestedtheprecedentfortheadministrativebuildingwas

in the elongated bay window (doksat) commonly associated with the Ottoman

domesticarchitecture[Figure76].46

Similarly, the freeshaped structure that wrapped around the two central

courtyards extended the associations with domestic architecture, confirming

Neidhardt’sbeliefintheuniqueabilityofSarajevodomesticarchitecturetoharness

an amicable relationship between modern structures and nature. With an aim of

balancing the relationship between private and public, traditional and modern,

Neidhardtproposedthatthetwomeetinghallsbecoveredwithwhathedescribed

as‘mosquelikecupolas’.47Inusingofthedomeonthegroundsofitshistoricusein

coveringthemosque’smostimportantrooms–themarkethall(bezistan)andbaths

(hamam) – Neidhardt confirmed his belief that any religious associations were

merelyamatteroftheBosnianpast.48

44Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.423.45Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.416.46Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.424.47Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.424.48Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.327.

Chapter6

249

Neidhardt’s colleague Džemal eli recorded that the symbolic potency of the

historicformswasnotlostonitsaudience.AppraisingtheMarindvorproposal,eli

wrote:

In addition to the functional spaces required by the brief, the Parliament house

includes a range of symbolic spaces that have emerged from our tradition: the

platform for public speaking in the shape of doksat, modern atrium, domes as

symbols of gathering, and finally the high tower of the new building shaped as

stecakthesymbolofourconsciousnessandresistance,onwhichsurfaceourwhole

historyiswritten.’49

Atentativearrangementofwindingpathslinkedthenewstructuresatgroundlevel.

Thiswasmeanttoencourageviewerstoestablishfreevisualassociationsbetween

the individual structures laid out in this open urban arrangement. Neidhardt’s

monuments to socialism provided opportunities for people to make new

associationsandestablish,hesuggested,‘spirituallinkswiththemonuments’.50He

believed such links would further encourage people to engage with the site, and,

ultimately, ‘lay wreaths at its [the monuments’] pedestal.’51 In return, ‘the light

flooded Monument’, Neidhardt wrote, ‘will symbolise the suffering, struggle and

victoryofasmallnation’[Figure78].52

Figure 78: People viewing the Parliament House building.Source: Grabrijan & Neidhardt,Architecture of Bosnia andtheWayTowardsModernity,p.410

49KarliKapetanovi,JurajNajdhart,životidjelo,p.364.50Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.427.51Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.427.52Grabrijan&Neidhardt,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity,p.427.

Chapter6

250

Following the competition, the realisation of the winning design was indefinitely

postponed.Theauthoritiesjustifiedtheirdecisiononthebasisthattherewasalack

offundstoexecutethescheme,buttheirsubsequentactionssuggesteditwasmore

a matter of Neidhardt’s proposal. Despite the halt the authorities requested a

further development of the master plan, indicating the need for more

administrativebuildings.Thisincreasedratherthanreducedtheproject’sscopeand

wascontrarytotheoriginalcompetitionbrief.Between1955until1976,whenyet

another competition for the National Assembly building was announced,

development and construction in the Marindvor area were focused on individual

buildings only. The Marindvor master plan proposal was never executed in its

entirety. The design of the National Assembly buildings was revisited many times

andwaseventuallybuiltin1974–82toNeidhardt’sdesign.Exaggeratedtothesize

ofahighrisebuilding,this‘newsteak’oftheNationalAssemblybuildingaimedto

promotetheindependenceandstrengthofsocialistBosnia.

Postscript:Bašaršijaasacentreofcollectiveidentity

Despitethedifficultiesandalackofsupportinimplementinghisdesignproposals,

Neidhardt nevertheless played a crucial role in shaping Bašaršija’s future.53 He

assumednumerousprofessionalandcivicduties,whichincludedanadvisoryroleon

thehistoricalstudyofBašaršijabyAlijaBejtithatdefinedtheoverallapproachto

thepreservationoftheprecinct.Titled ‘OldSarajevoaršija,yesterday,todayand

tomorrow’(StaraSarajevskaaršija,jue,danas,sutra),thedocumentpresentedan

53M.umruki, ‘IzradaGeneralnogUrbanistickogPlana’, inM.ankovi,SarajevouSocijalistickojJugoslavijiodOslobodjenjadoSamoupravljanja,1950–1963,vol.2,pp.387–559.

Chapter6

251

indepthhistoricaloverviewoftheprecinct, identifying individualmonumentsand

structures worthy of preservation. While from a preservationist point of view

Bejti’s approach was inclusive and recognised the diverse historical periods of

value,itsfocuswasonpreservingthehistoriccoreasdistinctfromenablingsocialist

development.ThisdeniedNeidhardt’svisionfortheviablecontributionofhistorical

builtfabrictothearchitectureofmodernBosnia.54

TheestablishmentofafundforupkeepandrepairsofBašaršija(Fondforuredjenje

Bašaršije) in1963 further isolated theprecinct fromtherestof thecity.By1968

theoldaršijawasputunderaprotectionorderandconsideredan‘urbanwhole’.55

In1975,thatsocalled‘problemofoldSarajevo–aršija’wasconsideredresolved,

theRegulationPlanforOldSarajevoaršijadeclaringtheprecinctanurbanentityof

historicandcultural importance.56Thesubsequenturbanpreservation‘treatment’

andpolicesthatsupportedit,highlightedtheimportanceofBašaršija’sheritage.57

54A.Bejti,StaraSarajevskaaršijajuer,danasisutra,OsnoveISmjernicezaRegenaraciju.Thelistof contributors included Juraj Neidhardt, Husref Redži, Mustafa umruki, Midhat Aganovi,VojislavJoksimovi,SretislavMarjanovi.Theideaspresentedin1969hadbeenalreadypresentedina 1962 analysis of the precinct in ‘Program for urban development of aršija’ (Program zaurbanistikoureenjearšije),alsobyAlijaBejti.55Focusedonmaintainingtheexistingfabric,thefundestablishedthe1878mapofBašaršijaasthereferencepointindefiningtheheritagefabricconsideredofcollectivevalue.Themapalsomarkedtheboundariesofthefund’sjurisdiction.AccordingtothearchivesoftheInstituteforProtectionofMonumentsofCulturefortheCityofSarajevo(ZavodzaZaštituSpomenikaKultureGradaSarajeva)the fund for the protection of Bašaršija was established in 1983. For more detail see Serdarevi,PravnazaštitakulturnohistorijskognaslijedjaBiH,pp.56–57.56 Regulation Plan for the Preservation, Conservation, Restoration and Revitalisation of Sarajevoaršija (Regulacion plan sanacije, konzervacije, restauracije I revitalizacije Sarajevske aršija),SkupštinaGradaSarajeva,Sarajevo,1975.Thelistofprojectarchitectsincludes:AlijaBejti,Džemaleli,RadivojJadri,JurajNeidhardtandHusrefRedži.57M.umruki,‘IzradaGeneralnogUrbanistickogPlana’,pp.387–559.

Chapter6

252

TheconceptualpremisesofNeidhardt’stheoreticalapproachremainedinthenew

governmentpromotedplans.Theseincludedafocusonthehistoricalsignificanceof

structures,thepreservationofindividualhistoricalmonumentsandtherecreation

of an ‘historical’ or ‘period’ appearance in new structures – hence the

reconstruction of small shops based on their 19thcentury appearance and the

enhancement of precinct tourist facilities. With craft production virtually non

existent, shop owners were forced to sell fake copies and craft lookalikes, the

‘bijouterie’ objects of Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s first proposal. By the 1970s

Bašaršijawasaplaceoftouristconsumptionandfolklore[Figure79].

Figure79:Sarajevo,apostcard,publishedby‘Svjetlost’.According to Dževad Karahasan, a writer and academic of socialist times, those

urban processes made the built fabric of Bašaršija representative of the socialist

and secular state’s values. Just like in Neidhardt’s 1953 proposal, Bašaršija

represented the merging of the ‘East and West’ or ‘ChristianIslamic’ and was

Chapter6

253

expressive of the broader sociocultural notions of tolerance and pluralism he

assignedtoBosnia.InSarajevo,ExodusofaCity,publishedduringandinresponse

to the 1992–96 war, Karahasan argued that the ‘internalpluralism’ ofBosnia was

reflected in the precinct’s built fabric. He argued that Bašaršija’s limited

geographical size and peripheral position were the ‘enclosures that separate and

protectitfromtheoutsideworld’,allowingittoabsorband‘containallthatexists

aroundit’withinitsboundaries:

At Charshiya, each culture that exists in the mahalas articulates and realizes its

universal component.AtCharshiya theuniversalhumanvalues –whichofcourse

exist in every culture – are being realized. Business goes on there, providing the

economic foundation for existence in this world, and, simultaneously, human

solidarity is being expressed at Charshiya, through communication and openness

among people and toward one another. … For, at Charshiya, people from all the

mahalaspreadaroundit,meeteachother,communicate,cooperate,andliveside

byside.OnebesidetheotheraretheshopsofanewJewfromByelave,aMuslim

fromVratnik,aCroatoranItalianfromLatinluk,aSerboraGreekfromTashlihan…

AtCharshiya,allof themare justpeopleandSarajevans,merchantsandartisans,

notwithstanding all the differences amongst them.This iswhyCharshiya, thecity

center,isatoncethemostinteriorandthemostopenplace.’58

Inthecontextofthe1992–96war’sdestructionofSarajevo,theseveryqualitiesof

Bosnian culture stood in startling contrast to the characteristics of the Serbian

nationalist forces surrounding the city, with their intolerance towards the Other,

theirculturalexclusivityandtheirxenophobia.It isthroughtheaestheticvaluesof

theprecinctandthearchitecturalqualitiesofbuildingdesignsthatthememoryof

cultural interactions, influences and multiple narratives are not only brought

58D.Karahasan,Sarajevo,ExodusofaCity,KodanshaInternational,NewYork,1994,pp.8–9.

Chapter6

254

togetherbuttransfiguredandchangedaccordingtothespecificsensibilitiesofthe

peopleandthetimes.

Chapter7DiscussionandConclusions

Overviewandconclusions

This thesis has argued that Dušan Grabrijan and Juraj Neidhardt’s discussion of

Bosnian Oriental expression emerged from their attempts to find a place for

Ottoman and Islamic heritage in the complex and contradictory nationalist

discoursesinBosniaandYugoslavia.TheirmodelofBosnianOriental,asasynthesis

ofIslamicheritageandmodernism,identifiedarchitectureascapableofnegotiating

diversepoliticalagendas.

Atvariouspoints,thisthesishasargued,GrabrijanandNeidhardt’stheoreticaland

practicalcontributionstoarchitectureandurbanismweremorecloselyconnected

to the political terrain of their times than has been recognised by them or by

commentatorson theirwork.Thegradualbutsignificantchanges in theirattitude

towardsOttomanheritagedemonstratednotonlytheirintrinsicconnectionstothe

broader political scene but their astute awareness of the changing perceptions of

Bosnia’s Islamic past within the discourses on Yugoslav and specifically Bosnian

nationalidentities.

ChaptertwoarguedthatdrawingonhisyearsofstudyinPlenik’sschool,Grabrijan

recognised the importance of cultural uniqueness to the discussion and

Chapter7

256

constructionofvisionsoftheYugoslavnation.Grabrijan’snumerouswritingssought

toarticulate thedistinctivequalitiesof Bosnian architecturalandcultural context,

which he connected to Ottoman/Islamic urban heritage. While his search for a

greater recognition of this heritage was, in some ways, compromised in his and

Neidhardt’s first urban proposal for Sarajevo, presented in ‘Sarajevo and Its

Satellites’(discussedinchapterthree),theirworkcontinuedtobeunderpinnedby

the established importance of this historic fabric to debates on Bosnian identity.

Chapterfourpresentedtheirsubsequentbook,ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWay

Towards Modernity, as a recognition and acceptance of the past and as an

articulationofsocialistBosniaasrepresentedintheartsandarchitecture.

Grabrijan’s analysis of the traditional house, chapter five demonstrated, became

centraltothetransformationsofthepair’stheoreticalagendaintoanarchitectural

discourse. Focusing on the Bosnian house, the authors argued that despite its

‘Oriental’ lineage traditional ‘Islamic’ built heritage was a shared heritage that

transcendedethnicandnationalboundaries.Assuch,theirarchitecturalvocabulary

of ‘Bosnian Oriental’, which relied upon their transformation of traditional house

typology, provided the architectural ‘vocabulary’ for Neidhardt’s most important

architectural proposals. The two concluding chapters presented a discussion of

theseproposals:theredevelopmentofBašaršijaandthenewsocialistprecinctof

Marijin Dvor. It was in these projects that Grabrijan and Neidhardt were able to

negotiateandunifytheirurbanandpoliticalviews.

Chapter7

257

Thisthesisarguesthatdespitethedifferencesbetween‘SarajevoandItsSatellites’

and Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards Modernity, Grabrijan and

Neidhardt’s two major collaborative publications had much in common. Most

significantly,bothattemptedtoovercomenationalistandMarxistresistancetothe

region’sOttomanpast.Inarchitecturalandurbanterms,bothexploredtheissuesof

creating a modern city and the contribution of heritage built fabric to a new

Sarajevomasterplan.Bothproposednewvisionsofurbanplanningand,likemany

of their contemporaries, promoted industrialisation, efficiency and rational

planning. And both advocated rationalisation combined with the essential human

needs for light, comfort and hygiene as a way towards achieving better living

conditionsforall.1

Nevertheless, the two publications also differed significantly. The inclusion of

specific Bosnian and Muslim cultural references inArchitecture of Bosnia and the

WayTowardsModernitymarkedtherealdifferencebetweenthetwo. Itsignalled

theauthors’awarenessof thepolitical forces that rejectedthe Islamicpastand it

suggestedtheirinvolvementinnationalistdebatesparticularto1950s’Bosnia.Their

discussionof localpeopleandculturehighlightedamoveawayfromstereotypical

viewsthatconnectedMuslimstothegreaterworldofIslamratherthantoaspecific

placeintime.Itfocusedonasearchfortheuniquequalitiesofthelocalpeopleand

culture,andhighlightedtheirroleinadevelopinganinclusiveBosnianculture.This

vision challenged the nationalist views, which promoted an exclusive ethnic

1McLeod’sworkpresentssimilarsuchidealsasunderlyingLeCorbusier’sproduction.M.McLeod,‘UrbanismandUtopia:LeCorbusierfromregionalsyndicalismtoVichy’,PhDthesis,PrincetonUniversity,1985.

Chapter7

258

grounding of the nation. In short, Architecture of Bosnia and the Way Towards

Modernity presented Bosnian Oriental architectural expression as capable of

overcomingethnicandnationaldivisions.

At the same time that Grabrijan and Neidhardt were searching for historical

continuity – for aspects of the past that could inform the modern world – they

disregardedmanysignificantelementsofthatheritage,orelsereinterpretedthem

insuchawayastosupportdominantsocialistdiscourse.Forexample,significantly

secularisedandstrippedoftheirculturalcomplexities,themonumentsandsymbols

that served the needs of communities were appropriated for the purposes of an

ideological agenda. The realignment of built heritage and meaning illustrates that

Nora’sconceptof ‘sitesofmemory’(lieuxdemémoire)are indeedconstructedon

shiftingground.Detachedfromtheorganicandemplaced reproductionofculture

(milleuxdemémoire),Bašaršija’splacesofsignificancehave, throughsubsequent

interpretation, been influenced and informed by diverse ideological positions.

Accordingly, Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s interpretation of Bosnia’s Ottoman

architecturallegacybecameapowerfultoolinpromotingthesocialistgovernment’s

aspirationsforasecularised,multiethnicandmultireligioussociety.

Inthiscontext,thereductivenatureofGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sformalexpression

anditsfocusonanarchitectural ‘dictionary’highlightedthedifficulties involved in

thesearchforarchitecturalprinciples.TheirworkpresentedMuslimreferencesbut

sought out traces of modernity in that heritage that transcended religious and

Chapter7

259

historicaldifferences.Absorbingthosevalueswithintheirmodernistenterprisewas

aimed at making the modern architecture they were creating even more modern

and universally human.2 By recasting their sources of inspiration in the images of

the architecture they proposed to create, Grabrijan and Neidhardt underlined a

‘disquietingqualityofmodernism’thatJamesCliffordhasreferredtointermsof‘its

taste forappropriatingor redeemingotherness, forconstitutingnonWesternarts

in its own image, for discovering universal, ahistorical “human” capacities.’3

Nevertheless,theirinsistenceonanassociationbetweenaBosnianvernacularand

Ottomanarchitecturallegacyprovidedanopportunity,albeittemporarilyunderthe

socialist government, for that legacy to occupy a space within the broader

architecturaldiscoursesofYugoslavia.

Contribution:changingformationsofidentity

ThisthesisbroadenstheunderstandingofGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sworkbeyond

mere appreciation of their formal expression and the modernist agenda. It

demonstratesthat,moresignificantly,thesuccessandacceptanceoftheirideaslay

in their capacity to integrate the political into their architectural agenda. By

positioningGrabrijanandNeidhardt’sworkasamodelofculturewithinapolitical

framework, this thesisemphasises the importanceof ideologicalunderpinnings to

artisticcreation inpost–WorldWarTwoYugoslav.AsstatedintheIntroductionof

this thesis, both Lampe and Wachtel consider the power of cultural models as

2 For further discussion of use of primitive art in the developing modernist agenda see J. Clifford,‘Historiesofthetribalandthemodern’, inK.Pinder(ed.),RaceingArtHistory,CriticalReadingsinRaceandArtHistory,Routledge,NewYork,2002,pp.217–31.3J.Clifford,‘Historiesofthetribalandthemodern’,p.219.

Chapter7

260

central to the construction and deconstruction of dominant political models in

Yugoslavia.4Indeed,WachtelarguesthattheultimatefailureoftheYugoslavstate

wascausedby‘thefailureoftheideaofaYugoslavnationtobindtheSouthSlavs

into a viable nation and state’.5 Further, ‘the collapse ofmultinational Yugoslavia’

andthenationalistattemptstoestablishseparate ‘uninationalstates’,hereasons,

cannotbefoundinpoliticalandeconomiccollapse,butin‘thegradualdestruction

oftheconceptoftheYugoslavnation’.6ThisthesisseesArchitectureofBosniaand

theWayTowardsModernityasanattempt,througharchitecturalandurbanvision,

to presentBosnian cultural identity as anaddition to Yugoslav aspirations, not an

aberrationofthem.

The discussion extends upon post1992–96 scholarly efforts, such as those

presentedbyButurovi.InadditiontoherstudyofDizdar’spoetry,whichidentified

Bosnia’s pluralistic identity as an alternative to nationalist divisions, Buturovi’s

analysis of the wellknown novel Dervish and Death reveals the complex

transformations of Islamic identity in the years of the socialist Yugoslav

government.7ItdemonstratesthatdespitetheproblemsembeddedinBosnia’slack

of a unified national identity, historically ‘the sentiments of group belonging in

4Lampe,YugoslaviaasHistory,TwiceThereWasaCountry;andWachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation.5Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,p.5.6Wachtel,MakingaNation,BreakingaNation,p.5.7 Buturovi, ‘National quest and the anguish of salvation: Bosnian Muslim identity in MešaSelimovi’sDervishandDeath’;Buturovi,StoneSpeaker;andButurovi,‘ProducingandannihilatingtheethosofBosnianIslam’.

Chapter7

261

BosniaHercegovina have neither been rigid nor inflammatory as their war image

suggested’.8

Operating in the same moment of Yugoslav socialism as the writers Buturovi

investigated, Grabrijan and Neidhardt explored the embedded tensions between

cultural practices and institutional demands in Bosnia. Their model of Bosnian

Oriental,Ihaveargued,offeredtoprovideavisionofculturebasedonacollective

andsecularBosnia,notonindividualethnicgroups.Bytheirownadmissionandby

the perception of others, they were modern architects whose interest was not in

creating national but international modern architecture. But nevertheless their

workpresentedapowerfulvehicleforthesearchforselfhoodintheBosnianpast,

presentand future.Bycontextualising theircontribution to thegrowingdiscourse

onmodernarchitecture,Ihaveinthisthesisshownthesignificantrolearchitecture

playsinconstructingnationalidentity.Likeotherculturalproducers,Grabrijanand

Neidhardtconsideredlocalhistoricalconditionsintermsoftheirpotentialtodefine

auniqueplaceforBosniawithinthelargerwholeofYugoslavia.

UnderpinningGrabrijanandNeidhardt’scontributionandsignificancetonarrative

makingofYugoslavidentitieswerethepoliticalandsocialcontextsoftheirtimes.I

haveinparticularexploredtherelationshipbetweentheirwritingsandthespecific

national debates that surrounded the development of the Bosnian community in

Yugoslavia. While Grabrijan and Neidhardt’s vision of Bosnian Oriental included

8Buturovi,StoneSpeaker,p.6.

Chapter7

262

aspects of identity that Hall has argued are ‘partially constructed in fantasy’, its

contentwasconstructed ‘within[the]discursive,materialandpoliticaleffectivity’

ofthecontextinwhichthetwoarchitectsoperated.9Inaprocessbringingabouta

‘disturbing recognition of the internalised nature’ of identity creation and its

‘relationtotheOther’,GrabrijanandNeidhardtdemonstratedtheimportanceand

limitationsof identity,and thepresenceofwhat isnot ‘naturalbutaconstructed

form(s)ofenclosure’.10

Againstthatbackground,thechangingnotionsoftheOtherandtheideologiesupon

whichtheywereestablishedconfirmHall’sviewsofidentityasconstructed‘within

theplayofpowerandexclusion’.11Thisstudyhasdemonstratedthatunderstanding

the built fabric’s ideological and symbolic role is contingent upon the specific

contextwithinwhichitisformulatedanditsmeaningsarenegotiated.Furthermore,

theBosnianandYugoslavidentitiesthatemergedduring1992–96warconfirmthe

importanceofthetemporalaspectsofidentityconstruction.

Contemporary and future relevance: war destruction and the meanings ofarchitecture

The1992–96destructionofbuiltfabric

Viable future research would relate the conclusions drawn in this thesis to

discussionsthathaveemergedfollowing the1992–96war in formerYugoslavia.A

large number of historians, independent writers and prominent thinkers in the

9Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.10Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.4.11Hall,‘Whoneeds“identity”?’,p.5.

Chapter7

263

international justice system have shown a conscious ‘link between the systematic

persecutionandexpulsionofethnicandreligiouscommunitiesandthedestruction

oftheculturalandreligiousheritageassociatedwiththetargetedcommunity’.12In

that context, architecture’s association with a particular expression of national

identity is undeniable. Despite Neidhardt’s attempts to separate the built fabric

from an Ottoman political and social agenda, the buildings of Bašaršija and the

NationalAssemblybuildingswereamongthefirsttobeattackedduringtherecent

war in Bosnia by the Serbian nationalist forces that surrounded the city. The

Parliament was attacked in July 1992, during the early days of the Bosnian war

[Figure80].

12 A. J. Riedlmayer (principal investigator), Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Bosnia andHerzegovina, 1992–1996, A Postwar Survey of Selected Municipalities, Cambridge, Mass., 2002,Expert report commissioned by the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).Riedlmayer’s study of 392 cultural and religious sites in 19 municipalities in Bosnia presentedevidence of widespread ethnic and communal violence resulting in a destruction of cultural andreligious buildings of religious groups of former Yugoslavia. However, within Bosnia the Islamicheritagesufferedthemost.Thefindingsshowthatoutofthe227Islamicmosquesconsidered92%wereheavilydamagedordestroyed.ThesamewastrueforotherIslamicreligiousmonumentssuchasturbesandtekkes.Initsconclusion,thereportstatesthat,‘theBosnianSerbdestructionofIslamicandCatholicculturalheritagesiteswasintentionalandsystematic’.In an attempt to formalise the procedures and position the destruction of cultural and religiousheritagewithinthecontextofwarcrimes,theInternationalCriminalTribunalforformerYugoslavia(ICTY) in The Hague included architectural historian Andras Riedlmayer’s report on the culturaldestruction in Bosnia and Kosovo in the case against the former president Slobodan Miloševi,accusedofwarcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity.

Chapter7

264

Figure80:TheParliamentofBosniaandHercegovinaburnsafterbeinghitbytankfireduringthesiegein1992.Source:MikhailEvstafiev(photographer),Wikipedia.

Otherbuildingsandstructuresalsocameunderattack.TheAssociationofBosnian

Architects’catalogueofurbandestruction,publishedduringthesiegeofSarajevoin

1993,showeddamagetoallreligiousbuildingswithinBašaršija.13Whilemost,like

Gazi Husref Beg’s mosque and Bašaršija mosque, came under attack for their

obvious connection with and value to specific ethnic groups, not all buildings

attackedweremarkedbyreligioussymbolism.

13‘Warchitecture’ARCH,MagazineforArchitecture,TownPlanningandDesign,specialissue,no.24,Sarajevo, June 1993, p. 9. The project was undertaken in association with other institutions andbodies,suchastheSpecialUnitforCulturalRescueofCityCivilDefence,thearchitecturalunitoftherepublican headquarters for Protection of Cultural Heritage, the Commission for Cultural HeritageRescueandCityAssembly.The subsequent exhibitions that travelled to numerous European andUScities – presented underslogans such as ‘In circumstances of general destruction’, ‘Genocide and urbicide’, ‘Where life isreducedtoelementaryneeds’,‘Architectsmaintaintheircreativeenergy’and‘Thespiritofthecity’–passionatelypromotedtheroleofarchitectsintheconstructionandprotectionofthecity.

Chapter7

265

Among the most significant structure of collective value to be attacked was the

buildingthathousedBosnianNationalandUniversityLibrary(formerTownHall).14

In August 1992 it was shelled with incendiary grenades until its collection was

destroyedandthebuildingalmostcompletelyburntdown.Thelibrarycontaineda

collection of threemillion items, including 155,000 rare books and manuscripts,

maps, the national archives, and copies of newspapers, periodicals and books

publishedinBosnia.Itincludedonemillionvolumesinthelanguagesofthevarious

culturesthathaveinfluencedBosnia.15Some90%ofthelibrarycollectionwentup

inflamesinwhatRiedlmayerdescribedasthe‘largestsingleactofbookburningin

modern history’.16 As well as attracting significant international attention, the

destruction of the city library had a devastating impact on the people of the

besiegedcity.

Among trajectories to be further explored are the political forces that frame the

rebuildingprocessofwardamagedstructuressuchas theNationalandUniversity

Library. Soon after the attack, the rebuilding of the Town Hall appeared to be a

question of national pride of post1996 Bosnia; its speedy and full reinstatement

wassymbolicofthenation’srecovery.Internalenthusiasmforthereconstructionof

the building, as well as the library collection, was enhanced by the support of

internationalorganisationssuchasUNESCOandtheWorldBank.UNESCODirector 14 For further discussion of the Town Hall’s destruction and rebuilding see D. Ali, ‘Ascribingsignificance to sites of memory, Sarajevo’s Town Hall’, in P. Somma (ed.), AtWarWith the City,UrbanInternationalPress,Gateshead,2004,pp.65–86.15B.Bollag, ‘RebuildingBosnianarchitecture’,TheChronicleofHigherEducation,13 January1995,pp.A35–A37;Riedlmayer, ‘Erasingthepast: thedestructionof librariesandarchives inBosniaandHerzegovina’,MiddleEastStudiesAssociationBulletin,vol.29,no.1,July1995,pp.7–11.16 A. Riedlmayer, ‘Killing memory: the targeting of libraries and archives in BosniaHerzegovina’,NewsletteroftheMiddleEastLibrariesAssociation,no.61(MelaNotes),Fall1994,p.1.

Chapter7

266

General Mr Federico Mayor, in his appeal for the reconstruction of the library,

called ‘on all States, international governmental and nongovernmental

organizations, public and private institutions … to participate through voluntary

contributions–intheformoffundsequipmentorservices–inthereconstruction

of the National and University Library in Sarajevo and in the reconstruction of its

collections’.17

The significance of the library in the intellectual and physical context of Sarajevo

seemed to have secured the Town Hall’s place in the city reconstruction over

subsequent years (1996–2000). However, many other public buildings were

restoredwhiletheTownHallwasonlymadestructurallystableandprotectedfrom

theweather.Theexpenseofrebuilding,alackofclarityaboutlegalownershipand

uncertainties about the future use of the Town Hall were all factors that

contributedtothedelay.18

17 Appeal by Federico Mayor, DirectorGeneral of UNESCO for reconstruction of the National andUniversityLibraryofBosniaandHerzegovinainSarajevo,Paris,13April1994.18 The proposals for the new use of the Town Hall varied significantly – retaining the building’sprevioususeas theNationalandUniversity Library; theTownHall; amuseumand library for rarebook collections; a ‘Monument of Interethnic Peace in the World’ etc. UNESCO report, Libraries,UNESCO’sassistance to the NationalandUniversityLibraryofBosnia andHerzegovina, May1998,www.unesco.org.

http://www.unesco.org

Chapter7

267

Figure 81: Rubble in Vijenica, former Town Hall andNationalandUniversityLibrarybuilding.Source:D.Ali.

In assessing the cultural significance of buildings demolished, officials from the

World Bank and UNESCO searched for identifiable links between the local

community and the symbolic values of the monuments.19 It is in this regard that

Marian Wenzel, Director of the BosniaHerzegovina Heritage Rescue stated,

‘Vijenicalostbecauseitcouldn’tbealignedwitheithertheMuslimnationalistSDA

party or with Islam itself’.20 Unlike the colonial government of AustroHungarians

and the socialist government of Yugoslavia, the new powers did not perceive the

relationshipbetween the ‘pseudoMoorish’ styleand thecommunities involved in

the political negotiation for Bosnia’s future. Without clear links to local ethnic or

religious groups, international organisations lost interest in the Town Hall and

shifted their support to projects less controversial in their meanings and more

19E.Barry,‘Allthesympathyintheworldhasn’trebuilttheSarajevoLibrary’,Metropolis,June1999.20Barry,‘Allthesympathyintheworldhasn’trebuilttheSarajevoLibrary’.

Chapter7

268

predictable in their financial return. In the absence of a stable political context

withinwhichthebuildings’aestheticscouldgainsignificance,thesymbolicvalueof

the Town Hall and other structures of Bašaršija were questioned. Further

investigations into the historical, political and broader cultural formations that

frame the identity formation will reveal the shifting terrains upon which they are

formulated. An exploration of emerging identities and their transformation in

writingandarchitectureprovidethepotentialforfutureresearch.Whilethisthesis

has added to ongoing debate, the complexities of the issues involved open

opportunitiesforfutureresearch.

Bibliography

Booksandarticles

‘ExpertTestifiestoSystematicDestructionofCulturalMonuments’,CoalitionForInternational Justice, International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY),MiloševiTrial,TheHague,CourtRoomOne,Day213,08July2003.

‘The Academy of Science and Arts of Bosnia and Hercegovina marking thecentenaryofthebirthoftheacademicJurajNeidhardt’,catalogue,TheAcademyofScienceandArtsofBosniaandHercegovinaandtheArchitecturalFacultyofSarajevoUniversity,Sarajevo,2001.

‘Warchitecture’ARCH, Special issue, Magazine for Architecture, Town PlanningandDesign,no.24,Sarajevo,June1993.

‘Warchitecture’, Sarajevo Urbicide, Association of Architects DAS SABIH,exhibitioncatalogue,Sarajevo,June1993

Abu Lughod, J., ‘The Islamic city historic myth, Islamic essence, andcontemporary relevance’, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 19CambridgeUniversityPress,USA,1987,pp.155176.

Ademovi,F.,BašaršijaINjenaZaštita,HronikaaktivnostiFondanarevitalizacijistarog gradskog jezgra of 1893 do 1990 godine (The Heritage Protections ofBašaršija, Documentation of the Institute for Protection and Revitalisation ofOld Urban Precinct from 1893 to 1990), Fond za Zaštitu Bašaršije – IzvršniOdbor,Sarajevo1991.

Ali, D., ‘The role of rational and scientific arguments in the promotion ofideology througharchitecture’, inF.G. Leman, A. J.Ostwald,A.Williams (eds.)Innovation,InspirationandInstruction:NewKnowledgeinArchitecturalSciences,Proceedingsofthe42ndAnnualConferenceontheAustralianandNewZealandArchitectural Science Association (ANZASca), Newcastle, Australia, 2628November2008,pp.161168.

Ali,D.&Bertram,C., ‘Sarajevo:a moving target’,Centropa, JournalofCentralEuropeanArchitectureandRelatedArts,vol.2,no.3,September2002,pp.164176.

Ali D. & Gusheh M., ‘Reconciling competing national narratives in SocialistBosnia andHerzegovina: The Bašaršija Project (194853)’, JSAH, Journalof theSocietyofArchitecturalHistorians,vol.58,no.1,March,1999,pp.164176.

Bibliography

270

Ali,D.,‘Grabrijan,RieglandtheproblemofStyle’,Progress,TheProceedingsofthe Twentieth Annual Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians,AustraliaandNewZealand,Sydney,25October,2003,pp.15.Ali,D.,‘Ascribingsignificancetositesofmemory,theSarajevo’stownhall’,inP.Somma(ed.),AtWarwiththeCity,UrbanInternationalPress,Gateshead,2004,pp.65–86.

Ali, D., ‘Marindvor precinct and the design of the socialist Modernism’, inContested Terrains, edited by Terrance Mc Minn, Dr John Stephens, SteveBasson,TheProceedingsoftheTwentythirdAnnualConferenceoftheSocietyofArchitectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand, Notre Dame University,Fremantle,WesternAustralia,29September2October2006,pp.914.

Ali,D., 'FromOttomanhousetoBosnianstyle:Neidhardt’sdesignforworkers’housinginBosniaandHerzegovina(1939to1942)”,InSite,AnelectronicjournalpublishedbyGraduateStudentsat theFacultyof theBuilt Environment,no.1,March1999.

Ali, D., ‘Changing perspectives of architectural vernacular: Grabrijan andSarajevo’, in R. Blythe, R. Spence (eds.) Thresholds. Papers of the SixteenthAnnualConferenceof theSocietyofArchitecturalHistorians,AustraliaandNewZealand,Launceston,September1999,pp.17.

Ali,D.,‘Sarajevoandthemakingofmonuments(19451992)’,inM.Ghandour,M. Labban, M. Lozanovska (eds.), Sites of Recovery, The Fourth 'OtherConnections'Conference,Beirut,Lebanon,October,1999,pp.1118.

AlSayyad,N.,(ed.)FormsofDominance,ontheArchitectureandUrbanismoftheColonialEnterprise,Avebury,Aldershot,England,1992.

Aneli, P., ‘Zaštita spomenika kulture I Narodno Odbori’,Naše Starine, no. 3,Sarajevo,1956.

Anderson, B., Imagined Communities, Reflections on the Origin and Spread ofNationalism,Verso,London,NewYork,1992.

Andri, I. (trans.LenoreGrenoble),ALetterfrom1920,ForestBooks,London&Boston,Dereta,Belgrade,1992.

Ballantyne, A., ‘Space, grace and stylistic conformity: Spatromische,Kunstindustrie, and Architecture’, in R. Woodfield (ed.), Framing Formalism:Riegl’swork,essays,G+BArtsInternational,2001.

Banac, I. & Verdery, K. (eds.), National Character and National Ideology inInterwar Eastern Europe, Yale Center for International and Area Studies, NewHaven,1995.

Bibliography

271

Banac, I.,TheNationalQuestion inYugoslavia,Origins,History,Politics, CornellUniversityPress,Ithaca,1984.

Barry, E., ‘All the sympathy in the world hasn’t rebuilt the Sarajevo Library’,Metropolis,June1999.Bejti, A., Stara Sarajevska aršija juer, danas i sutra, Osnove I Smjernice zaRegenaraciju, (Old Town of Sarajevo, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, aDevelopmentProposal),GradskiZavodzaZaštituiUredjenjeSpomenikaKulture,Sarajevo,1969.

Bejti,A.,UliceiTrgoviSarajeva,(StreetsandSquaresofSarajevo),MuzejGradaSarajeva,Sarajevo,1973.

Bertram, C., ‘Ottoman Sarajevo, the urban history of Sarajevo in the Ottomanperiodandintotheperiodofthedualmonarchy’,unpublishedarticle.

Bertram,C., ‘TheTurkishhouse,aneffortofmemory’,PhDthesis,UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles,1998.

Besarovi, R., (ed.), Kultura i Umjetnost u Bosni i Hercegovini PodAustrougarskom Upravom, (Culture and Art in Bosnia and Hercegovina UnderAustroHungarianGovernment),ArhivGrada,Sarajevo,1968.

Besarovi, R., Iz Kulturne Prošlosti Bosne i Hercegovine (1878 1919), (CulturalHistoryofBosniaandHercegovina,18781919),VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo,1987.

Besarovi, R., Iz Kulturnog Života u Sarajevu Pod Austrougarskom Upravom,(Inserts from Cultural Life of Sarajevo Under the Austro–HungarianAdministration),VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo,1974.

Bevan, R., The Destruction of Memory, Architecture at War, Reaktion Books,London,2006.

Blau, E & Platzer, M. (eds.), Shaping the Great City, Modern Architecture inCentralEurope,18901937,Prestel,Munich,1999.

Bollag,B., ‘RebuildingBosnianarchitecture’,TheChronicleofHigherEducation,13January,1995,pp.A35A37.Bozdogan S. & Kasaba R. (eds.), Modernism and Nation Building: TurkishArchitectural Culture in the Early Republic, Studies in Modernity and NationalIdentity,UniversityofWashingtonPress,Washington,2001.

Bozdogan,S., ‘ArchitectureModernismandnationbuilding inKemalistTurkey’,NewPerspectivesonTurkey10,spring,1994.

Bibliography

272

Bozdogan,S.,‘JourneytotheEast:waysoflookingattheOrientandthequestionof representation’, Journal of Architectural Education, vol. 41, no. 4, summer1988,pp.38–45.

Bozdogan, S., ‘More on Le Corbusier’s Orientalism’, Journal of ArchitecturalEducation,vol.43,no.1,fall1989,p.63.

Bozdogan,S.,‘SedadHakkiEldemofTurkey’,Mimar,24,June1987.

Bozdogan, S., Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture intheEarlyRepublic,UniversityofWashingtonPress,Washington,2001.

Brown,C.L.(ed.),ImperialLegacy,TheOttomanImprintontheBalkansandtheMiddleEast,ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork,1996.

BurkhardtF.,EvenoC.,PodrecaB.,JožePlenikArchitect:1872–1957,TheMITPress,Cambridge,1989.

Burks,R.V.‘NationalismandCommunisminYugoslavia:anattemptatsynthesis’,in H. Birnbaum & S. J. Vryonis (eds.), Aspects of the Balkans, Continuity andChange,TheHague,1972.

Buturovi,A.(trans.byF.R.Jones),StoneSpeaker,MedievalTombs,Landscape,andBosnianIdentityinthePoetryofMakDizdar,Palgrave,NewYork,2002.

Buturovi, A., ‘National quest and the anguish of salvation: Bosnian MuslimidentityinMešaSelimovi’sDervishandDeath’,Edebiyat7,vol.1,YorkUniversitySpring,Toronto,1996.

Buturovi, A., ‘National quest and the anguish of salvation: Bosnian Muslimidentity in ‘Meša Selimovi’s Dervish and Death”’,Edebiyat,7, York University,Toronto,spring1996.Buturovi, A., ‘Producing and annihilating the ethos of Bosnian Islam’,CulturalSurvivalQuarterly,summer1995,pp.2933.ankovi, M., (ed.), Sarajevo u Socijalistikoj Jugoslaviji od Oslobodjenja doSamoupravljanja, 19451950, (Sarajevo in Socialist Yugoslavia, from LiberationWar to the Selfgovernance, 19451950), Istorijski Arhiv Sarajevo, Volume I,Sarajevo,1988.

ankovi, M., (ed.), Sarajevo u Socijalistikoj Jugoslaviji od Oslobodjenja doSamoupravljanja, 19501963. (Sarajevo in Socialist Yugoslavia, from LiberationWar to Selfgovernance, 19501963), Istorijski Arhiv Sarajevo, Volume II,Sarajevo,1988.

Bibliography

273

Castillo, G. A., ‘Constructing the Cold War, architecture, urbanism and thecultural division of Germany, 19451957’, PhD thesis, University of California,Berkeley,2000.

Castillo,G.,‘SocialistrealismandbuiltnationalismintheColdWar“BattleoftheStyles”’,Centropa,AJournalofCentralEuropeanArchitectureandRelatedArts,vol.1,no.2,2001.

eli,Dž.,GrabrijaniSarajevo,Izabranilanci196342.(GrabrijanandSarajevo,Selected Articles 196342), Prilozi za istraživanje istorije Sarajeva, Godina III,KnjigaIII,MuzejGradaSarajeva,Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1970.

Çelik, Z., ‘Le Corbusier, Orientalism, Colonialism’, Assemblage 17, December1992,pp.5977.

Çelik, Z., Displaying the Orient, Architecture of Islam at Nineteenth CenturyWorld’sFairs,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,1992.

Çelik,Z.,TheRemakingofIstanbul,PortraitofanOttomanCityintheNineteenthCentury,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,1986.

Çelik, Z., Urban Forms and Colonial Confrontations, Algiers under French Rule,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,1997.

ernjavski,Z. (curator),Vodikroz Svrzinu kuu (Guide throughSvrzo’s House),MuzejGradaSarajeva,Sarajevo,1976.

Ciucci,G.,‘TheInventionoftheModernMovement’,Oppositions,Vol.24,Rizzoli,NewYork,1981.

Cohen , J. L., (trans. by S. Sartarelli), ‘Le Corbusier and the mystique of theU.S.S.R.’,Oppositions,no.23,winter1981,pp.84121.

Cohen,J.L.,LeCorbusierandtheMystiqueoftheUSSR,TheoriesandprojectsforMoscow19281936,PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton,1992.

Colomina, B. (ed.), Architectureproduction, Princeton Architectural Press, NewYork,1988.

Dal Co, F., Figures of Architecture and Thought, German Architecture Culture18801920,Rizzoli,NewYork,1990.

Dimitrijevi, B., ‘Prilozi o zaštiti graditeljskog nasljedja u Bosni I Hercegovini Ivalorizaciji Bašaršija u Sarajevu u Austro Ugarskom periodu (1878 1918)’, (Acontribution to the protection of historic fabric of Bosnia and Hercegovina andBašaršijaundertheAustroHungariangovernment),Sarajevo,September,1988,unpublishedpaperpresentedataconferenceonthedevelopmentofBašaršija),Sarajevo1988.

Bibliography

274

Djilas, A., The Contested Country, Yugoslav Unity and Communist Revolution1919–1953,HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1996.

Djuri D. & Šuvakovi M. (eds.), Impossible Histories, Historical Avantgardes,Neoavantgardes, and Postavantgardes in Yugoslavia, 19181991, The MITPress,Cambridge,2003.

Donia, R. & Fine, J., Bosnia andHercegovina a Tradition Betrayed, Hurst andCompany,London,1994.

Dreyfus, L., H & Rabinow, P., Michael Foucault: Beyond Structuralism andHermeneutics, (second edition, with an Afterword by and an Interview withMichaelFoucault),TheUniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago,1983.

umruki,M.,‘IzradaGeneralnogUrbanistickogPlana’,inM.ankovi,SarajevouSocijalistickojJugoslavijiodOslobodjenjadoSamoupravljanja,1950–1963,vol.2,pp.387–559.Ernesto L., ‘Universalism, Particularism and the Question of Identity’, inRajchmanJ.(ed.),TheIdentityinQuestion,Routledge,NewYork,1995.

Etlin, R. A., ‘Le Corbusier, Choisy, and French Hellenism: the search for a newarchitecture’,ArtBulletin,69,no.2,1987,pp.264278.

Forty,A.,WordsandBuildings,AVocabularyofModernArchitecture,Thames&Hudson,London,2004.

Foucault, M. (trans. by Alan Sheridan), Discipline and Punish: the Birth of thePrison,Penguin,Harmondsworth,England,1979.

Foucault, M., (trans. by A.M. Sheridan Smith), The Archaeology of Knowledge,Routledge,London,1989,c1972.

Galison, P. & Thompson, E. (eds), The Architecture of Science, MIT Press,Cambridge,Ma.,1999.Gazihusrevbeg’s vakuf (comp.), Spomenica Gazi Husrevbegove etiristoGodišnjice,(FourHundredYearsofGazihusrevbeg’sVakuf),Sarajevo,1932.Golomstock,I.,TotalitarianArtintheSovietUnion,theThirdReich,Fascist ItalyandthePeople’sRepublicofChina,IconEdition,GreatBritain,1990.

Gombrich,E.H.,TheSenseofOrder,AStudyinthePsychologyofDecorativeArt,CornellUniversityPress,1980.

Grabrijan, D. & Neidhardt, J., ‘Sarajevo i njegovi trabanti’, ArhitektonskourbanistikarazmatranjauoinacrtazaregulacijegradaSarajeva’(SarajevoandIts Satellites, architectural and urban debates presented as a contribution

Bibliography

275

towards the development of the regulation plan of Sarajevo),Tehniki Vjesnik,br.79,Zagreb,1942.

Grabrijan,D.&Neidhardt,J.,ArhitekturaBosneiPutuSuvremeno(ArchitectureofBosniaandtheWayTowardsModernity),LjudskaPravica,Ljubljana,1957.

Grabrijan,D.,Plenik inNjegovaŠola (PlenikandHisSchool),ZaložbaObzorja,Maribor,1968.

Grabrijan, D., The Bosnian Oriental Architecture in Sarajevo, with SpecialReference to the Contemporary One, Dopisna Delavska Univerza, Univerzum,Ljubljana,Slovenia,1983.

Hadjijahi,M.,OdTradicijedoIdentiteta,GenezanacionalnogpitanjabosanskihMuslimana,(FromTraditiontoIdentity,TheGenesisoftheNationalquestionofBosnianMuslims),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1974.

Hall,B.,LifeandLetters,‘RebeccaWest’sWar’,TheNewYorker,15April,1996.

Hall,S.‘Whoneeds'identity'?inHall,S&DuGay,P.(eds.),QuestionsofCulturalIdentity,London,Sage,1996.

Handži,A.,PopulationofBosnia in theOttomanPeriod,AHistoricalOverview,ResearchCentreforIslamicHistory,ArtandCulture(IRCICA),Istanbul,1994.

Handži, A., Studije o Bosni, historijski prilozi iz osmanskoturskog period, (AStudyofBosniaDuringtheOttomanTurkishPeriod),ResearchCentreforIslamicHistory,ArtandCulture(IRCICA),Istanbul,1994.

Hays,K.M.,‘DiagrammingtheNewWorld,orHannesMeyer’s“Scientization”ofArchitecture’, in Galison, P. & Thompson E. (eds.),TheArchitecture of Science,TheMITPress,Cambridge,1999,pp.233252.

Hirst, P. Space and Power, Politics, War and Architecture, Polity, Cambridge,2005.

Hobsbawm,E.&Ranger,T.(eds.).TheInventionofTradition (1983),CambridgeUniversityPress,Cantoedition1992.

Holzhausen, A. (ed.), La Bosnie Hercegovine, a L’Exposition InternationaleUniversellede1900aParis,ExhibitionCatalogue,Vienne,1900.

Howarth, D. & Torfing, J. (eds.),DiscourseTheory inEuropeanPolitics, Identity,PolicyandGovernance,PalgraveMacmillan,NewYork,2005.

Hozi A., Begi , A., Krzovi I., Radi M. (eds.) Umjetnost Bosne I Hercegovine18941923 (Art of Bosnia and Herzegovina 18941923), exhibition catalogue,UmjetnikaGalerijaBosneIHercegovine,Sarajevo,1978.

Bibliography

276

Imamovi E., ‘Mercator is badly positioned’, in Bosanskohercegovaki DANI,Independentnewsmagazine,specialeditiononurbanismURBICID,June2003.

Ingersoll,R.,‘Lettertotheeditor’,JournalofArchitecturalEducation,vol.42,no.4,1989,p.61

Ingerson, C., ‘Architecture and the scene of evidence’, in Building, Dwelling,Drifting, Migrancy and the limits of architecture, 3rd Other ConnectionsConference,UniversityofMelbourne,June,1997,pp.143149.Isakovi,A.,O‘Nacionaliziranju’Muslimana,101GodinaAfirmiranjaiNegiranjaNacionalnog Identiteta Muslimana (‘Nationalisation’ of Muslims, 101 Years ofAffirmationandNegationofMuslimNationalIdentity),Globus,Zagreb,1990.

Iversen,M.,AloisRiegl:ArtHistoryandTheory,TheMITPress,Cambridge,1993.

Kapetanovi, J., ‘Stvaralaštvo Arhitekte Juraja Najdhardta’ (The architecturalworkofJurajNeidhardt),PhDthesis,UniversityofSarajevo,1988.

Karahasan, D., Sarajevo, Exodus of a City, Kodansha International, New York,1994.Kari,F., ‘MedjunarodnopravnoregulisanjeVakufskihpitanjauJugoslovenskimzemljama’,Anali,GaziHusrefBegoveBiblioteke,KnjigaIXX,pp.141153.

KarliKapetanovi, J., Juraj Najdhart, Život i Djelo (Juraj Neidhardt, Life andWork),VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo1990.

Koštovi, N., Sarajevo, Izmedju Dobrotvorstva i Zla (Sarajevo Between theCharitableandEvil),ElKalemandMerhamet,Sarajevo,1995.

Kraljai,T.,KalajevRežimuBosniiHercegovini18821903(Kallay’sGovernanceofBosniaandHercegovina’,VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo,1987.

Krei,P.,Plenik,TheCompleteWorks,AcademyEditions,Ernst&Sons,London,1993.

Kreševljakovi,H.,Esnafi iObrtiuStaromSarajevu (EsnafandCraftsof theOldSarajevo),NarodnaProsvjeta,Sarajevo,1958.

Kreševljakovi, H., Sarajevo za Vrijeme Austrougarske Uprave (1878 1918)(Sarajevo During the AustroHungarian Government), Izdanje Arhiva GradaSarajeva,Sarajevo1969.

Kruševac, T., Sarajevo pod Austro Ugarskom upravom 1878 1918 (SarajevoUnder the AustroHungarian Administration 18781918), Izdanje Muzeja GradaSarajeva,Sarajevo,1960.

Bibliography

277

Krzovi, I.,ArhitekturaBosne iHercegovine 1878 1918 (Architecture of Bosniaand Herzegovina, 18781918), Umjetnika Galerija Sarajevo, February/ March,1987.

Kurto,N.,ArhitekturaBosneIHercegovine,RazvojBosanskogStila,(Architectureof Bosnia and Hercegovina and the Development of Bosnian Style),MedjunarodniCentarzaMir,Sarajevo,1998.

Kurto, N.,Arhitektura Secesije u Sarajevu (Secession Architecture of Sarajevo),PhDthesis,UniversityofZagreb,Zagreb,1988.

Laclau, E. & Mouffe C., Hegemony & Socialist Strategy: Towards a RadicalDemocraticPolitics,Verso,London,1985.

Lampe, J., Yugoslavia as History, Twice There was a Country, CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,1996.

LeCorbusier,(trans.byEdithSchreiberAujame),PrecisionsOnthePresentStateofArchitectureandCityPlanning,TheMITPressCambridge1991.Firstpublishedin1930.

Le Corbusier,TheCityof ToMorrowand ItsPlanning, Dover Publications Inc.,NewYork,1987.

LeCorbusier,TheDecorativeArtofToday,translatedandintroducedbyDunnettJ.I.,TheArchitecturalPress,London,1987.

LeCorbusier,TheRadiantCity,TheOrionPress,NewYork,1967.Firstpublished1933.

Le Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture, Dover Publications, Inc. New York,1986.Firstpublishedin1931.

Lefebvre,H.,TheProductionofSpace,Blackwell,London,1991.

Lesnikowski,W.(ed.),EastEuropeanModernism,ArchitectureinCzechoslovakia,Hungary and Poland Between Wars, 1919 1939, Thames & Hudson, London,1996,p.10.

Lovrenovi, I.,Bosnia:ACulturalHistory,New YorkUniversity Press,NewYork,2001.

Lowenthal, D., The Past is a Foreign Country, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,1985.

Malcolm,N.,BosniaAShortHistory,Macmillan,London,1994.

Mamuzovi,I.,‘Croatianmetallurgy,past,presentandfuture’,Metalurgija,vol.43,no.1,2004,pp.3–12.

Bibliography

278

[http://public.carnet.hr/metalurg/Metalurgija/2004_vol_43/No_1/MET_43_1_003_012_Mamuzic.pdf]

Markovi,M.&Petrovi,G.(eds.),Praxis,YugoslavEssaysinthePhilosophyandMethodologyoftheSocialSciences,BostonStudiesinthePhilosophyofScience,D.ReidelPublishingCo.,Holland,1979.McKay, S., ‘Le Corbusier, negotiating modernity: representing Algiers, 19301942’,PhDthesis,UniversityofBritishColumbia,1994.

McLeod, M., ‘Le Corbusier and Algiers’, Oppositions, vol. 19, no. 20, winter/spring1980,pp.5385.

McLeod, M., ‘Urbanism and Utopia: Le Corbusier from regional syndicalism toVichy’,PhDthesis,PrincetonUniversity,1985.

Moravanszky,A.,CompetingVisions:AestheticInventionandSocial Imaginationin Central European Architecture, 18671918, The MIT Press, Cambridge,Ma.,1997.

Musabegovi, S., ‘War – the constitution of the totalitarian body’, PhD thesis,EuropeanUniversityInstitute,2004.

Musabegovi,S.,RatKonstitucijaTotalitarnogTijela,Svjetlost,Sarajevo,2008.

Morshed,A.,‘TheCulturalPoliticsofAerialVision:LeCorbusierinBrazil(1929)’,JournalofArchitecturalEducation,vol.55,no.4,May2002,pp.201210.

Nalbantoglu,B.G.,‘BetweenCivilizationandCulture:appropriationoftraditionaldwellingformsinEarlyRepublicanTurkey’,JAE,vol.47,no.2,November1993,pp.6674.

Neidhardt,J.&eli,D.,‘RješenjeMarindvoraINarodneSkupštine’,(AsolutionforMarindvorandtheNationalParliament),NašeStarine,no.1,1956.Neidhardt, J. & eli, D., ‘The old Mostar bridge’ (Stari most u Mostaru),NašeStarine,no.1,1953,pp.133–40.Neidhardt,J.‘Putevinacionalnearhitekture’(Pathstonationalarchitecture),NašiDani,November1954,p.5.Neidhardt, J. ‘Rekreacija duha I tijela’, (Recreation of mind and body), SlovoGorina,1974,pp.25–34.

Neidhardt, J. ‘Smjenakultura’, (Transitionofcultures),SlovoGorina,1973,pp.13–20.

http://public.carnet.hr/metalurg/Metalurgija/2004_vol_43/No_1/MET_43_1_003_012_Mamuzic.pdf

http://public.carnet.hr/metalurg/Metalurgija/2004_vol_43/No_1/MET_43_1_003_012_Mamuzic.pdf

Bibliography

279

Neidhardt, J., ‘Geography of architecture’, 1977, exhibition, brochure, JurajNeidhardt(19011979)inJelicaKapetanovi(curator),UmjetnikaGalerijaBosneiHercegovine,Sarajevo,31October–28November1989.Nora, P., (ed.), Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past, ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork,1996,1998.

Nora,P.,‘Betweenmemoryandhistory:LesLieuxdeMemoire’Representations,spring,no.26,1989,pp.626.

Ockman, J. (ed.)Architecture,Criticism, Ideology, Princeton Architectural Press,Princeton,1985.

Pacht, O., ‘Art historians and art critics – vi: Alois Riegl’,BurlingtonMagazine,105,1963,pp.188193.

Panofsky,E.,(trans.Northcott,K.&Snyder,J.) ‘Theconceptofartisticvolition’,CriticalInquiry8,Autumn,1981,pp.1733.

Passanti, F., ‘The vernacular, modernism, and Le Corbusier’, JSAH, Volume 56,Number4,December1997,pp.452477.

Pavlov, T., Teorija Odraza, Osnovna pitanja dijalektiko materijalistike teorijesaznanja (Theory of Reflection, The Dialectic and Materialist Grounding ofKnowing),Kultura,1947.

Pekovi, R., Ni Rat Ni Mir, Panorama književnih polemika 19451965 (NeitherWar nor Peace, [Yugoslav] Literary Debates of 19451965), Zavod za izdavakudelatnost‘FilipVišnji’,Beograd,1986.

Pinder, K. (ed.),Raceing Art History, Critical readings in Race and Art History,Routledge,NewYork,2002.

Pinson,M.(ed.)(withaforewordbyRoyP.Mottahedeh),TheMuslimsofBosniaHerzegovina, Their Historic Development from the Middle Ages to theDissolutionofYugoslavia,DistributedForTheCenterForMiddleEasternStudiesofHarvardUniversitybyHarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1994.

Prelovšek, D., Jože Plenik 1872 1957, Architectura Perennis, Yale UniversityPress,NewHaven,1997.

Prelovšek,D.,Kopa,V.,ŽalebyArchitectJožePlenik,DELO,Ljubljana,1992.

Premerl,T.,HrvatskaModernaArhitektura IzmedjuDvaRata (CroatianModernArchitecture Between The Two World Wars), Nakladni Zavod Matice Hrvatske,Zagreb,1989.

Rajchman,J.(ed.),TheIdentityinQuestion,Routledge,NewYork,1995.

Bibliography

280

Raymond, A.,TheGreat Arab Cities in the 16th18th Centuries, An Introduction,NewYorkUniversityPress,NewYork,1984.

Redži,H., IslamskaUmjetnost,(IslamicArtofYugoslavia),Jugoslavija/Beograd,Spektar/Zagreb,PrvaKnjiževnaKomuna,Mostar,1982.

Redži,H.,StudijeoIslamskojArhitektonskojBaštini,(Studiesof[Bosnian]IslamicculturalHeritage),VeselinMasleša,Sarajevo,1983

Regulacion plan sanacije, konzervacije, restauracije I revitalizacije Sarajevskearšije, (Urban Regulation plan for the preservation, conservation, restorationandrevitalisationofSarajevoaršija),SkupštinaGradaSarajeva,Sarajevo,1975.

Riedlmayer, A. J., ‘Erasing the past: the destruction of libraries and archives inBosniaandHerzegovina’;MiddleEastStudiesAssociationBulletin,vol.29,No.1,July,1995,pp.711.Riedlmayer,A.,(principalinvestigator),DestructionofCulturalheritageinBosniaHerzegovina, 19921996: A Postwar Survey of Selected Municipalities,Cambridge,Massachusetts,USA,(governmentreport),2002.

Riedlmayer, A., ‘From the ashes: the past and future of Bosnia’s culturalheritage’, in Shatzmiller, M. (ed.), Islam and Bosnia, Conflict Resolution andForeignPolicy inMultiEthnicStates,McGillQueensUniversityPress,Montreal,2002.

Riedlmayer,A.,‘Killingmemory:thetargetingoflibrariesandarchivesinBosniaHerzegovina’,Testimonypresentedatahearingof theCommissiononSecurityand Cooperation in Europe, US Government Printing Office, April, 1995,Washington,pp.5152.Riedlmayer,A.,‘Killingmemory:thetargetingofLibrariesandArchivesinBosniaHerzegovina,Newsletter of theMiddle East Libraries Association, no. 61 (MelaNotes),fall1994,pp.14.

Riedlmayer,A.,‘Librariesarenotforburning’,InternationalLibrarianshipandtheRecoveryoftheDestroyedheritageofBosniaandHercegovina,61stIFLAGeneralConference,ConferenceProceeding,August2025,1995.

Roš,S.,Rusan,A.,‘Interview’withZlatkoUgljen,Oris,vol.3,no.12,2001,pp.431.

Rowe,P.,CivicRealism,TheMITPress,Cambridge,Ma.,1997.

Said, E. W., Orientalism, Western Conceptions of the Orient, Penguin Books,London,1978.

Bibliography

281

Schwarting, M. J., ‘Postscript’, in B. Colomina (ed.), Architectureproduction,PrincetonArchitecturalPress,NewYork,1988.Starr, S. F. (trans.), ‘Le Corbusier and the U.S.S.R.: New Documentation’,Oppositions,23,winter1981,pp.122137.Schwarzer,M.,GermanArchitecturalTheoryandtheSearchforModernIdentity,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,1995.

Šegvi,N., ‘StvaralakekomponentearhitektureFNRJ’ (ThecreativecomponentofYugoslavarchitecture),Urbanizam/Arhitektura,nos.5–6,1950,pp.5–40

Serdarevi, M., Pravna ZaštitaKulturnoHistorijskogNaslijedjaBiH,Nastajanje,Ouvanje,Destrukcija (Legislative Regulations for Cultural and Historic Heritagein Bosnia and Herzegovina, Origins, Protection, Destruction), MedjunarodniCentarzaMir,Sarajevo,1997.

Šipovac,N.,KulturauSocijalistikojRepubliciBosniiHercegovini (CultureoftheSocialistRepublicBosniaandHercegovina),NISPOslobodjenje,Sarajevo,1976.

Štraus,I.,15GodinaBosanskohercegovakeArhitekture(FifteenYearsofBosnian&HerzegovineanArchitecture),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1987.

Štraus,I.,ArhitekturaJugoslavije,19451990(YugoslavArchitecture,19451990),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1991.

Štraus, I., Nova Bosanskohercegovaka Arhitektura 1945 1975 (NewArchitectureofBosniaandHercegovina),Svjetlost,Sarajevo,1977.

Tafro, D., ‘Iz istorije zaštite spomenika kulture u Bosni I Hercegovini dooslobodjenja1945’,NašeStarine,III,Sarajevo1956,pp.512.

Teige, K., (Erich Dluhosch trans. and intro.), The Minimum Dwelling, The MITPress,Cambridge,2002.

Todorov,N.,TheBalkanCity,14001900,UniversityofWashingtonPress,Seattle,1983.

Todorova, M., ‘The Ottoman legacy in the Balkans’, in C. Brown (ed.), ImperialLegacy, The Ottoman Imprint on the Balkans and the Middle East, ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork,1996.

Todorova,M.,ImaginingtheBalkans,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,1997.

Tralji, M., ‘Osvrt na Dosadašnju literarturu o Vakufima’ (Review of currentliteratureonvakuf),Anali,GaziHusrefBegoveBiblioteke,KnjigaIXX,171204.

UNESCO report, Libraries, UNESCO’s assistance to the National and UniversityLibraryofBosniaandHerzegovina,May1998,[www.unesco.org]

http://www.unesco.org

Bibliography

282

UdovikiSelb, D., ‘Le Corbusier and the Paris Exhibition of 1937, The TempsNouveauxPavilion’,JournaloftheSocietyofArchitecturalHistorians,vol.56,no.1,March1997,pp.4262Vancaš, J., ‘Bosansko Narodno Graditeljstvo’ (Bosnian built heritage), TehnikiList(TechnicalJournal),vol.31,no.24,December1928,pp.353–56.Vodi kroz Muzej grada Sarajevo (Guide Through the Museum of the City ofSarajevo),MuzejgradaSarajevo,Sarajevo,1976.Vogt, A. M., Le Corbusier, The Noble Savage, Toward an Archaeology ofModernism,TheMITPress,Cambridge,1998.

Wachtel B. A., Making a Nation, Breaking a Nation, Literature and CulturalPoliticsinYugoslavia,StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford,Ca.,1998.

West, R.,Black Lamb andGrey Falcon, a Journey Through Yugoslavia, PenguinBooks,NewYork,1994.[Firstpublishedin1941,andrepublishedin1943,1964,1982and1994].

Wiebenson,D.&Sisa,J.(eds.)TheArchitectureofHistoricHungary,Cambridge,Mass.,1998.

Williams,R.,MarxismandLiterature,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,1977.

Williams,R.,ProblemsinMaterialismandCulture,Verso,London,1980.

Žanki,I., (ed.),LeCorbusier(CharlesEdouardJeanneret),JourneyToTheEast,TheMITPress,Cambridge,1987.

Zerner, H., ‘Alois Riegl: Art, Value, and Historicism’, Daedalus, Journal of theAmericanAcademyofArtsandSciences,105,winter,1976,pp.177188.

Žižek,S.(aninterview),‘EverythingprovokesFascism’,andHerscher,A.,‘PlenikavecLaibach’,Assemblage33,MIT,1997,pp.5875.

Zlatar, B., Zlatno Doba Sarajevo, (Golden Age of Sarajevo), Svjetlost, Sarajevo,1996.

SelectedbibliographyofGrabrijan’spublications:

ForalistofDušanGrabrijan’sarticlesseealso:eliD.(ed.),GrabrijaniSarajevo,Izabrani lanci 1936 42, Prilozi za Prouavanje Istorije Sarajeva, Muzej GradaSarajeva,GodinaIIIknjigaIII,Sarajevo,1970.

Grabrijan,D.,‘JožePlenik’,Jugoslavija,29.11.1922.

Bibliography

283

Grabrijan, D., ‘Najamna zgrada u Sarajevu’ ([Rental] Dwellings in Sarajevo),Tehniar,no.6,Beograd,1935.

Grabrijan,D.,‘LeCorbusierISarajevouoiizložbenjegovogbivšegasistentaarh.Juraja Neidhardta’ (Le Corbusier and Sarajevo discussion in relating to theforthcoming exhibition of Le Corbusier’s assistant Juraj Neidhardta),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,31.10.1936.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Muslimanska groblja’, (Muslim graveyards), Jugoslovenski list,Sarajevo,14.6.1936;andNoviBehar,no.56,Sarajevo,1937.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Porodina mala kua’ (Small family home), Tehniar, no. 7,Beograd,April1936.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Povodom predstojee izložbe arh. Juraja Neidhardta, kojupriredjuje‘CvijetaZuzori’’(ContemplationontheforthcomingexhibitionofJurajNeidhardta,at‘CvijetaZuzori’gallery),JugoslovenskaPošta,Sarajevo,October,1936.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Sarajevo se izgradjuje Nekoliko polemikih misli o urbanizacijiSarajeva’ (Thoughts and comments on the development of Sarajevo),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,11.4.1936.

Grabrijan,D.,‘Željeznikiproblem,Oastronomskimsumama’,(Aproblemofthe[Sarajevo]railwaystation,aboutexuberantprices), JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,24.6.1936.

Grabrijan,D.,‘Sarajevskiželjeznikiproblem,konkretnipredlog’(TheproblemofSarajevorailwaystation,aproposal),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,1.7,1936.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Arhitekt Juraj Neidhardt, prilikom predstojee izložbe njegovihradova pod pokroviteljstvom ‘Cvijete Zuzori’’ (Architect Juraj Neidhardt,Discussion in relating to forthcoming exhibition of Juraj Neidhardta, at ‘CvijetaZuzori’gallery),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,18.10.1936

Grabrijan, D., ‘Izložba arh. Juraja Neidhardta, tuma izložbenih radova’ (TheguidetoJurajNeidhardt’sexhibition),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,7.11.1936

Grabrijan, D., ‘Kosta Strajni (uoi njegovog predavanja o Meštroviu)’ (KostaStrajni in relation tohisdiscussionofMeštrovi), JugoslovenskiList, Sarajevo,25.11.1936.

Grabrijan, D., ‘SLOVA (misli i uputi)’ (Letters, thought and ideas) Tehniar,Beograd,November/December1936.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Weekend kue (drvene konstrukcije)’ (Weekend houses, timerconstruction),Tehniar,Beograd,1937.

Bibliography

284

Grabrijan, D., ‘Osvrt na arhitektonsku izložbu Juraja Neidhardta na Tehnikomfakultetu u Zagrebu (A review of architectural exhibition of Juraj Neidhardt atTechnicalFacultyinZagreb),GradjevinskiVjesnik,no.1,Zagreb,January1937.

Grabrijan,D.,‘GradjevnaidejaGI’(Thedesignidea,DI),GradjevinskiVjesnik,no.1,Zagreb,January1937.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Arhitektonski problemi modernog teatra, Orijentacija prilikomSarajevske adaptacije’ (Architectural problems of modern theatre, a casestudyofSarajevotheatre),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,6.1.1937.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Proljetna Izložba ‘Cvijeta Zuzori’ Orijentacija jednog arhitekta’(Springexhibitionat‘CvijetaZuzori’,discussionofonearchitect),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,9.5.1937.

Grabrijan,D.,‘TurskakuaOsnoveiporijeklo’(Turkishhouses,theorigins),NoviBehar,Sarajevo,15.7.1937.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Prijedlog za regulaciju Jelaievog trga”’ (A proposal for theregulationofJelaisquare),GraevinskiVijesnik,no.9,Zagreb,1937.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Natjecaj za regulaciju Novog Sada’, (The competition of urbanregulation of city of New Sada) Graevinski Vijesnik, no. 10, Zagreb, October,1937.

Grabrijan,D., ‘Muslimanskagroblja’(Muslimgraveyards),NoviBehar,nos.56,Sarajevo,193738.

Grabrijan,D.,‘Otvorenjeizlozbe‘Kruga’Ing.Arh.GrabrijanorazvojuslikarstvauSarajevu’ (The opening of the exhibition ‘Circle’, arch engineers Grabrijan’sreview of the development of art painting in Sarajevo), Jugoslovenski List,Sarajevo,26.10.1937.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Le Corbusier propovijeda kako je ako 18 godisnji mladic gradioprvukucusvojimroditeljimanaŽenevskomjezeru’(LeCorbusierstoryabouthisfirst building, his parents home on Geneva lake), Tehniar, no. 2, Beograd,November1937.

Grabrijan,D., ‘RadnikakuaakutanproblemSarajevaprimjenaprincipastareislamske arhitekture na modernu’ (Workers housing, an acute problem ofSarajevo – application of the principles of Islamic architecture in modernarchitecture),NoviBehar,nos.1316,Sarajevo,February1938.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Trg I spomenik kralja Petra I Pompeji Salzburg Sv. Petar RimCorbusier’ (Square and monument to King Peter, Pompei Salzburg, St PeterRomeLeCorbusier),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,20.2.1938.

Bibliography

285

Grabrijan,D.,‘TrgkraljaPetrainovopozoristeuSarajevu’(StPeter’ssquareandnewtheatreinSarajevo),JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,19April1938.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Osvrt na izložbu radova (iz natjecaja za spomenik kralja Petra uSarajevu’ (Review of exhibition of the entries for the competition for themonument to King Peter in Sarajevo), Jugoslovenski List, Sarajevo, 28/ 29. 6.1938.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Spomenik kralju Aleksandru u Ljubljani’ (Monument to the KingAlexanderinLjubljana),Slovenec,Ljubljana,9August1938.

Grabrijan,D.,‘Podacioprojektovanjusokolskihdomova”,(Reviewofthedesignofsportshalls),Tehniar,Beograd,March/April/May,1938.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Regulacija Banje Ilidze od arhitekta Neidhardta’ (Regulation ofIlidžabathsbyarchitectNeidhardt),GraevinskiVijesnik,no.8.Zagreb,1938.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Za skeletnu, aprotiv masivne konstrukcije (slobodno po LeCorbusieru: Les precisions)’ (For skeletal and against masonry construction, aninterpretationofLeCorbusier’slesPrecisions),Tehniar,no.1,Beograd,Oktobar1938.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Kultura teferia (osvrt na bosansko islamsku arhitekturu)’ ( Thekultura of teferi, a view of Bosnian Islamic architecture), Jugoslovenki List,Sarajevo,8.7.1939.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Skloništa protiv napada iz vazduha’ (Anti air raid shelters),JugoslovenskaPošta,Sarajevo,27.9.1939.

Grabrijan,D.,Graevinskimaterijali (poLoosu)’ (BuildingmaterialsasbyLoos),Tehniar,no.5,Beograd,1939.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Princip obloge (po Loosu)’ (The cladding principles as by Loos),Tehniar,no.8,Beograd,May1939.

Grabrijan,D., ‘Osimetriji (polemicnidiopoSitteu,konkretnipoChoisyju)’ (Resymmetry, Sitte’s polemics and Choisy’s proposals), Tehniar, no.1, Beograd,October1939.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Problem akustike u modernoj arhitekturi (po Loosu i LeCorbusieru)’ (The acoustic problems in modern architecture, according to LoosandLeCorbusier),TehnikiList,nos.17&18,Zagreb,31.10.1939.

Grabrijan,D.,‘Zahorizontalniaprotivverikalnogprozora(poLeCorbusieru)’(Forhorizontal and against vertical windows, according to Le Corbusier), Tehniar,Beograd,January1940.

Grabrijan,D.,‘Tražimopodesnustambenuvisinu(poLeCorbusieru)’(Inasearchofgoodresidentialarchitecture),Tehniar,Beograd,March,1940.

Bibliography

286

Grabrijan, D., ‘Dvoetažni stanovi u višespratnim zgradama geneza jedne ideje(PoLoosuiLeCorbusieru)’(Twostoryflatsinmultistorybuildings,thegenesisofoneideaaccordingtoLoosandLeCorbusier),Tehniar,Beograd,March1940.

Grabrijan,D., ‘NoviTašlihan’ (NewTašlihan),NoviBehar, Sarajevo,nos.1920,15May1940.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Neboder Aleksandrova Bašaršija’ (Skyscraper – Alexander’s –Bašaršija),JugoslovenkiList,Sarajevo,9.6.1940.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Bašaršija jedna nova alternativa’ (Bašaršija one newalternative),JugoslovenkiList,Sarajevo,30.6.1940

Grabrijan, D., ‘Za holski sistem (M. Navisek) (The corridor system), Inženjer,Zagreb,vol.1,no.2,July1940.

Grabrijan,D.,‘Arhitekturanadohvatovjejeruke’(Architectureinhumanscale),NoviBehar,nos.23,Sarajevo,1940.

Grabrijan,D.,‘Arhitektonskiudionaizložbi‘Bosanskoselo’’(ArchitecturalpartoftheexhibitionBosnianvillage),JugoslovenkiList,Sarajevo,27.10.1940.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Sluaj Šerijatske gimnazije’ (The case of Sheriat school)JugoslovenkiList,Sarajevo,17.11.1940.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Avantura pokustva (po Loosu I Le Corbusieru)’ (Home wareaccording to Loos and Le Corbusier), Tehniar, no. 12, Beograd,October/November,1940.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Elastina kua’ (A flexible house), Tehniar, nos. 3 4, Beograd,December/January1940/41.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Urbanistika rješenja sarajevskih trgova’ (Urban proposals forSarajevo’ssquares),Pravda,Beograd,24.2.1941.

Grabrijan,D., ‘OdDomatehnikeradinostidoPaviljona‘CvijetaZuzori’’, (Fromtatechnicalcommunityhall to thepavilion ‘CvijetaZuzori’), JugoslovenskiList,Sarajevo,16March1941.

Grabrijan,D., ‘Reformastrokovnegasolstva’, (Onschoolreforms),Potopnik,no.23,Ljubljana,1945/46.

Grabrijan,D.,‘NatjeajzaljudskoskupšinoLRSvLjubljani’(ThecompetitionforSlovenianparliamentinLjubljana),Arhitektura,no.7,Zagreb,February,1948.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Dediššina Ljubljane’ (The heritage of Ljubljana), Arhitektura, no.1317,Zagreb,February,1948.

Bibliography

287

Grabrijan, D., ‘Plenik lavreat Prešernove nagrade’ (Plenik’s nomination forPrešern’saward),Ljudskitednik,Trieste,8.5.1949.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Šola za arhitekturno na Ljubljanski univerzi’ (The School ofArchitecutreatUniversityofLjubljana),SlovenskiPorocevalac,Ljubljana,12.11.1949.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Orijentalna hiža v Sarajevu’ (Oriental House in Sarajevo),Arhitektura,nos.2324,Zagreb,1949.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Naša orijentalna i savremena kua’ (Our Oriental andcontemporary house), Problemi arhitekture in urbanizma LRS, I posvetovanjeFLRJ,Dubrovnik1950,ArchitecturalandUrbandebates,RLSlovenia,symposiumheldinDubrovnikin1950.

D. Grabrijan, ‘Misli o Naši Dedišini v Zvezi z Referati s Posveta, Arhitektov vDubrovniku’,Separat,SlovenskiEtnograf,V/1952,pp.101106.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Misli o naši dedišini v zvazi z referati s posveta arhitektov vDubrovniku’(ThoughtsonourheritageinrelationtopresentationinDubrovnik),Ljubljana, 1950, brošura Dedišina narodov FLRJ v arhitekturi Likovni svet,Ljubljana,1951.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Spomeniki in nagrobniki narodnoovobodilnega boja’ (Monumenttopeople’srevolution),LikovniSvet,Ljubljana,1951.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Arhitektura v merilu loveka’ (Architecture in human scale),Arhitekt,no.4,Ljubljana,,May/June1952.

Grabrijan,D.,‘ArhitektonskonasljedenarodaJugoslavije’(ArchitecturalheritageofthepeopleofYugoslavia),Arhitektura,no.5,Zagreb,1952.

Grabrijan,D.,‘Organskiurbanizem’(Organicurbanism),Arhitekt,no.7,Ljubljana,November/December1952.

Grabrijan,D.,‘LeCorbusier’,NašiRazgledi,Ljubljana,4.October1952.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Obeležje makedonske civilne arhitekture in njeni tvorci (Thecharacteristics of Macedonian architecture and its creators), Naši Razgledi,Ljubljana,18October1952.

Grabrijan,D., ‘NajnovejsijedelomojstraPlenika’(ThemostrecentcreationsofthemaestroPlenik),NašiRazgledi,Ljubljana,29November1952.

Grabrijan,D., ‘Arhitektoslikarstvu rezoniranjearhitektaobumetnostiLojzetaSpacala’(ViewsonartofLojzeSpacala,anarchitectsperspective),Naširazgledi,Ljubljana,7November1953.

Bibliography

288

Grabrijan,D.,‘Dubrovniskidvorci’(Dubrovnik’scourts),Review,Arhitekt,no.10,Ljubljana,1952,

Grabrijan, D., ‘Lik Plenikove Ljubljane’ (Plenik’s Ljubljana), Naši Razgledi,Ljubljana,23February1957.

Grabrijan,D.,‘Primerjavaorientalskehisessodobno’(UseofOrientaltraditionincontemporaryresidentialdesign),NašiRazgledi,Ljubljana,19.9.1964.

Grabrijan,D.,‘VeliinainslabostiJožetaPlenika’(ThegreatnessintheweaknessofJožePlenik),Sodobnost,no.6.Ljubljana,1964.

Grabrijan, D., ‘Plenik i novija slovenaka arhitektura (Plenik and the newSlovenianarchitecture),Arhitekturaiurbanizam,no.38,Beograd,1966.

Grabrijan, D., (ed.), Urbanizam, arhitektura, konstrukcije (uredil besedilo),(Urbanism,architectureandconstruction)Ljubljana,ProjektivnizavodLRS,19451946.

Grabrijan,D.,Makedonskakuailiprelazstareorijentalneusavremenuevropskukuu,(MacedonianhouseandthetransformationsintocontemporaryEuropeanhouse),DZS,Ljubljana,1955.

Grabrijan,D.,Kakojenastalanašaslobodnahiša,(Developmentofourdomesticarchitecture),MK,Ljubljana,1959.

Grabrijan, D., Zgodovina Arhitekture, svobodno po Choisyju (History ofArchitecturebasedonChoisy),Univerza,Ljubljana,1949,[reprintedin1952and1961].

Grabrijan,D.(N.Grabrijaneditor),TheBosnianOrientalArchitectureinSarajevo,with Special Reference to the Contemporary one, Reprint, Dopisna delavskauniverza,Univerzum,Ljubljana,Slovenia,1983.

Websites

MuzejGradaSarajeva,StambenaKulturaStarogSarajeva,DES,Sarajevo,1975.http://www.muzejsarajeva.ba/content/view/37/52/lang,en/ForreferencetoVaesitula(vessel)fromtheendofthe6thcenturyBC.Seewww.narmuzlj.si/ang/odd/arh/arhobj.html,viewedMay2009.ForextractsfromIvoAndri’snovelsee,http://www.ivoandric.org.yu/html/body_andric_s_treasury_ii.html,viewedJune2009.Mamuzovi,I.,‘Croatianmetallurgy,past,presentandfuture’,Metalurgija,43,1,2004,pp.3–12.http://public.carnet.hr/metalurg/Metalurgija/2004_vol_43/No_1/MET_43_1_003_012_Mamuzic.pdf


http://www.narmuzlj.si/ang/odd/arh/arhobj.html

http://www.ivoandric.org.yu/html/body_andric_s_treasury_ii.html

http://public.carnet.hr/metalurg/Metalurgija/2004_vol_43/No_1/MET_43_1_003_01

Documents

Alić Dijana (2010) - Transformation of the oriental in the Architectural Work of Juraj Neidhardt and Dušan Grabrijan