Enchanting Views. Romanian Black Sea Tourism Planning and Architecture of the 1960s and ’70s

Cover
Sewn paperback, jacket

Edition
2024 (second edition), 23 x 22 cm, 264 pp., 118 ills., Romanian/English

Series
Architecture Book Series

ISBN 978-606-94536-9-8

Book concept, editor
Alina Șerban

Associate editors
Sorin Istudor, Kalliopi Dimou

Texts
T. Elvan Altan, Irina Băncescu, Elke Beyer & Anke Hagemann, Adina Brădeanu, Claude Karnoouh, Olga Kazakova, Juliana Maxim, Carmen Popescu, Magda Predescu, Adelina Ștefan, Irina Tulbure, Ana Maria Zahariade

Artist Insert
Nicu Ilfoveanu

Design
Radu Manelici

This book provides a first critical survey of the extraordinary situation held by the Romanian Black Sea Coast project in the architectural practice of the 1960s and ’70s. The adoption of modernist principles and technologies in architecture, as well as of mass tourism practices on Romanian seaside can be viewed both as an expression of the postwar urbanisation and industrialisation processes and as a frame of negotiation of geopolitical factors, domestic economy and political interests. Suggesting that leisure architecture belongs to a whole publicity apparatus of representation of the socialist state, the book outlines the role of architecture as frame of enclosure and display of practices (either architectural, social and political). The assemblage of essays and photographs guides the reader through a transdisciplinary analysis of the modernity of the Romanian seaside, examining in a methodical and nuanced way the distinctive character of the development plan. Bringing into play new theoretical perspectives and documents in order to renegotiate the numerous and complex dimensions of leisure architecture, the term representation becomes this anthology’s “vanishing point.”

Publication supported by: Romanian Order of Architects, from the Architectural Stamp Duty, ERSTE Foundation, Graham Foundation, Romanian Union of Architects

< >

+5
+5

Interview with
Kalliopi Dimou, Sorin Istudor, Alina Șerban

1 / 5
Ioana Alexe: To what extent do you consider that the archives currently available, including documents, photographs and oral testimonies, provide a solid basis for a complex and nuanced understanding of the socialist era in Romania? What gaps do you identify in these archives and how could they be filled to provide a more complete picture?
Alina Șerban: Archives per se are neither limitative nor exhaustive. For a better orientation in this debate born (and which still persists) around archives, it is worth re-reading, for example, the article by Hal Foster, Archives of Modern Art, published in 2002. There are some important clues there that can broaden the way in which we represent our work with archives (be they institutional or private) and survey the mass of materials contained therein (inventoried or not), in accordance with our own methodology, in search of answers to our questions. For me, the archives are not the main key to a field of research; they are only a link in the chain of unraveling the features and processes that characterize the “project theme”, which was, in our case, the architecture of the Romanian seaside in the 1960s and 1970s. In hindsight, perhaps the most interesting aspect of working with the archives to which we had access was that we were provided with some basic terminology for our arguments. What Foster states in his text, namely that the archive ends up structuring the discourse, we have integrated somewhat instinctively into our research. So I would speak neither of gaps, nor of exhaustiveness, but only of the need to integrate the theme in a dialectical process of clarifying the coordinates of a moment in the recent cultural and social history of Romania. Thus, we tried to associate what existed in the field with the documentary and photographic material from the archives and publications of the time. There was an extremely wide range of sources, from ONT commercials to interviews with the architects who had worked on the coast. Many of the archives were already out there, accessible to any researcher, although the subject was not of interest. I believe that AGERPRES, on the occasion of our exhibition Enchanting Views, scanned for the first time some of the material in their archive. From the perspective of the mechanics of memory, the interviews with the architects involved in the development of the seaside project and the materials kept in their private space were extremely important for us, and so was the postcard collection which inspired us in the choice of the title, because it clearly showed us the role and impact that the image of seaside architecture had on the social life in those years, as well as the ambiguity of the approach of this large-scale project, with multiple nuances (ideological, but also avant-garde).
2 / 5
How can researchers and historians maintain a balance between the nostalgic tone that can come naturally when working with archival material and the need for a critical, objective approach that seeks the truth specific to that period? Are there strategies or methodologies you recommend to avoid the pitfalls of unjustified idealization?
Sorin Istudor: I don't think I can answer on behalf of historians but for us, for the Enchanting Views project, nostalgia was never at any point the reason for approaching this theme. We were aware that it could appear as a sensation in the exhibition, since we were dealing with leisure, the sea and modernist architecture, so from the very beginning we set out to control it, to study it, to look at it from a broader perspective, but not to be drawn into it. Although it is an exhibition about seaside architecture, the research was not limited to it; we contextualized it very broadly historically and territorially, thus having a distance, a critical and “sober” perspective on the subject. Naturally, for us, as young architects, the rediscovery in the archives of the Design Institutes of those huge plans “drawn in ink” on tracing paper, that “reality and materiality of the architectural process” which has almost completely disappeared today, has given us a nostalgic feeling for the way the design collectives worked. But looking at the wider context of the period under study, you realize that this micro-history is a minor element, at the level of a professional group, part of a political, economic, and social complex with significant historical repercussions. Thus, the presence of these artifacts in the exhibition was not conceived as object-form but as architectural content. Critical thinking and spatial-temporal contextualization help greatly in avoiding an exaggerated nostalgia for a subject or its fetishization.
3 / 5
To what extent do you consider that the exceptionality and modernity of the Romanian seaside architecture of the socialist period has been taken up or reflected in the subsequent developments on the Romanian seaside after 1989? What are the main barriers or challenges that have hindered this continuity and how could these be addressed in order to capitalize on the architectural heritage of that era?
Sorin Istudor: It would have been unrealistic to expect continuity or at least a takeover of the modernity of the seaside after 1989, especially in the first decade, but unfortunately, the total abandonment of valuable architectural, urban and landscape elements says something about the violence accumulated in Romanian society. No steps have been taken to study the architecture and urban planning of the seaside as a basis for further development, so things have been forgotten and local capitalism has gone about its business in a chaotic fashion. Whole areas have been obliterated and destroyed, and not only the post-war development but also much of the inter-war architecture and planning of the coastal zone. At the moment I believe that we can only have a joint approach to all the historical and natural layers of the area to achieve a coherent plan for the future.
4 / 5
Given the current state of neglect and degradation of many buildings on the Romanian coastline, what are the challenges and opportunities in the conservation and revalorization of this architectural heritage? How should they be addressed in the contemporary context?
Sorin Istudor & Kalliopi Dimou: As we were trying to say above, it is serious but it is not too late. Through a careful study and a fair and reasoned evaluation of the built heritage together with a contemporary territorial and ecological approach, solutions can be found for the present and the future, solutions in which the valuable elements of the inter-war and post-war built heritage can be reused and integrated in accordance with the new European architectural-urban concepts and adapted to the realities and needs of the Romanian society we envisage.
5 / 5
In view of the reprinting of Enchanting Views, what new elements would you include to reflect the changes and developments in the perception and study of Romanian coastal architecture since the first publication? How would you approach the reconfiguration of the content and design of the exhibition, if you were to organize it today, in order to respond to the current interests and sensibilities of the public?
Alina Șerban: I believe that the Enchanting Views project was the first consistent curatorial endeavor dedicated exclusively to the phenomenon of leisure architecture in Romania. It was important for us to connect the academic area with the exhibition area, and implicitly with the public. The publication is not a catalog but an essential addendum for a complete reading of the evolution of the phenomenon locally, where we invited authors and researchers who have examined the subject from multiple points of view (sociological, architectural, filmic, artistic). It's an extremely important resource book and it's a joy to be able to reissue it. What I would bring new, if I were to redo the exhibition ... I would go back to the original plan I had in mind at the time: an exhibition that scans the territory of leisure architecture from a regional perspective. We wanted to relate the extremely different situations present along the Black Sea coast in those years, so the Romanian case would have been contextualized alongside the Bulgarian, Turkish or Soviet ones. We managed to do some preliminary research in Turkey at that time, but the scale of the project would have been far too large for the resources we had at that time. Instead, the publication has this comparative dimension, where a number of texts on the subject by architectural historians from the region are included.