2 research outputs found
Young artists and the development of artistic quarters in Polish cities
The phenomenon of artistic quarters has been explored by many researchers interested in the spatial behaviours of artists in North American and Western European cities. Their analyses have often focused on the impact of this occupational group on transformations of selected urban areas: the arrival of artists as pioneers in degraded, problem neighbourhoods and the evolution of those neighbourhoods, which then attract more established artists, followed by creative professionals and non-creative gentrifiers. As over time the built environment, functions, cultural, gastronomic offer and ambiance of such areas change significantly, their progressive mainstreaming and commercialization prompt some artists to venture into new districts and spaces. The article first offers a review of existing findings with respect to artistic quarters and their transformations. The discussion of the possible stages of development of artistic quarters present in literature is followed by the application of this theoretical framework in the context of Polish cities using the examples of Krakow and Katowice. These significant regional capitals represent two major types of urban centres in Poland: a city with medieval roots, and a city which emerged during the 19th-century industrialisation process. The phases of evolution of the artistic quarters in both cities are analysed by examining the spatial perceptions of students of artistic majors. The analysis shows that the transformations of urban spaces in terms of their functions and perceptions as artistic quarters are not as straightforward and linear as earlier studies might suggest. Krakow’s more vibrant artistic life and its historic, concentric urban structure, combined with strong commercial pressures, are conducive to the development of new artistic quarters, although its traditional city centre continues to some extent to maintain its position on the artistic map of the city. In contrast, in Katowice the chaotic spatial structure of the heart of this historic industrial region makes the flow of artists more difficult and less likely, as they tend to concentrate in a poorly delineated area of the inner city. In addition, as the case studies reveal, spatial choices of artists are not only dependent on a city’s development path and its built environment but are also to a significant extent shaped by the diverse artistic backgrounds of its creatives and a host of factors linked with post-socialist transformation and neoliberal urban policies
L’urbanisme et l’architecture des villes d’Europe centrale pendant la première moitié du xxe siècle
L’Europe centrale du dĂ©but du xxe siècle Ă©tait un espace que ne dĂ©finissaient pas tant ses frontières nationales qu’un rĂ©seau complexe de mĂ©tropoles transnationales. Ces sociĂ©tĂ©s urbaines ont dĂ©veloppĂ© des approches et des techniques innovantes pour la construction des villes. Cependant, le rĂ©seau polycentrique que favorisait l’Empire a disparu avec sa culture dynamique dans le sillage de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, puis de la domination soviĂ©tique sur l’Europe de l’Est.Victime de la division binaire de l’Europe rĂ©sultant de la guerre froide, la ville d’Europe centrale a cessĂ© d’être considĂ©rĂ©e comme un objet d’étude et a Ă©tĂ© Ă©clipsĂ©e de l’histoire de l’architecture moderne. De 1945 Ă 1990, les recherches sur le modernisme en Europe centrale ont suivi deux lignes gĂ©opolitiques et idĂ©ologiques diffĂ©rentes clairement dĂ©finies : les travaux poursuivis Ă l’Ouest se sont concentrĂ©s principalement sur Vienne et la culture architecturale cosmopolite de la capitale impĂ©riale ; Ă l’Est, les recherches se sont axĂ©es sur les territoires compris dans le bloc soviĂ©tique et sur la « lutte pour l’autonomie nationale » telle qu’elle s’exprimait dans les discours architecturaux et les projets des groupes nationaux de l’ancien Empire.Avec la chute du communisme en Europe, les informations et les idĂ©es ont recommencĂ© Ă circuler librement. De nouvelles perspectives ont transformĂ© non seulement l’histoire de l’architecture de l’Europe centrale, mais aussi les discours dominants sur le modernisme international. Depuis une dizaine d’annĂ©es, de nouveaux sujets de recherche portant sur les rĂ©gimes territoriaux, les conditions frontalières, les continuitĂ©s temporelles et spatiales, les structures institutionnelles et les circonstances de cette transition elle-mĂŞme ont permis l’apparition de mĂ©thodologies historiographiques et de critiques novatrices pour comprendre la ville et l’architecture moderne dans l’Europe conçue comme un tout.Early 20th-century Central Europe is a territory defined, not by national borders, but by an intricately interwoven network of transnational metropoles – of modernizing cities – that were the principal arenas of public culture in the Habsburg Empire and the successor states that followed it. The multinational urban societies of Central Europe generated distinctive architectural ideas and techniques of city-making. But the polycentric network and vital urban culture it had fostered disappeared in the wake of World War II and the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.With the binary division of Cold War Europe, the Central European city as an object of study also disappeared from the scholarly agenda of modern architectural history. From 1945 to 1990, research on Central European modernism was bifurcated along clearly defined geopolitical and ideological lines. Scholarship produced in the West was largely Vienna-centric, focused on the cosmopolitan architectural culture of the imperial capital. In the East, the focus was on the territories contained by the East Bloc and on the “struggle for national autonomy” as it played out in the architectural discourses and projects of the former Empire’s national groups.With the fall of communism in Europe, information and ideas once again circulated freely throughout the region, and the history of Central European modern architecture and urbanism began to be rewritten. The new post-1990 perspectives are changing not only the architectural history of the region, but also the master narratives of international modernism. In the last decade, new topics of research focusing on territorial regimes, border conditions, temporal and spatial continuities, institutional structures, and the condition of transition itself are generating new historiographical and critical methodologies for understanding the city and modern architecture in Europe as a whole.Das Zentraleuropa des beginnenden zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts war ein Raum, der nicht so sehr von seinen nationalen Grenzen, als von einem komplexen Netzwerk transnationaler Metropolen bestimmt war. Seine urbanen Unternehmen haben innovative Ansätze und Techniken des Städtebaus entwickelt. Allerdings verlor sich diese noch vom Kaiserreich unterstĂĽtzte polyzentrische Dynamik im Zuge des zweiten Weltkriegs und schlieĂźlich durch die sowjetische Vorherrschaft in Osteuropa.Die zentraleuropäische Stadt fiel der Zweiteilung Europas als Ergebnis des kalten Kriegs zum Opfer, indem sie als wissenschaftliches Thema negiert und von der Geschichte der modernen Architektur ignoriert wurde. Zwischen 1945 und 1990 hat die Forschung zur Moderne in Zentraleuropa zwei geopolitisch und ideologisch klar voneinander abgegrenzte Modelle verfolgt. Während sich die Arbeiten im Westen vorrangig auf Wien und die weltbĂĽrgerliche Architektur der Reichshauptstadt bezogen, konzentrierte sich die Forschung im Osten auf die Gebiete des Sowjetblocks und auf den „Kampf fĂĽr die nationale Unabhängigkeit“, wie er sich in den architektonischen Reden und nationalen Gruppenprojekten des ehemaligen Kaiserreichs ausdrĂĽckte.Mit dem Sturz des Kommunismus in Europa hat ein erneuter Ideen- und Informationsfluss zwischen Ost und West eingesetzt. Neue Perspektiven haben nicht nur die Architekturgeschichte Zentraleuropas verändert, sondern auch die bestimmenden Diskurse ĂĽber die internationale Moderne. Seit ungefähr zehn Jahren treten neue Forschungsthemen ans Licht, die sich fĂĽr die territorialen Regime, die Grenzbedingungen, die zeitlichen und räumlichen Kontinua und die institutionellen Strukturen interessieren. DarĂĽber hinaus haben die Bedingungen selbst fĂĽr diese Weiterentwicklung neue historiografische Methoden und Kritiken zutage gefördert, die ein gesamtheitliches Verständnis der Stadt und der modernen Architektur Europas ermöglichen.L’Europa centrale dell’inizio del xx secolo era un territorio definito piĂą che dalle proprie frontiere nazionali, da una rete complessa di metropoli transnazionali. Queste societĂ urbane avevano sviluppato dei criteri e delle tecniche innovative per la costruzione delle cittĂ . Tuttavia, la rete policentrica favorita dall’Impero è scomparsa insieme con la sua cultura dinamica in seguito alla Seconda guerra mondiale e successivamente alla dominazione sovietica dell’Europa dell’Est.Vittima della divisione dell’Europa a causa alla guerra fredda, la cittĂ , in Europa centrale, non è piĂą stata presa in considerazione come un oggetto di studio ed è rimasta nell’ombra all’interno della storia dell’architettura moderna. Dal 1945 al 1990, le ricerche sul modernismo in Europa centrale hanno seguito due linee geopolitiche e ideologiche diverse chiaramente definite: le ricerche intraprese in Occidente si sono concentrate principalmente su Vienna e la cultura architettonica cosmopolita della capitale imperiale; all’Est, invece, gli studi si sono orientati verso l’analisi dei territori del blocco sovietico e verso la “lotta per l’autonomia nazionale” così come questa si esprimeva nel pensiero architettonico e nei progetti di gruppi nazionali dell’antico Impero.Con la caduta del comunismo in Europa, le informazioni e le idee hanno ricominciato a circolare liberamente. Nuove prospettive hanno trasformato non solo la storia dell’architettura dell’Europa centrale, ma anche il pensiero dominante sul modernismo internazionale. Da una decina d’anni, nuovi soggetti di studio dedicati ai regimi territoriali, alle condizioni di frontiera, alle continuitĂ temporali e spaziali, alle strutture istituzionali e alle circostanze di questa stessa transizione, hanno permesso il nascere di metodologie storiografiche e di critiche innovatrici per comprendere la cittĂ e l’architettura moderna nell’Europa concepita nel suo insieme.La Europa Central del principio del siglo xx siglo era un espacio que no definĂan tanto sus fronteras nacionales como una red compleja de metrĂłpolis transnacionales. Estas sociedades urbanas desarrollaron enfoques y tĂ©cnicas innovadores para la construcciĂłn de las ciudades. Sin embargo, la red policĂ©ntrica que favorecĂa el Imperio desapareciĂł con su cultura dinámica siguiendo la estela de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, luego de la soberanĂa soviĂ©tica sobre Europa del Este.VĂctima de la divisiĂłn binaria de Europa que resultaba de la guerra frĂa, la ciudad de Europa Central dejĂł considerarse como un objeto de estudio y se eclipsĂł de la historia de la arquitectura moderna. De 1945 a 1990, las investigaciones sobre el modernismo en Europa Central siguieron dos lĂneas geopolĂticas e ideolĂłgicas diferentes claramente definidas: los trabajos llevados a cabo al Oeste se concentraron principalmente sobre Viena y la cultura arquitectĂłnica cosmopolita de la capital imperial; al Este, las investigaciones se orientaron hacia los territorios incluidos en el bloque soviĂ©tico y hacia la “lucha por la autonomĂa nacional” tal como se expresaba en los discursos arquitectĂłnicos y los proyectos de los grupos nacionales del antiguo Imperio.Con la caĂda del comunismo en Europa, la informaciĂłn y las ideas volvieron a circular libremente. Nuevas perspectivas transformaron no sĂłlo la historia de la arquitectura de la Europa Central, sino tambiĂ©n los discursos dominantes sobre el modernismo internacional. Desde unos diez años, nuevos temas de investigaciĂłn sobre los regĂmenes territoriales, las condiciones fronterizas, las continuidades temporales y espaciales, las estructuras institucionales y las circunstancias de esta transiciĂłn ella misma permitieron la apariciĂłn de metodologĂas historiográficas y crĂticas innovadoras para incluir la ciudad y la arquitectura moderna en la Europa concebida como un conjunto