Enclaves of Expression: Resistance by Young Architects to the Physical and Psychological

Control of Expression in Romania during the 1980s

Author(s): Helen Stratford
Source: Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), Vol. 54, No. 4 (May, 2001), pp. 218-228
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of Collegiate Schools of
Architecture, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1425656 .
Accessed: 17/06/2014 05:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc. are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Architectural Education (1984-).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:50:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Enclavesof Expression:
Resistanceby YoungArchitectsto the PhysicalandPsychological
Control
of Expressionin Romaniaduringthe 1980s
HELENSTRATFORD,University of Nottingham

Theeightiesandearlyninetiesborewitnessto the of transforming political structures, includ- simply in one specific location but "em-
gradualconclusion of a numberof politicalre-
ing South Africa, Russia, and East Germany, ployed and exercised through a netlike orga-
gimes.Thispaperexplorestheworkof various
youngRomanian architectsandgroupswho,from and spanning acrossthem. Romania, how- nization" spread throughout entire societal
the earlyeightiesonwards, questionedcurrentor- ever, is a particularlyinteresting case. structures and manifest in everyday opera-
thodoxiesin architecture aroundthemas protests This kind of work is politically moti- tions as "micro-powers."3Therefore, any re-
againstrepressionunderthe monolithic Ceausescu
regime.Itoffersa glimpse,a fragment,of thewider vated since it responds to the social and/or sistance to such an omnipresent regime
"milieuof resistance"in Romania at thistime,and cultural condition within which it is situated, proved extremely difficult, dangerous, and
reflectsonthe intention andvalueof suchliminal even if the material itself cannot, by defini- fragmented,constituting what Foucault him-
enterprisesthroughtracingtheirstoriesbothfrom
beforethe 1989 revolution andafter. tion, be strictly "political." As Fredric self might term a "pluralityof resistances."4
Jameson has written in "Is Space Political?" Because the nature of resistance is not
no work of art or culture can set out to be always "radical," total, or obvious, but
political once and for all . . . for there can sometimes needs to be indirect, some of the
Introduction
never be any guaranteeit will be used the way work is composed of subtle subversions, not
it demands."' In other words, even though a readily categorized under conventional
Architecture is, necessarily, an expressive
political reading can be made from the work, modes of architectural expression. In Geog-
manifestationand communication of creative
the work of art is "in itself inert."2In fact, in raphies of Resistance, Steve Pile describes
ideas and concepts. Every emerging architect all the cases I will
discuss, it is less the archi- such moves as "tiny micro-movements of
uses some kind of medium, be it "the media"
tecture or the art form that is deemed to be resistance, barely perceptible, even invisible
as conventionally understood, in terms of ex-
the protest than the actual act of creating it. or covert-quiet stealthy masquerades resis-
hibitions or publications, or some other
The search for these creative practices tant to categorization and definition."5 Such
means of communication, as a platform for covert modes of action result from an
of resistancecan prove arduous. Those prac-
launching his or her work. When opportuni- tices that do not fit the stereotypesunderstood awareness that direct confrontations can
ties for building are scarce or the official or-
by mainstreamculture tend never to reachthe sometimes exacerbate the problems to
thodoxies of architecture appear bleak, which the reaction is made. As Doina
media where their message might be dissemi-
through the aesthetic and professional con- nated, and are destined to obscurity. Indeed, Petrescu, a Romanian architect now living
straints that they exert, the chosen media can
one can assume that some people engaging in in Paris and one of my principle contacts,
be used to express dissatisfaction with the
manifestationsof protest deliberatelyshun the comments, the material for this subject is by
reigning conditions. Such work can be seen established its very nature "discreet and codified."'6
press media, who frequently
as an act of protest or resistanceagainst over-
trivialize the issues raised and attempt to ad- The hidden nature of these practices
riding sociopolitical structures. It can take dress them means that the types of source material are
solely through the narrowcatego-
the form of both an inward-looking type of varied. "Official" or "establishment" media
ries with which they feel secure. In addition,
self-expression, stemming from a criticism the arduousnessof the searchcan contain almost no mention of such people.
partlybe at-
fueled by frustration felt in the professional tributed to the economic constraintsto which
Information begins with a few letters, a few
and/or educational domain of architecture,
architectureas a practiceof building is bound. articles, a few e-mails, and a few extended
and a wider social critique that is to a certain conversations. Eventually these lead to rel-
Building projectsareinexorablyallied to those
degree more outward looking. This paper ex- with the means and power to fund and imple- evant contacts and articles that disclose the
plores the manifestations of such resistance ment them. In Romania, Ceausescu domi- hidden information to which the initial
by variousyoung Romanian architectsduring nated all structures of power, with which small signals had pointed.
the years of the Ceausescu regime. These
many architectswere complicit. To step out- Compared to other groups within my
young architects form part of a larger study side those structuresalmost inevitably meant larger study, the Romanian situation is par-
that I have completed, the scope of which
not building anything at all. ticularly pertinent in this regard.Subsequent
stretches wide geographicallyand politically. to the extreme political changes in the coun-
The pervasivenessof the Ceausescu re-
It covers work situated both within a number
gime can be understood as a web of Fou- try in 1989, many membersof the groups car-
Education,pp. 218-228
JournalofArchitectural
cauldian "micro-powers." For Michel rying out such works of resistance have
? 2001 ACSA, Inc. Foucault, power is not solely concentrated dispersed to other European countries. Such

May2001 JAE54/4 21 8

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:50:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ••."
!lliiilitiiiiiii
.Bi i i:::;:?l i! i! )N
:... •???
:

• =•?/;:[:•[;[~~~
•=•] ~~~::•::i/;:]!"
?i::•:l:
::l!:'..?;:
:i:.i...i.
]:•:::::•%
•:. ..•???
• :•!:i...::.i!i•::
:i.•:?•!ii!:
i; i?i (i•i•
' .:
i•%. ... =,
?li'::i::ii!ii 'jii(iiiiiitiitii•
'?? " .. ......
('.l~ii'l;:,?:.,.i. ==•,, .
.. =iiiiiiii . .. I illii!
ii..',iiiii)!i)!ii•;.iii))iiiiiilll+ill ....... i11,,..-•1

?.
more akin to a social engineeringexercisewith
"'.]":L• ..........f
the ultimate ideological target being "the ho-
mogenization of the Romanian socialist soci-
Avisible
ofiithe centralizaioofatotyPiurpstrdieofheHsefte
i ': i : ~ ety, a reduction of the main differences
1.symbol
People.:i between villageand town and the accomplish-
ment of a single society of the working
people."8As a visible symbol of the centraliza-
tion of authority, the remodeling of the cen-
ter of Bucharestincluded the construction of
the immense Boulevardof the Victory of So-
cialism, which was crowned by the paradoxi-
??'?'*'"
'::..•
........ . 7,' ..:•.•.:!7"
..•......:•:
-.
i. ;•:; ''• .FT :• : ?.,.•::?
;:•:iIn?*~~~-~~:
:II•L..;.j
~~
~:C::??
":? :]i:.;:"•::•:::::•":.
).? ?
......~
cally lavish and megalomaniac House of the
?'"?~:..•!:• ..: =-...."i?' .. ?. ?

.... ?,-. . .:< : •o ,,i .... . . . .

.
.. ...
People (Figures 1 and 2).9 Within such a con-
.*??~ . . . .
text, where power is played out in acts of
:* building, architecturalexpressionbecomes in-
:•:•er~y ! :::: tenselyimportantand significantas a means of
? i,.: ,;:::::: . ..
? :i.
.:: I , . _. ? rai?:~"
??-,; expressingan alternativediscourse.
"?.
???:? .••i ..•Ti.... ?,~a: .....~~1:. ........
: :1:
??'?
.....
i"..-. .:'7!c~
.I
.............,v.==•.
L.?•=
.
...
.
• :g:
.•:-.: '' .: " In Romania in Turmoil,Martyn Rady
m.. ;; ( ??.:
mC .....
imm .i .
.... m. m?:Vm • mmm
:?•
.
• explains how the accumulation of numerous
.. •.....(m ...i...
.....:I
•m••:••m•
s
= =•m•
~ ~~~;~
.m
mmm
•m m
m
mm•~mm•
.. . . .. ..
coul destroy or reoct
~ eniedsrcswt
factors largely prevented any political resis-
2.~ f
Ceussc, hesef-ppinted~~ head arcitct
oneswepis an. Ctyof ucarst, ~":destoye or??
9/ (iner192) reloate mouens rom-?
Journa o tance to the Ceausescu regime whatsoever.
an Plnnn
Architectural??? Research'??
Firstly, the "pervasiveinfluence" of the secu-
rity apparatus and the rotation in office of
rivals for power prevented any opposition in
government.'0 Furthermore, Rady explains
how Ceausescu's Romania provoked a sense
of "timelessness and personal superfluity,"
and that ordinary Romanians experienced a
"profound sense of resignation," which can
a dispersal of key players makes possible un- mania since the end of World War II came be largelyattributed to "the constant dissipa-
precedented access to work completed in se- to an end, culminating in the overthrow of tion of intellectual and physical energy in
vere political silence, its message obliterated Nicolae Ceausescu and the collapse of State the mundane task of obtaining sufficient
within the confines of a totalitarian regime. Communism in December 1989.7 Preced- food, warmth and medicines to go on liv-
Moreover, a recordingof this work is essential ing this dissolution, the restrictions on all ing."" Even more than other Eastern Euro-
before the means through which it is now dis- levels of societal relations in "pre-revolu- pean political regimes, Ceausescu's regime
seminated-dispersal of its authors-be- tionary" Romania were extreme-embrac- understood the effectiveness of Foucauldian
comes the cause of its own obliteration. In the ing politics, everyday life, and architectural micro-powers as pervasive agents of control
context of a wider analysis,it is this recording expression. Throughout the eighties, expressed at the level of everyday life.
process to which I have tried to contribute. Ceausescu implemented his Systematization The middle classes and the intellectu-
program involving the destruction of nu- als of Romania were, in general, equally
merous historic buildings in Romania's submissive, although through different expe-
The Background: Ceausescu's Regime towns, and the razing of vast numbers of riences. Rady comments that for the Roma-
villages to be replaced by standardized nian bourgeoisie, the customary source of
During the late eighties, the totalitarian re- apartment blocks promising better living employment was in the service of the state,
gime that had presided so fiercely over Ro- standards. In fact, this Systematization was and government patronage was traditionally

21 9 Stratford

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:50:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
regardedas the "key to material prosperity."
For writers and poets, the way to get pieces
published and achieve notoriety was by ac-
knowledging support for Ceausescu. Yet,
Ceausescu's frequent and brutal criticism of
intellectualism" exacerbated a tradition of
distrust between the intellectuals and the
working class. Therefore, Rady concludes,
Romania remained largelywithout an "intel-
lectual dissident leadership," unlike the
movements of popular protest in such coun-
tries as Czechoslovakia and Poland.12
Ultimately, any resistance to the re-
gime was "always muted" via Ceausescu's
promotion of an "auraof popular legitimacy
by emphasizing strongly nationalist creden-
tials and boasting the enormous support he
enjoyed both at home and abroad." When
the population were not assured by such a
display "the securitate were ready to apply
both physical and psychological pressure."'3
Students were among the first in Ro-
mania to show outward signs of dissent. In
November 1989, when the rest of the com-
munist system in EasternEurope was collaps-
ing, Romania, along with Albania, remained
alone in its subservience to totalitarian com-
munism. It was in the same month that
Ceausescu was unanimously re-elected as
leader of the Romanian Communist Partyby
the 3,308 delegates at the 14th Party Con-
gress. Ceausescu insisted that "only when
pears grew from poplar trees would the Party
relinquish its leading role in Politics and So-
ciety." The students' response was to hang
fruit on bushes as a sign of their defiance.'"4
This scene of repressive dictatorship
commanded by Ceausescu provided the
backdrop to the work created by the hand-
ful of individuals and small groups of young
architects that aimed to challenge the re-
strictions of the regime. Such work was
found at various fissures in the landscape of
architectural entities that existed in Roma-
nia at that time, among architects, students,
May2001 JAE54/4
This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:50:52 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and educators. It survived within the archi-
tecture schools of Bucharest and Timisoara,
within a few firms of young architects, and
outside both these traditional institutions of
the profession altogether, in the work of
small independent groups.
The Bucharest School of Architecture
The Bucharest School of Architecture
(Institutul de Arhitectura Ion Mincu
(IAIM)) provided an enclave of expression
for work created in the early eighties. In re-
lation to other academic institutions in Ro-
mania, IAIM was the most permissive.
Petrescu, a former student, comments on
the school's relatively independent existence
from the University to the effect that "a sort
of frivolity which was slightly ideological
was accepted by the academic power and
tolerated by the political authorities."'5
The demonstration of such tolerance
can be seen, for example, in two events that
took place within the school. The first was
the existence of Club A, a fashionable place
where underground artists, musicians, writ-
ers, and filmmakers were invited to show
their work and speak. Petrescu comments
that political puns and jokes were heard
there until 1984-1985. The second attesta-
tion of this relative leniency, as it were, was
the organization by the school of two Inter-
national Seminars of Architecture, in 1982
and 1984, to which some of the most promi-
nent internationalarchitectsof the time were
invited. It was evidence of the two-way effect
of these boundaries that very few actually
accepted the invitation. Ideological support
for this activity came from the Communist
Party Secretary of the school who used his
"socialist friendship" connection with Nicu
Ceausescu, the son of Nicolai Ceausescu, as
a way of attaining some level of freedom for
the school and its students.
220
Various groups and individuals within
the school completed work which can be
seen as a reaction to the totalitarian regime
that encircled them. Petrescu uses the word
"resistance" to describe these exhibitions,
competition projects, parallel school experi-
ences, and installations. These acts, however,
did not have an explicit political agenda. As
Petrescu herself explains, "we expressed our
political protest less ideologically and more
poetically," and these were therefore notably
acts of self-expression.'6 She comments that
these works were not spectacularor outland-
ish manifestations of protest, being instead
"rather discrete and codified, hidden and
disseminated in time and territory."''
TheJapaneseIdeasCompetitions
In a similarmannerto the Soviet PaperArchi-
tects of a decade previous, some Romanian
students used the Japaneseideas competitions
of the 1980s as a vehicle for expressing their
frustrations.'8 Their work effectively chal-
lenged the limits of the totalitarian regimes
that attempted to control these young archi-
tects' means of expression. For both groups,
the monitoring of such entries was severe, il-
lustrating the stringent restrictions exercised
by the state. In Romania, entries were only
permitted to leave the country via the Roma-
nian Union of Architects who acted as "the
official professionalcensor."Young architects
working in offices had to obtain additional
certification from the (political) director of
the office. The securitate were always in-
formed. They retaineda copy of whateverwas
sent and on occasion, as a way of exerting
political and psychological pressure on the
entrants, requested interviews to obtain fur-
ther information.'"
It is perhaps no coincidence that the
text (written in English) to accompany an
entry by Marius Lapadat and Horea Gavris
for the 1986 Shinkenchiku residentialdesign
competition Bulwark of Resistance reads
"Why build a refugehouse in front of terrible
winds when we carry our own refuge house
within?It is a bulwarkwithstandinguniformity
and depersonalization, a refuge we should
shield being sheltered by."20A group of stu-
dents from a parallelschool of Timisoarawere
particularlysuccessful in these competitions.
Referredto as the TimisoaraGroup, these stu-
dents were an exception in Romania because,
on finishing their studies in 1982, they
achieved recognition and actually built
within official structures, in the government
departmental office of urbanism and archi-
tecture of Timisoara (IPROTIM).21'
DissidentStudiesin Architecture
Among both students and young assistant
professors from the Bucharest School, there
were several main figures who were inspira-
tional to students in their alternative studies
in architecture. One such figure was Marius
Calinescu who was both a successful student
and a mentor for other students. While still
studying, he attempted to organize a
"school within a school" by promoting a
different teaching program and through the
introduction of postmodern concepts.22
These moves were diametrically opposed to
those teaching methods and values held by
the "official" functionalist school.23
Calinescu also played a major part in
realizing two poignant exhibitions, the first
of which, in 1980, presented Romanian
avant-garde artists. The second exhibition,
which was "officially" organized by Peter
Derer, a professor in the Department of Ur-
ban Planning, took place in May-June
1982.24 It was entitled Tradition of Building
and chose as its theme the protest against the
demolition of a part of the historic center of
Bucharest. In view of the fact that Ceausescu
was at the head of the demolition program
the choice of this contrasting topic was an
extremely bold move. Tradition of Building
was held in the IAIM hall and exhibited re-
This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:50:52 AM
covered fragments of demolished buildings
and photographs of churches and houses
that no longer existed. Petrescu comments
that the accumulations of exhibition pieces
were evocative of what had vanished, and
provided certain "tracesof memory."25
This exhibition, with its expressions
of nostalgia, finds parallels in the concerns
of several of the Russian Paper Architects
whose projects, similarly a response to lives
spent under a totalitarian regime reinforced
by standardized apartments, frequently em-
bodied such themes. The watercolor fanta-
sies of Mikhail Filippov and Nadya
Bronzova such as Noah's Ark 1987 con-
stantly refer to a pre-Soviet Moscow.26
Petrescu points out that the Tradition of
Building exhibition, with its emphasis on
the initial destruction of Bucharest, was the
only significant manifestation of protest
against the subsequent devastation and mu-
tilation of the historic center. When others
felt unable to protest, only young architects
seemed to have found the courage.
Students such as Calinescu found
some solace in the teaching of Dorin Stefan,
who, as Petrescu comments, was "one of the
most charismatic and provocative young as-
sistant professors in the School of Bucharest
at that time." He encouraged students to be
experimental in their projects, thus challeng-
ing the teaching methods of the other staff.
Stefan's own practicewas relativelysuccessful
at the time, having the opportunity to build
some important projects. An example is the
Youth House in Slatina, built in 1987.27 Yet,
as Neil Leach has written of Stefan'swork, in
one of the rare articles on these groups, his
"free forms were hardly compatible with the
official post-modernism."28
A third influential figure in the
Bucharest School of Architecture during the
early eighties was Constantin Petcu. He was
one of the most active students at that time,
very much part of the scene of experimen-
221 Stratford
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tal groups of artists and thinkers who made
up the disparate avant-garde or isolated
pockets of resistance in Bucharest.29How-
ever, the activities of such people were
largely isolated within their separate fields,
in itself a symptom of the exercise of power
through the regulation of boundaries of dis-
ciplines, the control of conceptual space.30
Petcu's contribution to this milieu took the
form of seminars, exhibitions, publications,
and the foundation of an interdisciplinary
experimental group, Form-Trans-Inform.
Form-Trans-Inform
Form-Trans-Inform began in 1980. Its
eight core members came from both the
School of Architecture and the Ion
Grigorescu Institute of Arts in Bucharest.3'
The members of Form-Trans-Inform aimed
to challenge the boundaries of their disci-
pline, a challenge frequently cited by archi-
tects engaging in avant-garde practices
situated within democratic societies. Yet
under such heightened circumstances of re-
pression such a challenge held very different
meanings. Petrescu describes how through a
diverse program of events the group "tried
to resist . .. the communist intellectual uni-
formity, to keep ourselves in touch with the
contemporary sensibility (in architecture),
and maybe to invent a specific form of that
sensibility through our specific condition
inside the Romanian dictatorial regime."32
The program consisted of research and ex-
perimentation through meetings, seminars,
papers, projects, exhibitions, performances,
and happenings, all recorded by a variety of
methods from photographs to 8mm film.
The firstventurein which Form-Trans-
Inform participatedwas an exhibition entitled
Om-Oras-Natura or Man-City-Nature in
1980. The exhibition formed part of a larger
event including a seminar and involving
 ii.::.
..
.:.. ?iaar roughly eighty people comprising philoso-
phers, artists, and scientists, as well as archi-
tects. The event was organized by Constantin
Petcu in collaborationwith Wanda Mihuleac
and Mihai Driscu and was held in the Botani-
~a;:,
::?
?~: cal Garden of Iaor at the Moldavian edge of
Romania.33The importance of such an event
and its relevance as a form of resistance be-
a:
sx!::i;l::':????:'':?
i~e~p, comes evident when one comprehends that a
';;?;-; ~~
countrysidelocation was the directresponseto
L,::;?~?di"?l~
s*:".::%**
?:;L:: '"':' the strict political surveillance present in
~~iiiiii r:?????::?
?::?r??
Bucharest.34

???:: Actions:TheCityand theForest

?rri
:::?;: Form-Trans-Informheld a series of meetings
:iiii
entitled "actions,"with additional participa-
tion from contributors outside the group,
once a month between January 1981 to
March 1982. These actions were sometimes
restrictedto the forests outside Bucharest,yet
some also took place within the demolished
?~:::;::-::
::.?~:;??;:~
? areas of the city. Petrescu explains that the
aims of the group in relation to these actions
were directed towards "learningarchitecture
in/from the forest, in/from ruins, making
'performative' and 'collaborative' architec-
ture, fragile and vulnerable architecture,
through installations and performances."35
..II:
, "',,:?"`??9r
The actions organizedwithin the ruins
:I.-llf.
i:!!9*i:r:dB:B?:: .L of Bucharest concentrated on disintegration
:::;'::: ??
:~::?~?i:~::~::
. ?:. ?:a and disappearanceover time, working within
?::_::??:
::::!,:.: ???:,.? ?:~m?. ::,.:.. iFr
....,::..:::
?......
and reacting to extreme environments where
?~'?;:;
?;sti:: ??i~:i:
'''':
the surrounding buildings gradually van-
:rrii
:::~?: ~IQ(%~:L " ished. One such action was entitled Traces.It
"*:.
:I?.?
iil:?:? T?'PK.:"~
?:???: ~?.:Bi:'?? ii ~"~--L-""~"L~"Ss~"s""~C~aPI~~BIPl~k~%&Q~
was located within the historic Opereta dis-
.:::i?::'::jj~j!ijx
:" ?::I" %. :::II??
:Wsiir'?? ?? ?li trict and was programmed during February
i:
?~:~? 1981 in a house intended for demolition dur-
?:::;?
::?
:::?;:?
~Ef~" ' .... ..:~i~~j~~l.::ij
JL: ing the five year process that razed this whole
"aglii :re
:??:;? district for construction of Ceausescu's
;':????rs:?jiiffBiii,!i:'..ii...
??
:*::~:
. ?? ~
House of the People.
?:".iilii*::':"
::?-*: Each person in the action took one
:::~::
"":
?;:1:?::'?:
11:???::
?? :35::
room in the house and inaugurated some
kind of intervention that responded to the
3. Actions in the city of Bucharest responded to the imminent demolition of the built fabric,
discovering and investing with poetic value architectural elements that were going to disappear. house, such as a performance or an installa-
Form-Trans-Inform,Traces, Bucharest, February, 1981. (Courtesy of Radical Design.) tion (Figure 3). They discovered and invested

May2001 JAE54/4 222

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:50:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 i" ~.•n:~
~ ~ ~ ~
::er•r~ (.:
-- .•ia
•
?-
i??i
..

,.~a • ,
"
~~~. ..... ~ ~ " "
?i
? .
"i ..l.• •t j, :. • ? .: ,• ..•:...,.•...;.
..,

•a "•, . •••..,
with poetic value architecturalelements that •:•- . ...
•.
were going to disappear. Echoing the words •.^,.~~~~~~ . . . ....? • '
..i::. .. ':
..•u
"•
'• . :".i
of the review of the exhibition Om-Oras- " .. "
"•.*'• • ... ', h ,oetlcto
.• h h "
4.Frms cin a eest•:.. oecp eeegvrmna
982
,•' ^.
Natura, which describessuch works as sitting survillnce
Forn-TanslnfrmTheStrutur, Bneaa foest Mach (Cortey o Raica
between poles of "courage and despair,"36 Design.)

Petrescucomments this was, "alast and inutil

(unavailing) gesture of future architects."Yet
she goes on to say that it was also seen as, "a
first gesture of resistance of future archi-
tects."37 The house eventually fell to the
demolition squads like all the rest.
This vision of a house as an almost
sacred place, where dwellings become im-
bued with the dreams and lives of their us-
ers, corresponds to that developed in several (or The Structure) was an action staged
projects by Alexander Brodsky and Ilya within the Baneasa forest during March
Utkin of the Russian Paper Architects in 1982. Various installations and a "happen-
their inward-looking form of resistance ing" contemplated the question of construct-
against the bleak situation of architecture ing a structure within the forest that would
within the Soviet regime. One of their bridge subjectivity and nature. Some of the
projects, Columbarium Architecturae 1984, works created in response to this theme were
depicts an imaginary columbarium in which entitled The Life Structure, TemporaryStruc- i4
actual architectural artifacts are preserved in tures (marking ways to get out of the forest), 5 c ,.
an attempt to "preserve the memory of all and The 'Sexual'Structure (supporting man - :..Maus.i SpaceObceitn..i

disappearing buildings." The accompanying and woman in the forest) (Figure 4).
prose reads, "After all, each is suffused with
the soul of its architect, builders, inhabitants Exhibitions:Spatiu-Obiet
and even the passer by who happened to Form-Trans-Informalso took part in two ex- :.,

cast an absent-minded glance its way."38
These actions of installation, of react-
ing a set of given conditions, can be seen as
to
intense forms of inward-looking self-expres-
sion. However, Petrescu maintains that the
main quality of the work and position of the
group was a critique of the brutality of the
orthodox Romanian architecturalideology of
that time.39The aims of the actions within the
house, in their critique of the demolition pro-
gram, seem more concerned with outwardly
asserting a statement, rather than solely an
inward-looking process of self-exploration.
Invariably, the location for such criti-
cal activities was not open to choice. For
most of their actions, the forest as a venue,
and not the city, was the necessity. Structura
hibitions organized by the young avant-garde
artist Wanda Mihuleac. The first exhibition, ..
?: .•
Spatiu-Obiet (or Space-Object),took place in
autumn 1982 in the Hall of the School of
Architecture. Approximately twenty people
took part, including certain artists,two archi-
tects, Dorin Stefan and Stefan Manciulescu,
and two groups of students, Calinescu-Bold,
comprising Marius Calinescu and Adrian
Bold, and Form-Trans-Inform. All were in- the autumn of 1982 was never "officially"permitted. Students
vited by Mihuleac to exhibit both architec- and architects had to open it themselves. (Courtesy of Radical
Design.)
tural and art installations (Figure 5).40
However, the head of the school refused to
grant "official"permission for the opening of
the section displaying the architecture stu-
dents' work. Therefore, this part of the Space-
Object exhibition was never "officially"

223 Stratford

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:50:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 F- - .~
. ". . . . •+ school. The possibly "reprehensible"nature
of any work shown through this indirect
form of protest was diluted under the less
offensive label of "not-conform."46
::;:i"•> "" J~;

A-File for Brain,HeartandArchitecture

In 1984, Petcu, in collaboration with others,
even succeeded in publishing an issue of an
architectural magazine, an immense accom-
plishment becauseany form of publishingwas
extremely difficult during this time. How-
ever, only one issue appeared, since an over-
6. Politicalprotestwas expressed"lessideologically
andmorepoetically."
RadicalDesignStudio, sight in the single use of the forbidden term
300 x 300 x 300, JapanArchitectcompetition1986. (Courtesyof RadicalDesign.) review to describethe venture resultedin its
subsequent censoring. A publication using
that term required direct presidential agree-
opened to the public. The participating stu- planned as a continuation of the concept of ment. The magazine was entitled A-foaie
dents and architects had to open it them- the first. The scale of this second event, ar- pentru minte, inima si arhitectura(or A-File
selves, and then, in Petrescu'swords, "it was ranged again by Mihuleac and programmed for Brain, Heart and Architecture). Its central
so to say tolerated."41 for 1986, was much more ambitious incorpo- theme was "the identity of architecture"yet
In early 1983, the Union of Romanian rating roughly seventy people, including its program was subversive. It provided an
Artist's monthly journal Arta gave two many important intellectuals and artists.44 open-ended space that allowed the students
spreads of its News section to a purely de- Yet, in a clear demonstration of the restrictive some freedom of expression and communica-
scriptive account of the works shown. The evolution within the political regime, this sec- tion with people from other domains, such as
journal was not perceived as politically dan- ond exhibition only managed to open for a anthropologists, ethnologists, and philoso-
gerous; being published in limited quantities few days before it was censored and subse- phers, communication that was restrictedun-
and read only by a very closed and specialized quently terminated, receiving no publicity der the Ceausescu regime. It also included
circle. Although the article itself was well il- whatsoever. Petrescuexplains the official rea- indirect questions addressedto the imminent
lustrated, it made no allusions to the under- soning behind the closure of the exhibition, abominations in the center of Bucharest and
lying motives of the show. Its author, Mihai "It didn't reflect the social reality."'45 was programmaticallyopen to Western cul-
Driscu, had commented that the show had In addition to his work with Form- ture. In place of the obligatoryfirst "political"
"attempted to organize space through differ- Trans-Inform, during the years 1980-1984, page of presidentially approved journals, its
ent qualifications in the same way as Joseph Constantin Petcu organized other exhibi- opening passagesdescribe how it aims to be a
Beuys had proposed to create an integral sys- tions and discussions that challenged the "tribune of discussion of architectural ideas
tem by amalgamating social sciences and art, constraints of the Ceausescu regime. A series ... from our country and abroad..,. of the
Space-Object proposed to make an 'integral of thematic discussions held in Club A, such social implication of architecture."47 Actions
space course."'42 Like the Paper Architects, as The Light, and The Shadow, screened sci- of this kind were rare and dangerous; there-
what little media coverage these Romanian entific, art, and documentary films that had fore they were usually organized by people
architects had was extremely important be- been borrowed from the Western Embassy who had some support from within the
cause it demonstrated that alternativesto the libraries, and provided a forum for contro- school. Yet Petcu, surprisingly, had no such
communist intellectual uniformity existed.43 versial personalities to speak. The "official" ideological or political support, his ideas and
students of architecture exhibition in 1983 actions were exclusively launched by himself.
Spatiu-Oglinda was curated and subsequently subverted by Form-Trans-Inform dissolved as a
Another exhibition at the Bucharest School, Petcu through showing works that did not group around 1985. Doina Petrescu and
named Spatiu-Oglinda(or Space-Mirror),was meet the "official" design program of the Constantin Petcu remainedtogether and con-

May2001 JAE 54/4 224

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:50:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
stituted a nucleus, entitled Radical Design
Studio (RDS), for other emergent groups
(Figure 6).48In an exhibition and video per-
formance entitled Medium-Media in the city
of Sibiu in 1989, Constantin Petcu and
Doina Petrescu,with Daniela Traica, worked
with clothes, treating them architecturally,si-
multaneously regardingthem as spaces (Fig-
ure 7).49Here, again, they sufferedrestrictions
imposed by the political regime, which in its
final throws augmented its political control.
The choice of location was partly dictated by
the city's "ideologicalpermeability,"resulting
from its cosmopolitan character and its safe
distance from Bucharest. In addition, the
show itself suffered a dearth of publicity. The
only review published was that written by a
friend of the group for a small and local Ger-
man-language newspaper, the most "liberal"
in the city.5O
Transition:The Televised Revolution
and Beyond
During the time preceding and leading up to
the revolution in 1989, relentless restrictions
were enforced against the media."51The extent
and eventual powerlessness of such restric-
tions were exposed on December 21, 1989.
During the rebroadcastof Ceausescu's mid-
day addressfrom the first-floorbalcony of the
Central Committee Building, loud chants of
support were dubbed over the original sound
track. This concealed the agitated shouts
from the bused-in crowd of workers, who
were tearing up the posters handed to them
on arriving in the center of Bucharest. These
typically read "Long live the Party; long live
Ceausescu." In his account of these events,
Rady comments, "It is unlikely, however,
that this remedy proved at all convincing to
those who had previously witnessed
Ceausescu's humiliation live on Romanian
television and radio."52Even during the live
This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:50:52 AM
transmission, the filming of these events was
intermittently replaced by the prerecorded
songs of a patriotic choir. It is in the face of
such a restrictiveenvironment that the relent-
less actions of groups such as Form-Trans-
Inform towards a greaterrealm of expression
can be truly appreciated.
In fact, even beyond the revolution
the insidious political structure proved dif-
ficult to dismantle. The years immediately
following the overthrow of Ceausescu saw
the original promises of "political democ-
racy, economic restructuring, and full
equality for the national minorities," rapidly
fade."53The transient euphoria of the revolu-
tion soon gave way to intense distrust of
those officials who had seized power within
minutes of Ceausescu's effacement: the Na-
tional Salvation Front (FSN), headed by
Ion Iliescu, a former Communist official.
The fall of the regimeprovedelusive.
Many former members of the nomenklatura
were retained in the political body of the
FSN and much of the larger structure of the
regime remained intact.54 Inevitably, those
people who have vested interests in existing
political and social structures have little in-
terest in change. In the elections of May
1990, the FSN attained the majority per-
centage needed to pass any law, defying op-
position. The largerstudent community was
to play a massive and indeed tragic role in
the ensuing political turmoil. Through stag-
ing a seven-week sit-in in the University
Square in Bucharest, students formed part of
the wider manifestation of protest among the
intellectual community and the political op-
position against the election. Iliescu branded
them hooligans (golan:) and in a televised
broadcast spoke of an attempted coup.55
Ultimately, in the final denouement,
the demonstrations met with the vicious
brutality of the structural remnants of the
regime at the hands of the Jiu Valley min-
ers, supported by members of both the po-
225 Stratford
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7. A diverse program of events endeavored to resist the
"Communistintellectual uniformity."Radical Design Studio,
Medium-Media,September 1989. Clothes, exhibition, and video
performance, from event program, Constantin Petcu, Doina
Petrescu, and Daniela Traica. (Courtesy of Radical Design.)
lice and the army. In a show of support for
the new government, who had promised
them wage increases, the miners attacked
the students, their professors, the young in-
tellectuals, and young workers gathered in
the square. They then proceeded to attack
and ransack the university's buildings and
those of the main opposition parties. Thus
the rift between workers and intellectuals,
which had been intrinsic to the Ceausescu
era and helped prevent effective opposition
to his rule, continued after his death.'56
Such transitionaltensions played out in
the societal structure of Romania were also
witnessed in the teaching structure of the
School of Architecture. For although in com-
parison to other academic institutions, IAIM
was relatively permissive, it too had its share
of old Party staff who remained at the school
well into the years following the revolution.57
As a number of political commentators ob-
served at the time, it would take severalyears
before the legacy of the Ceausescu regime
would begin to be effectively addressed and
reversed. In 1996, a coalition party was
elected and perceived as a real democratic al-
ternative.58
Conclusion:
Changes in Power Relations
So what is the value of such work as mani-
festations of sociopolitical protest? Ulti-
mately, the wider effect of such expressions
of resistance as I have described in this pa-
per cannot be directlyevaluated. Their influ-
ences are difficult to discern. Their
subversive, small scale means that impacts
are incremental, not immediate. Manifesta-
tions of resistance of this kind are partly dic-
tated by the context and the means
available,whether it be a skill in architecture
motivated by the desire to empower others
or whether it be a drawing on a page to cre-
ate something in the face of a situation
where expression is suppressed. This context
is also the measure of the extent of resis-
tance. The topic of the TraditionofBuilding
exhibition was extremely courageous in
view of the fact that Ceausescu himself
headed the demolition program.
I would argue that these centers of
energy are intensely valuable phenomena
because they draw attention to and, there-
fore, sometimes lead to changes in, situa-
tions of domination, even if that change is
implemented solely at the individual and
transitorylevel of the singular action. In this
respect, all the enterprises I have described
served to establish some kind of resistance
against dominating power, and in the pro-
cess, work was produced that was remark-
able in itself, whether deemed to be a form
of architecture or not. Much as the exercise
of power is manifest in multitudinous ways,
so is resistance to these manifestations of
power. Some resistanceshave now been vin-
dicated in their struggle for a greater role in
May2001 JAE54/4
This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:50:52 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
their society; however, undoubtedly others
have yet again been repressedby a new set of
power relations beyond their control.
BeyondCeausescu
Eight months after the televised execution
of Nicolae Ceausescu on December 25,
1989, Petrescu and Petcu were finally able
to travel freely. Although maintaining
strong links with the Bucharest School of
Architecture, in September 1990, they set
up a practice with the name Radical Design
Studio, based in Paris, where they contin-
ued the spirit of Form-Trans-Inform
through experimentation with the same
tools and forms of expression-installa-
tions, performance, and video.5'A resistance
to the "established" way of practicing and
teaching architecture survives in all areas of
their work. In Paris, Petrescu, for example,
has chosen as her Ph.D. topic philosophical
aspects of Women's Studies, a territory of
resistance whose issues were overwhelmed
in the old Romania by the larger repressions
of a totalitarian regime. In June 1999, she
organized a major conference in Paris
entitled Alterities: Interdisciplinarity and
"Feminine" Practices of Space, which
brought together severalkey theorists in this
field.
Many of the other people involved in
the groups during the eighties also left for
the West, yet some still remain, working in
practice and teaching. Colpacci Florin and
Panaitescu Claudin from the Timisoara
group left for Holland and Luxembourg,
Marius Calinescu practices architecture in
New York. Marius Lapadat and Horia
Gavris still teach at the Bucharest School of
Architecture, while Adrian Bold holds the
position of the Architect-in-Chief of
Bucharest.6o Dorin Stefan continues his
practice in the city.' Constantin Gorcea has
one of the most successful private architec-
tural offices in Northern Romania. Tragi-
226
cally, Alexandru Chitul, a founder member
of Form-Trans-Informcommitted suicide in
1989, shortly before the revolution.'
Within Romania, the transition
from the totalitarian regime is slow. It is
distinctly played out in the economy result-
ing in dysfunction and delays in the build-
ing process. The "mentalities" and the
"discipline" of this process commonly re-
main, to some extent, rooted in the past.
Nevertheless, despite the presence of such
obstacles, the prospect for young architects
in Romania is now somewhat optimistic.
Petrescu comments how it is an interesting
and challenging condition for an architect
to have the opportunity to concurrently
build both "new houses and a new society."
In a recent article Dorin Stefan describes
how the absence, or indeed abolition, of
rules in architecture both for construction
and design is problematic but simulta-
neously opens the way to a "non-conform-
ist" approach. He outlines a design process
which lets "the context dictate" and is
"generated by the changing syntax of ma-
terials."63This comment on the dynamism
at work within the socioeconomic struc-
tures of Romania, which have yet to be
consolidated into fixed strata, is echoed by
Petrescu, who describes how "the network
of socio-economic relationships in the Ro-
manian society is not fixed and closed yet,
it is just becoming."''64
Therefore, although the economy is
still disorganized,young architectshave much
greater opportunities to build than their
Western contemporaries. Some of those in-
volved in resistance activity in the eighties
moved on to occupy powerful positions in
municipal Architectural Offices. This is in
markedcontrastto the situation in post-com-
munist Russia, where the rapid onset of capi-
talism left avant-garde architects still
marginalized. All reports indicate that the
more gradual evolution in Romania has
meant that, albeit with many difficulties, ages were neither lit nor played." The cost of the teachingpractices.LouiseRodgers,"TestingTimes,"
House of the People has been estimated at around TheArchitects'Journal(May 23, 1990): 26.
young architects are managing to find a role
$950 million. Martyn Rady, Romania in Turmoil 24. After 1989, Dererwas Architect-in-Chief
in this complex process alongside more estab-
(London:IB Tauris & Co., 1992), p. 67. of Bucharest,and Ministerat the Ministryof Urban
lished members of the Union of Romanian 10. Ibid., p. 57. Planningand TerritorialAdministration.
Architects. 11. In Ceausescu'sdeterminedattemptto pay 25. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence
off the national debt, imports were minimized and with the author,Paris-Cambridge, Nov. 14, 1997.
"almosteverythingthat could be sold abroadwas ex- 26. See N. Bronzovaand M. Filippov,Noah's
Acknowledgments ported. Food became scarceand fuel was so strictly Ark 1987, in PaperArchitecture, New Projects from the
rationedthat householdswereallottedonly one forty- SovietUnion(New York:Rizzoli, 1988).
watt bulb per room, cooking was frequentlypossible 27. Dorin Stefan, telephone and fax corre-
I am particularly grateful to Doina Petrescu
only in the middle of the night, and at times even the spondence with the author, Bucharest-Cambridge,
for revealing the conditions in Ceausescu's trafficlights ceasedto function." Nov. 8, 1997.
Crampton,Eastern
Romania through such stimulating e-mail Europein the TwentiethCentury,p. 385-8. 28. By "officialpost-modernism"Leachpre-
conversations from Paris. Likewise, Dorin 12. Rady, Romaniain Turmoil,p. 59. sumablyrefersto what was deemed"Ceausescu-style"
Stefan and Dr. Magda Carneci from 13. Ibid., p. 60. and not the standardized apartments. Neil Leach,
14. Ibid., p. 91. "EasternBlock,"BuildingDesign(Oct. 13, 1995): 12.
Bucharest both gave me indispensable infor-
15. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence 29. Although groups engaged in such resis-
mation in extended conversations by tele- with the author,Paris-Cambridge,Oct. 21, 1997. tanceweresomewhatisolatedfrom eachother,a great
phone and fax and through material sent via 16. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence dealof this type of workwas completedamongartists,
computer disc. I would also like to thank with the author,Paris-Cambridge,Jan. 4, 1998. poets, and other dissident intellectuals. Dr. Magda
Dr. Catherine Cooke, Cambridge, for ad- 17. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence Carneci,arthistorian,telephoneconversationwith the
with the author, Paris-Cambridge, Oct. 21, 1997. author, Bucharest-Cambridge, Jan. 10, 1998. In
vice and direction on this paper.
18. The SovietPaperArchitectsbeganproduc- 1996, CarneciorganizedThe Experiment,an exhibi-
ing visionaryprojectsin responseto the desolateprofes- tion concerningthe avant-gardephenomenain artand
sional scene that confrontedthem on theirgraduation architecturein the 1980s and 1990s.
Notes fromthe MoscowInstituteof Architecture(Markhi)in 30. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence
the mid-seventies.AlexanderBrodskycomments,"for with the author,Paris-Cambridge, Jan. 11, 1998.
1. FredricJameson, "Is Space Political?"in me workingon the paperprojectswas a protestat the 31. The architecture students from the
Cynthia Davidson, ed., Anyplace(Cambridge,MA: impossibilityof buildinganything."AlexanderBrodsky, Bucharest School of Architecture were Constantin
MIT Press, 1995), p. 194. "Nostalgiaof Culture:ContemporarySovietVisionary Petcu, ConstantinGorcea,AlexandruChitul, Neagoe
2. Ibid., p. 195. Architecture," AA Files18 (1989): 129. Florin, Sorin Vatamaniuc,Deacu Doru, and Doina
3. Michel Foucaultin Colin Gordon, comp., 19. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence Petrescu.LaviniaMirsustudiedat the Ion Grigorescu
Power/Knowledge: SelectedInterviewsand OtherWrit- with the author,Paris-Cambridge, Jan. 4, 1998. Instituteof Arts and was a scenographystudent.
ings 1972-1977 (Brighton: The Harvester Press, 20. This entrygainedhonorablemention and 32. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence
1986), p. 98. was thus printedwith its accompanyingcertificatein with the author,Paris-Cambridge, Jan. 7, 1998.
4. Michel Foucault quoted in Michael ArhitecturaBucharest(February1986): 64. 33. A reviewof the exhibitiondescribeshow it
Waltzer,"The Politicsof Michel Foucault,"in David 21. The situation of young architects in "showeda restrainedbut relevantslice of researchand
Couzens Hoy, ed., Foucault:A CriticalReader(Ox- Timisoarawas somewhatdifferentfrom that of those dreamsconcerningnew correlations"of the terms of
ford:BasilBlackwell,1986), p. 55. in Bucharest.Their successin buildingwithin official "place,dwellingplace,and urbanplace,"concentrating
5. StevePile, "Introduction,"in StevePile and structureswas largelydue to the geographicallocation on the tensionbetween"nature"and the urbanfortress
MichaelKeitheds., Geographies (London: of Timisoara.Situatedfartherwest than all othercom-
ofResistance of the city. Theodor Redlow, "A Question Always
Routledge, 1997), p. 29. parably sized Romanian towns, close to Belgrade, Open. Men-City-Nature,"Arta 1 (1982): 10-12.
6. Doina Petrescu,e-mailcorrespondencewith Vienna, and Budapest,Timisoarahad in a more cos- 34. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence
the author,Paris-Cambridge,Oct. 21, 1997. mopolitancharacterthan most of Romania,due to a with the author,Paris-Cambridge,Dec. 19, 1997.
7. A detailed history of these events can be Romanian,German,Hungarian,and Serbianpopula- 35. Ibid.
found in R.J. Crampton,EasternEuropein the Twen- tion. The revolutionin 1989 beganin Timisoara,on 36. Redlow,"AQuestionAlwaysOpen. Men-
tieth Century(London:Routledge, 1994). December 15, five days beforeit spreadto Bucharest City-Nature,"p. 11.
8. Dinu C. Giurescu, TheRazingofRomania's and the restof the country. 37. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence
Past(Bath:The Bath Press, 1990), p. 42. 22. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence with the author,Paris-Cambridge,Dec. 19, 1997.
9. Both sidesof the Boulevardwerelined with with the author,Paris-Cambridge, Nov. 14, 1997. 38. Inscribed in the etching Columbarium
blocks of marble-facedflats modeled on huge Ameri- 23. The core studies, dictated by Ceausescu, Architecturae1984. The work of AlexanderBrodsky
can beauxartsrailwaystations.Throughits centerran includedeconomicand politicaltheory,and "socialist" and IlyaUtkin has been extensivelyillustratedin Lois
lanternsand fountainswhich, "owingto powershort- idealism, forced into all the lecture programs and E. Nesbit, Brodskyand Utkin (New York:Princeton

227 Stratford

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:50:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Architectural Press, 1991), and Nostalgia of Culture
(London: The Architectural Association, 1988).
39. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence
with the author, Paris-Cambridge, Jan. 7, 1998.
40. Wanda Mihuleac, Spatiu-Obiet program,
1982.
41. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence
with the author, Paris-Cambridge, Dec. 14, 1997.
42. Mihai Driscu, "Spatiu-Obiet," Arta, 4
(1983): 10-13. Mihai Driscu suffered harassment due
to his role in resistance activities. He was killed under
mysterious circumstances in a car accident in 1985.
43. After years of competing in the interna-
tional Japan Ideas competitions, the prestige of win-
ning eventually led to the Paper Architects obtaining
their own column in the Soviet professional fort-
nightly Arkhitectura in 1987.
44. Wanda Mihuleac, Spatiu-Oglinda pro-
gram, 1986.
45. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence
with the author, Paris-Cambridge, Dec. 14, 1997.
46. Ibid.
47. Constantin Petcu, opening paragraphs of
the first and only issue of the magazine: A -foaie
pentru minte, inima si arhitectura, 1 (1984).
48. These groups included a group of four who
gained a "highly commended" in the 1987 Japanese Ideas
competition, TheJapan Architect8702 (1987): p. 60.
49. Medium-Media event program, 1989.
50. The article, published by Neuwer Veg, de-
May2001 JAE 54/4
This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:50:52 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
scribes how the designers "ignore what has contrib-
uted to our clothing conventions through reduction
S.. wanting to show that clothes have to be 'open' in
every respect." N. G., "Wind Dress and Four-Sleeves-
Blouse," Neuwer Veg(September 1989): 20. Petrescu
comments that these moves provided a "critical posi-
tion," an "opposite of the hard architecture that was
the subject of the big public architectural offices at the
time." Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence with
the author, Paris-Cambridge, Jan. 4, 1998.
51. During the 1980s, television viewing was
reduced to two hours a day, half of which was devoted
to presidential activities.
52. Rady, Romania in Turmoil, p. 101.
53. See Mary Ellen Fischer, "The New Lead-
ers and The New Opposition," in Daniel N. Nelson,
ed., Romania After Tyranny (Colorado: Westview
Press, 1992), p. 45.
54. Officials holding "responsible posts"
within the State, all necessarily Communist Party
members pledging obedience to the Party rules. Julian
Hale, Ceausescus Romania (London: George G.
Harrap & Co. Ltd., 1971), p. 90.
55. See Fischer, "The New Leaders and The
New Opposition."
56. For a more detailed description of this his-
tory, see Sorin Mircea Botez, "An Alternative Roma-
nian Foreign Policy," in Nelson, ed., Romania After
Tyranny, pp. 261-270.
57. See Rodgers, "Testing Times."
228
58. See Tom Gallagher, Romania After
Ceausescu: The Politics of Intolerance (Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 1995); Vladimir Pasti,
The Challenges of Transition: Romania in Transition,
Fraga Cheva Cusin, trans. (New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press, 1997); Rady, Romania in Turmoil; and
Nelson, ed., Romania After Tyranny.
59. Since 1990 Petcu and Petrescu have par-
ticipated in several events in Romania, including the
exhibition Bucuresti-starea orasului, Bucharest in the
1920s-1940s between avant-garde and modernism.
Since 1996, they have been teaching a master's course
at IAIM. Examples of events outside Romania include:
des robes du double at the Cartier Foundation ofCon-
temporary Art, Paris 1994; an installation and perfor-
mance at Montreil in 1995; clothes: user's guide-a
collaboration for an experimental Opera show at the
IRCAM Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, in 1997.
60. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence
with the author, Paris-Cambridge, Dec. 14, 1997.
61. Dorin Stefan, fax correspondence with the
author, Bucharest-Cambridge, Jan. 8, 1998.
62. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence
with the author, Paris-Cambridge, Apr. 14, 2000.
63. Dorin Stefan, "Utopia: Post-Utopia," in
Neil Leach, ed., Architecture and Revolution (London:
Routledge, 1999), p. 199.
64. Doina Petrescu, e-mail correspondence
with the author, Paris-Cambridge, Dec. 14, 1997.