CFP 05.09.2011

Two panels at the EAHN Meeting (Brussels, 31 May-3 Jun 12)

Brussels, Belgium, 31.05.–03.06.2012
Eingabeschluss : 30.09.2011

H-ArtHist Redaktion

Call for Papers for two panels at the the European Architectural History
Network's (EAHN) Second International Meeting

[1] History and Transformation of Socialist Holiday Resorts
[2] The Classical Urban Plan

[1]
From: Michael Zinganel <zinganelmur.at>
Date: Sep 4, 2011
Subject: CFP: History and Transformation of Socialist Holiday Resorts

Deadline: Sep 30, 2011

Dear colleagues,

I would kindly like to invite you to submit abstracts for my own panel
before 30 September 2011 and/or ask you to send this invitation to
people working on that issue:

Holidays after the Fall:
History and Transformation of Socialist Holiday Resorts

The focus of this panel is the planning history of holiday resorts in
Socialist countries and their physical and economic transformations
after the fall of the Iron Curtain. After World War II, not only in
Western but also in Eastern Europe mass tourism started to be perceived
as a driving force for the economic development of landscapes that had
been marginalized before. Segregation of urban space into zones for
production and reproduction was expanded to a much larger scale: In
Socialist countries too spaces of leisure were planned and built at the
peripheries of cities, on the mountains and at seashores, e.g. at the
shores of the Bulgarian, Rumanian and then USSR Black Sea or at the
shores of the Mediterranean Sea of the then non aligned Yugoslavia.
Socialist countries, however, needed more serious ideological
argumentation than their Western counterparts before starting their
effort: Therefore they first introduced a so called "social tourism",
subsidized holidays in cheap and therefore simple accommodations, built
and run by workers’ unions, youth organisations, the army, and big
companies for their own employees. Although first facilities were
already developed in the 1930s in fascist Italy (Dopolavoro) and Germany
(Kraft durch Freude), during the Popular Front government in France, in
Great Britain (Billy Butlin’s Holiday Camps), in Sweden and in communist
USSR, their success was limited due to the overall economic crisis and
the beginning war. The most important preconditions for mass tourism,
growth of economy and paid holidays for workers were only realized after
World War II. The liberation after Stalin's death enabled several
Socialist countries to heavily invest in the design and construction of
tourist resorts – and many of those were opened to foreign tourists as
well.

Papers therefore should emphasize the planning history of Socialist
holiday resorts on all scales, from traffic-infrastructure (hubs,
harbours, stations, airports), to spatial, urban and landscape design,
to building typologies and interiors. Papers might also deal with the
ideological arguments and the shift from collective experience to
individual hedonistic encounters. Papers may also emphasize the process
of post-Socialist transformation of their physical status (abandonment,
restoration, refurbishment, or rebuilding) and their economic status
(private, semi-private, public) including problems such as restitution
of land expropriated during communist revolution, unclear building
regulations and corruption as well as their adaption to the demands of a
much more differentiated tourism and a very powerful real estate market.

Please send your paper proposals and short CVs by e-mail to:
Michael Zinganel
e-mail: zinganelmur.at
address: Hohlweggasse 28/1/13 1030 Vienna, Austria

--

[2]
From: Samantha Martin-McAuliffe <samantha.martinmcauliffeucd.ie>
Date: Sep 4, 2011
Subject: CFP: The Classical Urban Plan

Deadline: Sep 30, 2011

The Classical Urban Plan: Monumentality, Continuity and Change

Greek and Roman monuments have been disappearing from the collective
psyche for millennia; as soon as a new Roman emperor assumed power, for
example, the architectural landscape was reshaped and adapted to suit
the new rule. More recently, the rapid acceleration in the loss of
collective memory through the obliteration of monuments has made clear
that ancient architecture as we have come to know it, is moving away
from the physical realm, to the imaginary psyche. One aspect of it,
however, remains: the urban grid. Even where ancient architecture has
been decimated to make room for new urban and at times, rural spaces,
substantial portions of an earlier ancient grid can be retraced and the
wider plan can, to varying extents, be recovered. This session will shed
light on these ‘lost’ urban and rural plans.

We know that individual monuments as well as monumental architectural
ensembles can today be harnessed in the service of memory scripting,
just as it was – as Paul Zanker so brilliantly showed – in Roman
Republican times. Can the same approach be extended to the planning
grid? Does meaning change as the plan is altered? Does memory change?
Can an ancient plan reflect a new cultural, political or social order?

Whether intentional or not, each Classical plan has the capacity embody
specific messages linked to such notions as ‘heritage’ and ‘identity’.
While this is arguably most significant when considering the formal
orthogonal grid, the weight that this infrastructure can bear in terms
of cultural meaning has been underappreciated by current scholia. As
such, this session invites papers focussing on Greek and Roman grid
traces – both literal and figurative. Proposals are particularly welcome
which consider ways through which the collective memory of cities and
smaller settlements is altered, if at all, with the introduction of
newly constructed monuments within an ancient plan. Participants might
also address the reciprocity between the institutional and architectural
order of cities; or explore how an entire city can be monumentalised by
virtue of ‘inheriting’ a Classical plan. Overall, this session will
inform theoretical frameworks, thereby broadening as well as reassessing
the existing discourse on ancient urban plans.

Abstracts of no more than 300 words should be sent directly to both the
session chairs (details below) no later than September 30, 2011.
Abstracts are to be headed with the applicant’s name, professional
affiliation [graduate students in brackets], and title of paper. Submit
with the abstract, a short curriculum vitae, home and work addresses,
email addresses, telephone and fax numbers.

Session co-chairs:
Dr. Daniel Millette
School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
University of British Columbia
E: millette.danielyahoo.com
T: 001-604-642-2436
and
Dr. Samantha Martin-McAuliffe
School of Architecture
University College Dublin
Richview, Clonskeagh, Dublin 14
Republic of Ireland
E: samantha.martinmcauliffeucd.ie
F: +353.1.283.7778
T: +353.1.716.2757

Further information can be found at:
http://eahn2012.org/

Quellennachweis:
CFP: Two panels at the EAHN Meeting (Brussels, 31 May-3 Jun 12). In: ArtHist.net, 05.09.2011. Letzter Zugriff 28.03.2024. <https://arthist.net/archive/1786>.

^