BULGARIAN 20TH CENTURY IN ARTS AND CULTURE БЪЛГАРСКИЯТ XX ВЕК В ИЗКУСТВАТА И КУЛТУРАТА Ingeborg Bratoeva-Darakchieva Irina Genova Levy ИнгеборгClairе Братоева-Даракчиева JoannaИрина Spassova-Dikova Генова Клер Леви Teodora Stoilova-Doncheva Йоана Спасова-Дикова Stela Tasheva Теодора Стоилова-Дончева Elka Traykova Стела Ташева Елка Трайкова Институт за изследване на изкуствата Institute of Art Studies 2019 1 THE EDITION IS SUPPORTED BY IN MEMORY OF ALEXANDER YANAKIEV THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FUND, BULGARIA (CONTRACT NO. ДФНИ-КО2/9 DD. 12.12.2014) N FUND MINISTRY OF EDUCA MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE BULGARIAN 20th CENTURY IN ARTS AND CULTURE © TEAM, 2019 Scientific editing – Claire Levy, Joanna Spassova-Dikova, Elka Traykova © Editor – Marinelli Dimitrova © Cover – Todorka Draganinska, after the Anna Mihailova‘s painting Nestinarki (Fire Dancers) © Pre-press – Three-Dimensional Prototypes © Institute of Art Studies, Sofia, 2019 ISBN 978-954-8594-77-6 2 3 CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................11 PART ONE UNDER THE SIGN OF MODERN EUROPE (1878–1944) From Traditional Folk Music to the Music of Modernity .........................15 Realism in Bulgarian Literature on the Border of Two Centuries ......................................................................................24 The Concept of Realism in Visual Arts .....................................................27 Chitalishta – Functions and Buildings .....................................................30 From Amateurism to Professional Theatre ...............................................33 Academy of Art / State Arts School ..........................................................38 Foundation and Early Years ...........................................................38 The State Arts School in the Architecture of the Capital ..................46 Institutionalization of Theatrical Activities ..............................................50 The City and the Cult Buildings ...............................................................62 Images of War: First Balkan War, Second Balkan War, and World War I ........................................................................................69 Artistic Images ...............................................................................69 The Balkanskata Voyna (The Balkan War) – Documentary Film ..........................................................................76 4 5 Camera’s Choice: the Turkish Legation and Lyubovta e Ludost (Love is Folly) ......................................................79 Arts and Children .....................................................................................85 School Buildings .............................................................................85 Children’s Literature – from Boring Didactic Models to High Artistic Samples .....................................................90 Artists and Books for Children ......................................................102 Theatre for Children .....................................................................108 Music for Children ........................................................................116 School Cinematograph .................................................................120 The Misal Circle ...........................................................................230 Balgaran Newspaper ...................................................................232 Hudozhnik Journal .......................................................................235 Vezni Journal ................................................................................239 Zlatorog Journal ...........................................................................243 Hyperion Journal .........................................................................246 Cinema in Periodic Press ........................................................................250 PART TWO METAMORPHOSES OF MODERNITY (1944–1989) Women in Modernization of Bulgarian Culture .....................................122 Women’s Realization in Bulgarian Literature ......................................................................................122 The Society of Female Artists in Bulgaria ....................................134 Women in Architecture ..................................................................141 Women in Early Bulgarian Cinema...............................................143 Bulgarian Literature after 9th of September 1944 ....................................257 The New Century and the Transition The Capture of Cultural Engineering (1944–1956) ................................260 from Realism to Modernism in Literature ..............................................147 Music under the Pressure of Ideological Censorship ..............................265 Modernism and National Idea in Visual Arts ..........................................159 Baring of the Cinema Artistic Fields, Repressions and Censorship ........272 The Transition to Modernism in Musical Art..........................................170 The Rejected Rights of Love Lyrics .......................................................278 Modernization Processes in Bulgarian Theatre ......................................182 The Novel Tyutyun (Tobacco) – Sanctions and Consequences ...............282 City and the Entertainment .....................................................................196 Centralized Government of Artistic Institutions. Filming of Literary Works ......................................................................202 Socialist Realism and Socialist Modernism ............................................285 Critical Reflections in Art .......................................................................210 Bulgarian Engineering and Architecture Society. Architectural Discussions .............................................................210 Expressionism in Chavdar Mutafov’s Critical Reflections .......................................................................216 Sirak Skitnik about Art in Everyday Life .......................................221 The Socialist Theatrical Canon and Stanislavski’s System.....................287 Periodic Press as Cultural Institution ......................................................227 Journal Misal ...............................................................................227 Ideology versus Architecture ..................................................................319 6 7 The Cold War .........................................................................................255 Imposition of Socialist Realism in Bulgarian Cinema ............................301 Theatrical Iconography of the Party Leader ...........................................303 The Masses and the Youth on Stage ........................................................310 The Myth Kalin Orelat (Kalin – the Eagle) ............................................316 The New University of Civil Engineering ..............................................326 The New Man and the New City: Reflections.........................................329 Anticonformist Model and Neorealism in Cinema .................................334 The Poetry of the 1960s Between Rebellion and Conjuncture................342 The Socialist Realism – Norms and Breaches ........................................349 PART THREE CHALLENGES IN TIME OF TRANSITION (1989–2000) New Theatrical Directions......................................................................499 The Aesthetics of the New Wave vs. Socialist Realism in Cinema .............................................................363 No More Censorship: Music in the 1990s...............................................521 Film Music and the New Wave in Cinema ..............................................372 Bulgarian Literature Since 1989 .............................................................536 The Spirit of the Place or on the National Identity of the Bulgarian Literature .....................................................................379 New Artistic practices in the 1990s ........................................................548 Back to Tradition: the 1960s and the Historical Reconstruction Cinema .............................................382 Architecture of the Transition .................................................................589 Contexts, Contacts and Artistic Exchange in the 1960s and 1970s .........387 Bibliography ........................................................................................601 The 1970s: Socialism with a Human Face? ............................................401 Authors .................................................................................................627 Koziyat rog (The Goat Horn) and the Existential Freedom of Man .....................................................................................403 Acknowledgements ..............................................................................631 New Cinema at the End of the Century...................................................569 Repentance and Conflicts in the Literary Criticism ................................407 The Challenges of Modern Critical Interpretations ................................410 The Criticized Attempt at Rehabilitation of the Cultural History ...........413 The Literature as an Apostrophe of the Ideological Pattern ....................416 Political Propaganda or The Eternal in Art .............................................420 New Trends in the Field of Music ...........................................................428 New Theatrical Horizons........................................................................442 The Vent Satirical Theatre......................................................................453 The Public Role of Monumental Arts .....................................................459 The Black Sea Resorts and the Image of Bulgaria ..................................469 Technologies and Machine Aesthetics ...................................................473 Synthesis of the Arts with Fine Arts........................................................480 Theatrical Quests with the Wind of Changes ..........................................485 8 9 INTRODUCTION The edition is a result of a collaborative interdisciplinary project which aims to present a general view on the history of arts in Bulgaria during the 20th century. Following the idea of highlighting specific, but also common, parallel intellectual and artistic processes observed within the spheres of literature, theatre, music, cinema, visual arts, and architecture, this view focuses mainly on phenomena related to the modernization of Bulgarian culture and its place in the context of the flexible dynamic cultural dimensions of modern Europe. In this sense, our experience looks for the creation of a mosaic-chronological storyline in which the individual stories (albeit self-contained and, in some sense, heterogeneous) are bound in a common narrative located between the years of the national liberation and the end of the 20th century. The aesthetic processes that we associate with the New Bulgarian Time happened quite intensively in the various arts. Sometimes they interwove, interacted, overlapped or existed in parallel. Of course, the presented cultural and historical narrative cannot (and should not!) pretend to be complete and exhaustive. It does not insist on being monumental or canonical. It is open and subject to change and addition of new facts, topics, and interpretations. Yet, a meaningful integrity was sought in it to create a representative picture of some emblematic undeniable artistic values and also less known (forgotten or neglected) events and personalities; a picture in which tradition and modernity run into each other and reconcile. Despite the contemporary philosophical misgivings in Historicism, the pushing apart from the traditional sense of history (H. G. Gadamer) due to the conscious fragmentation of the historical process or as a protest against the inevitable choice which, however fled from subjectivism, could not be completely objective, such historical and aesthetic syntheses are rare in the Bulgarian culture. It is precisely the choice of a mosaic-chronological structure that helps not only to set certain cultural facts in the axis of historical time (according to K. Jaspers) but also to trace the 10 11 genesis of their creation, the influence of social and political events on the processes in arts, to mark the reception of their acceptance/ non-acceptance against the background of certain national, European or worldwide aesthetic norms. Of particular importance in this context is the marking of the developmental tendencies of the different arts and they appear to have an uneven pace in the different periods. Thus, the historical dynamics, which is undoubtedly too complicated – catching up, speeding, divergent, but not value-predetermined – is outlined. There are no higher or lower arts, genres, styles, schools or trends in the cultural time-space. They are equal but with varying creative intensity or popularity as they unfold themselves influenced by different laws in the process of their historical development. It is their ambivalent existence in a common time-space and the attempt to be told in a common text that is the challenge to the project. The theoretical and methodological principles should not simply justify its conceptual and meaningful cohesiveness but also suggest the necessity of creating such a model of the Bulgarian culture. A fundamental problem in the creation of a given cultural and historical corps is the question of periodization. By adhering to established and largely valid socio-cultural criteria in this aspect, the texts have been structured in three parts: Under the Sign of Modern Europe (1878–1944), Metamorphoses of Modernity (1945–1989), and Challenges in Time of Transition (1989–2000). At the same time, splitting the period into topical parts creates the convenience of sharpening the accents analysed in synchronous or diachronous terms, related, for instance, to various “aspects of change” in the development of a particular art as well as its specific reflections from the point of view of personal and community identity understood as a variable and not one-sided category. The marking of such “intersectional” kernels (temporal, socio-cultural, institutional, genre, etc.) is conditional and provocative to the traditional idea concerning developmental trends in Bulgarian culture characterized by dynamic change of the artistic optics and the socio-political realities of the past century. Therefore, such a compositional structure of the edition, albeit chronological, is not linear in the classical sense. It opens the possibility of parallel representation of complementary, pushing apart from each other, artistic paradigms or polemically opposing aesthetic phenomena in the art and culture of the Bulgarian 20th century. 12 PART ONE UNDER THE SIGN OF MODERN EUROPE (1878–1944) 13 FROM TRADITIONAL FOLK MUSIC TO THE MUSIC OF MODERNITY With the hurried pace of a newly-emerging national culture, Bulgaria began to build its new history at the end of the 19th century, with its gaze fixed on modern Europe and, at the same time, relying on its awakened consciousness of the past, which had preserved the ancient Bulgarian genus in the years under the domination of the Ottoman Empire. Driven by the enlightenment ideas of the Revival, the country was intensely looking for ways of joining the values cultivated in Central and Western Europe. Along with the consolidation of the Bulgarian nation, the new era highlighted another, not less significant, cultural and historical process: the realization of art as an autonomous phenomenon that had abandoned the anonymity of the folk art. In the sphere of music, this also meant acquiring a world of sounds unknown to the Bulgarians, whose ideas of arts had for centuries been based on the rural folklore and the ecclesiastical practice: traditions that had actually preserved for generations ahead their role of a sustainable sign of national cultural affiliation and source of creative inspiration. The pursuit of change in the status quo and the inclusion into the framework of a new, different to the prevailing in the country folklore, model, arose as early as in the years of the Revival and determined the way, the directions, and the deep transformation in the organization and the structure of the Bulgarian culture. At least as far as in the middle of the 19th century, evidential in this respect were the songs related to the national liberation movement. Chintulov’s songs were sounding in quite a new manner and their world was entered by intonations bearing the spirit of the West European major-minor melodies. Significant in this aspect was the first Bulgarian orchestra founded in Shumen by the Hungarian emigrant Mihay Shafran (1851), who developed a colourful repertoire of waltzes, mazurkas, marches, opera excerpts, Turkish melodies, and Bulgarian folk songs and ring dances. Besides its music performances, the orchestra played at Mihal by Sava Dobroplodni, the first theatre performance in 14 15 Bulgaria staged in Shumen in 1856. Among the students of M. Shafran was Dobri Voynikov, who, in turn, founded the first school orchestra in Shumen (in 1859) but left a significant trace in the emerging Bulgarian culture with his various activities as a teacher, writer, playwright, public character, journalist, and music and theatre figure. An early testimony of the dynamics of the music processes on the way to the music world of Western Europe was also the gradual adoption of the polyphonyc, extrinsic to traditional Bulgarian music. A step in that direction was the work of Yanko Mustakov who founded the first multi-part Bulgarian choir in Svishtov (1868). The Late Revival lifted the veil from some models of the West European music, mostly popular opera and operetta melodies, which could be heard in the urban spaces of Ruse, Lom, Varna, Plovdiv, Shumen, Kazanlak, Gabrovo, and Sliven. A factor in that sense was the development of the trade within the Ottoman Empire but also outside it: a process that stimulated the bilateral relations with Central and Western Europe. The local population The first Bulgarian orchestra founded in Shumen in 1851 by the Hungarian emigrant Mihay Shafran was predominantly Bulgarian but included communities of other ethnic origin, too. Turks, Greeks, Roma, Jews, and Armenians lived side by side with Bulgarians, which was a precondition for the formation of an eclectic music environment, which, during the years of the Late Revival and especially after the Liberation, at the beginning of the 20th century, built the dynamic profile of the so-called urban folklore. It was not accidental that accelerator of the cultural change, including of the one in the sphere of music, were the new Bulgarian cities. The newly-formed urban music culture had the characteristics of a conglomerate of intermingling or coexisting music intonations (mostly song ones) of rural and urban, local and foreign, secular and churchsinging origin. It blended a variety of cultural layers and kind of wound between the folklore and the non-folklore practice. It was namely in the new cities after the Liberation where the new aesthetic ideals penetrated. The music gradually acquired not just a meaning of an independent phenomenon. A process of differentiation began that built a new order of activities (creative, performing, musicalpedagogical, critical, etc.). New forms of existence were created in the music practice. Events of military brass bands, home music playing, social evenings, and balls with performance of chamber music, and out-of-school music events organized by music teachers affirmed a new, unconventional for the Bulgarians, form of music communication, i.e. the concert. Although related mainly to the vast sphere of everyday life, those forms also stimulated the realization of music as an autonomous art. *** The thirst for cultural and historical catch-up and general cultural rearrangement in the building of a new type of value system put the Bulgarian culture in the peculiar position of a relatively belated (from the point of view of the Western European culture) but, at the same time, accelerated development. The direction was one but the projections of the process in the different branches of culture were often ambiguous. Tracking down even only the path to autonomy and independent development of literature or music practice indicated uneven development in the overall dynamics of the otherwise unified cultural and historical process. Contrariwise, the hectic development of the newly-emerging Bulgarian culture was accompanied by complicated and, to some extent, 16 2. Bulgarian 20th Century... 17 contradictory processes. The years after the Liberation were a time of sudden changes in the overall cultural transformation imposed by the inevitable decline of the morally outdated (according to the new ideals) social system (bearer of a folklore and patriarchal attitude), on the one hand, and the rapid penetration of the new social order, on the other. The accelerated development of the processes in all spheres of life of Bulgarians somehow confronted the ideas of the old and the new. This collision particularly reflected in the national psychology and, not accidentally, the emphasis in the humour and in the realistic satire in the Bulgarian (and Balkan) literary practice was embodied, for example, by the image of Aleko’s Bay Ganyo. This kind of collisions can also be judged from the famous idea of the son reading Oscar Wilde in one of the rooms while, in the other, his father was working on a spinning wheel; or, for example, again according to Ivan Hadzhiyski’s words, “the contradictions between sons who graduated in St. Petersburg and Odessa, Zagreb, Leipzig, and Prague and saw the glow of quite another world without being able to assimilate its most treasured spiritual achievements, and their fathers still wearing potur (Turkish full-bottomed tight-legged breeches), measuring the time by the Turkish saat (hour), and living with Longsuffering Genoveva.1 Similar characteristics of the Bulgarian national psychology also determined, to a certain extent, the dominant forms of naivety, moral didacticism, and sentimentalism observed, for example, in school songs, in the first Bulgarian opera Siromahkinia by Emanuil Manolov (1900), in a series of choral and orchestral potpourri performances of popular folk songs that emerged at one and the same time, and even in the names of instrumental pieces “dressed”, after the European genre-dancing model (polkas, mazurkas, etc.), in typical Bulgarian folk names (Mariyka, Siyka, etc.). The eclectic character of such kind of performance also reflected, as early as the time of the Late Revival, in the formation of that typical local way of mixing a variety of cultural layers, called “alafranga”, which made its way in clothing, architecture, urban song folklore, in the models of some urban entertainment events, etc. 1 1966. See Хаджийски, Иван. Бит и душевност на нашия народ. – София: Български писател, 18 Angel Bukoreshtliev Plovdiv Singing Society, founded 4 March 1896 The wider vision of music at the end of the 19th century spoke of a conscious pro-European tendency in the spirit of the new aesthetic ideals. Rural music folklore – although connected to the past but, at the same time, changing its inherent everyday-life and ritual nature – continued to occupy a significant place in the general panorama of musical phenomena along with the newer forms of urban folklore. A special emphasis in the general panorama was the rapid development of choral music as a result of extensive school and civic amateur art activities. A strong impetus in its development was also experienced by the opera music thanks to the activities of both the Sofia Capital Opera Group and the guest visits of foreign opera groups as well as to the interest in such kind of repertoire by a number of bandmasters in their work with military brass bands having a wide range of performances at the time. Institutions in the Spirit of Modern Times At the beginning of the 20th century, Bulgarian musicians jealously followed the enlightenment ideas as well as the idea of democratic musical art, largely related to the performances of amateur choirs and military brass band music. This idea continued to fuel the pursuit of professional musical education. It also stimulated a number of radical steps in the 19 Title page of Muzikalen Vestnik, publication of the Bulgarian Musical Union amateur, secular and church-singing practice; and in the manifestations of personal and community self-consciousness as a sign of national, regional, ethnic, European, etc. affiliation. With a voice of its own in the new cultural situation stood out the already distinguished artistic intelligentsia whose maturity sought expression both in overcoming the naïve vision of art and in the positions towards the absorption of modern aesthetic concepts and philosophical views. Indicative was also the new attitude to the folk tradition as a result of the already distant thinking projected in the vehement discussions surrounding the question of its artistic transformation. The general view of the events of the first two decades of the 20th century again drew the attention to the broken historical fate of Bulgarians. The creative cultural rise of the first decade of the 20th century would be followed by severe political and social shocks. Hardly stabilized after the turbulent years of the post-liberation period, the new Bulgarian culture would suffer the severe shocks of three wars (1912–1918). Artistic reflections of those crisis events were seen primarily in literature and visual arts. direction of the pro-European type of organization and structure of musical culture. Among the newly-established institutions were the Bulgarian Musical Union and its Muzikalen vestnik (1904), the Private Music School in Sofia (1905), which was nationalized in 1912, the Bulgarian Opera Friendship (1908), the Guard Orchestra (1892), the Amateur Civil Symphony Orchestra in Sofia (1905). Again at the beginning of the century, the music teacher Dimo Boychev put the beginning of the socalled children’s musical potpourri performances in Plovdiv and, twenty years later, the democratic reforms of the government of Aleksandar Stamboliyski created prerequisites for the transformation of the State Music School into the State Music Academy (1921), and of the Bulgarian Opera Friendship into the National Opera (1922). Significant for that kind of cultural initiatives was the contribution of Prof. Ivan Shishmanov, Minister of National Education (1903–1907), whose energetic policy played an important role in the general upsurge of culture and education in the early 20th century. The new status of the Bulgarian culture could be traced in a number of directions: in the cultural strata already established (which deepened the process of differentiation between the economic, political, and artistic life, as well as in the new activities and professions that emerged in that respect); in the differences between the rural and urban, professional and The perspectives of the professional Bulgarian music at the beginning of the 20th century can be judged by the level of absorption of compositional techniques and the mastery of the new musical language. Testimonies in that direction were the works of a number of representatives of the so-called first generation of Bulgarian composers who received their professional musical education at prestigious European centres. It was no coincidence that the musical creativity apparently extended its genre scope at that time. Along with the prevailing folklore arrangements and author’s choral songs, new trends were outlined by the experiments in the fields of opera, operetta, orchestral and chamber music. Among the active creative figures was Panayot Pipkov, a teacher, amateur actor, choir-master, bandmaster, and author of a number of school songs and operettas for children (including Himn za Cyril i Methodius), who had studied music in Milan. Among the other were Emanuil Manolov, author of choral songs and the first Bulgarian opera Siromahkinia, who had studied piano, flute, and harmony at the Moscow Conservatoire; Angel Bukoreshtliev, conductor and 20 21 The Composer as a New Figure in Bulgarian Music folklorist, author of choral potpourri, who had graduated from the Organ School in Prague; Maestro Georgi Atanasov, author of opera works, who had studied music in Italy; Nikola Atanasov, who wrote the first Bulgarian symphony (1912), had graduated from the Zagreb Conservatoire. Representatives of the first generation of Bulgarian composers were also Aleksandar Krastev, Aleksandar Morfov, and others. Among the great figures with outstanding contribution to the professional Bulgarian music of that time was Dobri Hristov. Having studied music at the Prague Conservatoire, he captured the new trends in the European music and from that point of view assessed the special, different, specific in the intonational world of the Bulgarian musical folklore – not just in a contemplative, self-sufficient way but as a means of enriching and renewing the professional composer’s work overcoming the naivety of the early attempts to imitate Western models. His innovative ideas were projected into a number of choral songs (e.g. Lilyana Moma Hubava, Pusti Momi Zheravnenki, Rachenitsa, Lele Mome, Ergen Dyado, Ganinata Mayka, Dafino Vino) that remained permanent in the repertoire of the Bulgarian choirs. His work also included vivid examples of new liturgical music. He is the author of the overture Ivaylo created on the occasion of the solemn opening of the National Theatre (1907). A musician with many interests, Dobri Hristov was also a pioneer in the study of the Bulgarian musical folklore. His theoretical works were fundamental for the development and prospects of the Bulgarian musical science. On the other hand, the deepening of the creative process as a manifestation of personality and expression of individualized thinking and projection of certain artistic trends observed in Western Europe spoke of a new socio-cultural situation that would gradually take composers’ work away from the realm of life and would mythologize characteristic of European understanding oppositions in the world of art: between one’s own and another’s, traditional and new, archaic and modern, and between the ideas that at a given historical moment were designated by the concepts of art, folk, and popular music. As a matter of fact, that process would sublimate later in the attempts for a more tangible European aesthetic orientation in the work of the so-called second-generation composers. K. L. Portrait of Dobri Hristov, 1919 Artist: Elisaveta Konsulova-Vazova 22 23 REALISM IN BULGARIAN LITERATURE ON THE BORDER OF TWO CENTURIES In the first decade after the Liberation (1878), Plovdiv became the centre of Bulgarian culture and literature. Educational and publishing activities were actively developed in the city. Hristo G. Danov and Dragan Manchov printed many popular-science books, original and translated textbooks. Nayden Gerov prepared and published his fundamental work Dictionary of the Bulgarian Language. In the newly-opened Luxembourg Theatre, a number of guest-actor groups were staged but the Bulgarian drama had not yet faded from the naivety and pathetic of the Revival tradition. After the Unification (1885), Sofia unfolded not only its public and political function as a capital but became a centre of the cultural and scientific life of the country. In the 1990s, a significant portion of the intelligentsia elite was concentrated there; important educational, literary, and cultural institutions were founded. Some founding literary publications were issued: Denitsa (1890–1891) by Ivan Vazov, in which he published Chichovtsi and many other emblematic works of his; the Professors’ Journal Bulgarski Pregled (1893–1900), which discussed issues of higher education, language norms, and the emerging literary criticism; Bulgarska Sbirka (1894–1915), the conservative publication and bastion of Critical Realism; and Journal Misal (Thought Journal) (1892–1907). The last one, like the other publications, appeared on the border of two centuries when the Bulgarian intelligentsia, though in a slow and quite painful manner, realized its belonging to the European traditions. The difference between Dr. Krastyo Krastev and the editors of the other publications was that he had a clear mission: to shape the new identity of the Bulgarian culture not only through the native, as a preserved and self-sustained identity, but by absorbing foreign theoretical, critical, and artistic models. The journal was provocative and challenging with its freedom from publicistic co-experience of the past as a moral ideal and a constant plot theme, as well as with its desire to impose a dominant model in the literary life that was not directed at the social and political but the 24 metaphysical problems of the human spirit. And that caused and inevitably provoked the polemic opposition Thought against the other publications and of the journal against Ivan Vazov as the epitome of a past era: its problems, style, and language of artistic interpretation. The personality and the works of Ivan Vazov were incompatible with the aesthetic and philosophical paradigm of the modern literature but that did not imply underestimation of his founding place in the social and cultural space from the end of the 19th to the 20s of the 20th century and, of course, in the literary history. He filled with meaning the concept of classic as a conscious and consistently realized creative mission, as creating and asserting the status of the writer who became a spiritual institution of his time. Interesting, albeit underestimated and remaining in the shadow of Vazov’s circle, was the personality of Konstantin Velichkov. He created many various artistic works, studied painting in Florence, provoked the traditional travel genre with aesthetic experiments (Pisma ot Rim), his memoirs (V Tamnitsata), and the novelette (Zoi). His translations played an important role in shaping the aesthetic taste of the reader’s audience at the beginning of the 20th century. The most popular and undisputed representative of realistic prose was Aleko Konstantinov. He created Bay Ganyo – both rejected and accepted – but, nevertheless, a sustainable national-psychological type. A complex telling image, a symbol of a person acting between different cultural and civilization codes. He was the universal character of the unregulated Vassil Stoilov (1904–1990) Ivan Vazov in front of the National Theatre in Sofia after 1962 Archive of Ivan Vazov National Theatre 25 social-political transition between two eras that vulgarly used power and made good use of politics. One of the complex and contradictory but colourful figures of the Bulgarian literature was Stoyan Mihaylovski. With his social criticism, he dissected his time and society and artistically embodied it in original satirical forms and styles that did not fit into the context of the familiar artistic styles of those genres. His works, as well as his personality, combined incompatible styles, gestures in the wide range between the enthusiastic Revival pathetics (Varvi Narode Vazrodeni) and the satiricalphilosophical insights collected in Kniga za Bulgarskiya Narod and Kniga za Oskarbenite i Onepravdanite . In his lifetime, Zahari Stoyanov was present in the public space as a politician and publicist. The most Bulgarian book, as Efrem Karanfilov called Zapiski po Bulgarskite Vastaniya, was discovered only in 1920 (31 years after the death of the writer) by Professor Aleksandar Balabanov. He pronounced him Bulgarian Thucydides and, without hesitation, bestowed him Classic of Bulgarian Prose. Definitions that cannot be denied to this day but are only added new arguments and interpretations. Е. Т. 26 THE CONCEPT OF REALISM IN VISUAL ARTS The issue of Realism occupied an important place in the artistic education, critical writing, and arts disputes in Bulgaria until the World War II. Today, the excitement of the manifestations of modernism does not overshadow our eyes. Later, under the Communist rule, Realism would be a major concept in criticism. Was one and the same tendency practiced and discussed throughout all those decades in different cultural environments and contexts? The concept of Realism was established in the (Western) European universalist tradition of the 19th century. During the first years of specialized artistic education and artistic life in Bulgaria, the word Realism was used to refer to the artistic achievement in the presentation of human images, images of nature, and scenes of everyday life. In the texts about artistic works, there was no distinction between Academic Realism and Realism in opposition of the Academy. Let us remember Jean Francois Mille and the case of Courbet, who opposed academism. That European / French Realism had its out-of-conjuncture moment of conflict in the representative salons. In Bulgaria, the understanding of Realism before the World War I was related to the images of village and the rural works of artists such as Anton Mitov, Jan Václav Mrkvička, Ivan Angelov, Jaroslav Věšín, etc. In their paintings, similarly to literary works of the same time, there were traces of many influences of no historical order. The experience of Realism in Bulgaria was related to rural romanticism but also to the interest of European Orientalists towards Exoticism; to the academic building of the composition and, at the same time, to the use of the photographic image. Impressionism, Symbolism, Secession / Art Nouveau stylistic features at that time were also manifested in village images. Andrey Protich did not discuss the concept of Realism in his works about Bulgarian art in the first decades of the modern state, in his early studies: Guide to the National Museum in Sofia (1923–1924), The 27 New Bulgarian Art section, Fifty Years of Bulgarian Art, Volumes I and II (1933, 1934). In them, he wrote about the genre art picture in which different stylistic features were manifested. In Small Art Dictionary by Nikolay Raynov, published in 1928, there was no article about Realism although texts were found about different tendencies: Expressionism, Futurism, etc. The Realism in the presentation of rural labour in the early years became a basic concept in the historization of the Bulgarian art since the beginning of the communist rule. The works of the authors named genre painters by Protich – most of them being first-generation professors at the State Arts School in Bulgaria – were discussed by conjunctural critics as ones preceding the Social and Socialist Realism. There were many reasons for such an appropriation of those works by the new ideology but the main one was the need for a narrative about the realistic tradition in Bulgaria and, respectively, the marginalization of the “decadent” “bourgeois” Modernism. It was insisted that those artists had overcome the canon of academic education in favour of the “Democratic” Realism, without commenting on the changes in the ideology of training at major academies (for example, the one in Munich) over the decades. In The New Bulgarian Art (1946), Nikola Mavrodinov presented the art in Bulgaria in the 18th and 19th centuries and the Bulgarian painting in the era of the independent national state. The story of the modern times was organized in five chapters, the first of them titled Period of Realism in Bulgarian Painting after the Liberation of Bulgaria. At the end of the 1920s and 1930s, the return to scenic painting in Portraiture, Landscape Painting, Nude Art, Figure Composition, etc., to subject space, was part of the general trends in the major artistic centres. They found expression in the New Objectivity in Germany, the Return to Order in France, the new neoclassicism wave throughout Europe. In the 1930s, the artistic issues of the Bulgarian art changed, too. Artistic efforts and quests were oriented towards the object-space representation and the new objectivity in painting. The trend towards Neoclassicism was convincingly presented in the Nude Art genre. The ideas of all-round artistic intervention, the art synthesis practices lost their positions and gave way to the new reality of the picture. The experience of the 1920s seemed to have been forgotten. The most intensive, in a modernist aspect, period of the new Bulgarian art had passed. From the point of view of scale and artistic qualities, the achievements of painting in the 1930s in Bulgaria were significant for every historical narrative. Impressive paintings were created with an interest in structuring the space-object environment. The New Artists Society established in the early 1930s expressed the new orientation to the pictorial image and figurative sculpture and presented the generation associated with it. Such was the artistic environment of the works of Ivan Nenov, Vera Nedkova, Kiril Tsonev, Pencho Georgiev, Vera Lukova, and others. Other important figures in the Bulgarian painting of the 1930s were Boris Eliseev, Vassil Barakov, Eliezer Alshekh, Nenko Balkanski, David Peretz. Most of them learned the experience of Cesanism, Cubism, Futurism, New Objectivity, and Magical Realism. The generation of the 30s, the circle of the New Artists, were presented in our country in extensive retrospective exhibitions and catalogues from the 1980s onwards. Monographs were published about many of the artists and they are well known today. Until recently, the focus of their historization was their commitment to Social Realism. Today, critical discussion of works is linked to a wider and more complex context. The controversial trend that led to the simultaneous disputes on Realism in France2, the doctrine of Socialist Realism in the Soviet Union, and the aesthetic norms imposed by the national socialists in Germany and, otherwise, by the followers of fascism in Italy, after the experience of the modernisms of the 20s, had various embodiments in the Bulgarian art ranging from the return of the interest in the tangible reality to the support of the status quo of the totalitarian power. 28 29 I. G. 2 La querelle du réalisme. Présentation de Serge Fouchereau. Éditions Cercle d'Art, Paris, 1987. CHITALISHTA – FUNCTIONS AND BUILDINGS At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the presence of the volunteer community-centre organizations called chitalishta became more and more common in the smaller Bulgarian settlements and some urban neighbourhoods. It was the basis of libraries in different regions, local historical and museum collections, clubs, choirs, and amateur theatre groups. There were about 130 Revival chitalishta, and today, nearly a century and a half later, their number is over 3,000. However, their activities were not always housed by own buildings: often, private homes, communal premises or school rooms were used. New buildings specifically designed as chitalishta appeared after the Liberation. The number of chitalishte buildings (homes) also increased during the next century: from nearly 10 in the early 20th century to almost 500 before the World War II and 2,000 in the 1970s. The chitalishta were built by the municipalities with donations of their citizens. The buildings included a library, a reading room, rehearsal rooms, and a larger salon with a stage. The cultural traditions of the societies have been preserved to this day in Bulgaria (although they have recently been decaying). The new specialized buildings had representative additional salons and spaces. They were also organically linked to the urban (rural) centre ensembles, to the common garden and park spaces. A good example of the trend was the construction of a new building to house Dobri Voynikov – 1856 Chitalishte in Shumen, which was completed in 1899. Its eclectic, solemn design was made by the Parisian J. M. Mercier and envisaged the incorporation of a monument of the donator Nancho Popovich3. For the construction, local stone, bricks from Trud factory in The data used are from the public documentation of the chitalishte: Dobri Voynikov – 1856 Chitalishte. History. 2018. http://www.d-voynikov.com/history.php, (visited on 11.06.2018). 3 30 Dobri Voynikov – 1856 Chitalishte in Shumen, 20114 Designed by: Arch. J. Mercier Ruse, iron beams for floor constructions from Germany, and coloured glazed bricks from Vienna were used. Along with the emergence of new chitalishta, there was certain institutionalization of their functions and activities in the large settlements. Thus, at the instruction of the school board, a biggest version of structure – Dohodno Zdanie was built in Ruse as early as in 1902. Its architect was Peter Paul Brang, who had graduated in Vienna, and the design also included shops, a theatre salon, a library, and a casino. One of the magnificent buildings of the Interwar Period was Otets Paisiy Monument Chitalishte in Samokov. It was designed by architect Kosta Nikolov and the purpose of the specific construction was: “To perpetuate the memory of the heroically died for the defence and greatness of our Fatherland soldiers from the 22nd, 50th, and 54th infantry regiments and from the 7th and 17th artillery regiments during the war in 1922– 1923 and 1915–1918; to build a cultural monument in Samokov District – town of Samokov, accessible to all citizens, military people, and the population of the district.” The slabs and the sculptural decorations of the 4 Source: Wikimedia Commons, Izvora: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chitalishte_ Dobri_Voinikov.JPG (visited on 11.06.2018). 31 FROM AMATEURISM TO PROFESSIONAL THEATRE Otets Paisiy Chitalishte in Samokov, 20175 Designed by: Arch. K. Nikolov building were made by Nikola Nozharov and Licurgo Andreani.6 It was built in the neoclassical style and included elements of Secession and Art Deco. In 1927, the People’s Chitalishte Act was adopted to regulate the activities of the centres.7 Along with the chitalishta, new buildings for theatres, libraries, museums, etc. were built in the country and the capital. At first, those new “cultural” buildings were mostly awarded to authors from Europe or through major international competitions. After the first decade of the 20th century, Bulgarian architects were also actively involved in the creation of the representative buildings with their designer’s decisions in terms of the functions and appearance of the centres. S. Т. 5 Желева-Мартинс, Добрина. 2017. Летни експресии – културни маршрути 2017–2, http://zheleva-martins.com/2017/10/09/ (visited on 11.06.2018). 6 The data used are from the public documentation of the chitalishte: Otets Paisiy Monument Chitalishte in Samokov. History 2018. http://chopsamokov.bg/history/, (visited on 11.06.2018). Фингарски, Петър. Читалище-паметник „Отец Паисий“ в Самоков, 2015 7 Държавен вестник, бр. 291, 28. 03.1927. 32 The first manifestations of national self-awareness during the Revival were related to the activities of the chitalishta. Those civic institutions, kind of public reading rooms, were the cradle of arts and culture in our country. Founded in the second half of the 19th century throughout the country as amateur cultural and educational organizations, the chitalishta offered to Bulgarian people, who were under Ottoman rule then, an opportunity for national cultural and revolutionary activity. Often, that was done in a conspiratorial form legitimated as meetings, lectures, concerts, performances, literary and dance evenings, art and craft workshops. Some of those events were legal forms of patriotic propaganda and were not noticed by the authorities. It was in the chitalishta of Lom and Shumen where the first performances, announced as theatre ones, were staged in 1856. The repertoire of the chitalishta consisted of historical dramas, melodramas, and comedies. Plays by J.-B. Moliere, G. Lessing, V. Hugo, F. Volter, and Fr. Schiller were usually performed. Quite popular was the melodrama Mnogostradalna Genoveva (Long-suffering Genevieve), adaptation of a German text with Ch. von Schmid, L. Tieck or Fr. Hebel being its presumed authors. The most-staged comedy play was Mihal Mishkoed (Mihal the Mouse-Eater), adaptation of O. Leprentis by the Greek playwright M. Hourmouzis, made by Sava Dobroplodni. Velizarii (Belisarius) by the Austrian writer H. Trutschen was one of the favourite historical dramas. Those plays were repeatedly staged almost everywhere in the country. They were received with great enthusiasm by the spectators who often responded to what was happening on the stage with naïve reactions during the performance such as loud-voice comments, direct communication with the actors whom the audience often unquestioningly identified with the dramatic characters presented. Sometimes spectators even tried to forcibly evict the villain from the hall to protect the male or female character. The early years of the Bulgarian theatre were related to the names of Sava Dobroplodni, Krastjo Pischurka, Dobri Voynikov, Vassil 3. Bulgarian 20th Century... 33 The cover page of the first edition of Mihal, Comedy in four acts, prepared by Sava I. Dobroplodni, 1853 Drumev. All of them were teachers educated abroad. They translated plays, wrote original texts, and prepared performances with their pupils or with amateurs. As early as in the first years after the National Liberation, an idea emerged to build a permanent national theatre group to be financially supported by the state. That was related to the aspirations for strengthening the national identity similar to other countries in Central and Eastern Europe which had become independent ones. A rather intense activity in that direction was developed in Plovdiv. One of the first amateur groups was that of the Plovdiv printers who founded several theatrical associations. Their initiatives led to the decision of the Regional Assembly of Plovdiv in 1881 to allocate an amount from the budget of the Directorate of National Education for the formation of a theatre group8. That act of the state was extremely important for the further development of the theatrical work in Bulgaria on the road to its professionalization and institutionalization. The first performance of the newly-formed Bulgarian Theatre Group took place on 11 June 1883 in the only special theatre building in Bulgaria of that time, i.e. Luxembourg Theatre in Plovdiv. The comedy play Robstvoto na majete (The Slavery of Men) by A. N. Ostrovsky was staged, translated and directed by K. Sapunov. The hall had the shape of an ellipse and about 300 seats on two levels: a ground floor and a gallery. There were 19 boxes. Gas lamps were used as lighting. All artists were amateurs. The repertoire of the group included nationalhistorical plays, comedy plays, and melodramas. Most of them were translated from Russian and French. After the unification of Eastern Rumelia and the Principality of Bulgaria in 1885, the activity of the group was ceased for political reasons. Most of its founders moved to the new capital, Sofia. Nevertheless, in 1887, an amateur group was again formed in Plovdiv. Some of its members were the pioneers of the Bulgarian professional theatre. In 1888, the group had a very successful tour in Sofia. In the same year, a new wooden theatre with 374 seats was built in the capital, named Osnova after the name of the group – Balgarska narodna teatralna trupa (Bulgarian People’s Theatre Group Base) that existed until 1890. In 1890, the Ministry of National Education instructed the formation of a new Stolichna dramatichno-operna trupa (Sofia Capital Drama and Opera Group), with Dragomir Kazakov as its director, with two divisions: drama and opera. At the initiative of D. Kazakov as well as Ivan Slavkov and Angel Bukoreshtliev, the opera division included the Czech bandmaster H. Wiesner as its conductor; the Bosnian V. G. Boshkovich, an attaché to the Austro-Hungarian Legation in Sofia, took the tenor parties. The bass from Prague J. Hashek, the soprano O. Dobšova, and the alto A. Kratochvilova were also invited.9 Dragomir Kazakov undertook actions for receiving a state subsidy and property in Luxembourg Theatre in Plovdiv, 1881 Дневници от Третата редовна сесия на Областното събрание, Пловдив 1882, от 10.12.1881, 1022–1023. Cited after Саев, Георги. История на българския театър: Т. 2. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 1997, с. 57, 71. Казаков, Драгомир. Материали по историята на Народния театър и опера. – София: Държавна печатница, 1929, с. 27. Попов, Иван. Миналото на българския театър: Т. 2. – София, 1942, с. 171. 34 35 8 9 practice, the scholarship students and the other few enthusiasts, who came back in 1898–1899 and were appointed in the group upon a competition, were the first professional actors in Bulgaria. By the end of the century, Salza i smjah (Tear and Laugh) Group already had professional artists trained at prestigious schools outside Bulgaria. During that period, democratic ideas were pushing their way. There was an extremely strong desire to catch up on missed. The gazes were fixed on Europe longing for inclusion into the European culture and values. Those were years of building: urban culture was created; the new capital was improved; national intelligentsia, literature, and theatre were created, i.e. the foundations in all spheres of national culture were laid. J. S. Sketch of Osnova Theatre, 1888 ventory. As a result, the National Assembly decided for the financing of the opera group to be within the subsidy already granted for the dramatic theatre. In 1891, the opera division established itself as Stolichna bulgarska opera (Sofia Capital Bulgarian Opera), playing on the stage of Slavyanska Beseda. Due to financial difficulties and lack of state support, the group broke up. A little earlier the same year, the drama division was given the name Stolichna bulgarska dramaticheska opera (Sofia Capital Bulgarian Drama Group), to which, as Dr. Krastyo Krastev suggested, the poetic metonymy for theatre “salza i smjah” (tear and laugh) was added. Georgi Zlatarev, Dimitar Kazakov, Vassil Kirkov, Vassil Kostov-Nalburov, Nikola Kravarev, Boris Pozharov, Anton Popov, Ivan Popov, Stefan Popov, Panayot Pipkov, Konstantin Sapunov, Marijka Ivanova, Anka Popova, Marijka Popova, Shenka Popova and others took part in the group. In the process of professionalization of the Bulgarian theatre, significant was the decision of the Ministry of National Enlightenment in 1895 to grant four scholarships for education abroad. The competition was won by Geno Kirov and Adriana Budevska, who went to Moscow; Krastyo Sarafov, who went to St. Petersburg; and Vera Ignatieva, who began studying in Prague but graduated from the Performing Arts Department in Vienna Conservatoire. In the same and the following years, several people went to Berlin, Zagreb, Milan, Paris and others at their own expense. In 36 37 ACADEMY OF ART / STATE ARTS SCHOOL Foundation and Early Years The foundation in 1896 of the State Arts School – later Academy of Arts – in Sofia was one of the most significant events in the artistic life at the end of the 19th century. The importance of the educational arts institution was discussed as early as in the first publications in Izkustvo journal (1895–96, 1897–99). In double issue 2–3 of the first anniversary, it read “Motives on the bill for opening a State Arts School in Sofia”, presented to the deputies to the National Assembly by Konstantin Velichkov, Minister of National Education at that time. The bill was also published. Educational establishments as well as museums as institutions of fine arts in Europe were referred to as a “factor for progress”. And “the influence of fine arts on the industry and, hence, on the trade and wealth of the peoples” made the modern artistic activity important not only for the history of art but also for the history in general. “The civilized nations, states, governments have long realised and appreciated the great influence of arts on the life and prosperity of their homelands [...]. Thousands of paintings and statues, works of ancient and new art, sometimes bought at fabulous prices, are gathered into special permanent museums, magnificently built and richly furnished, most of them being real tsars and emperors’’ palaces [...] And the governments and states not only leave that huge capital there without any other benefits or uses but also spend huge amounts for its constant increase, maintenance, and preservation. Everywhere, that is the pride and glory of the nations and the sure pledge of their future majesty. For that purpose, all states have academies and numerous arts schools [...] “10. 10 Величков, Константин. Мотиви по законопроекта за откриване на Държавното рисувално училище в София. // Изкуство, № 2–3, с. 24. 38 In the motives on the bill, it was as if the “history” itself was projected as well as the conditions allowing the inclusion of Bulgaria into the general narrative of the “European civilization”. We will not be able to join the “civilized nations, states, and governments” without institutions of art history – permanent museums of ancient and modern art. And in order to have art history, it is necessary that we, like “all states”, found and maintain academies and arts schools. Rhetoric is important: it must persuade and influence. History and civilization here are considered as European. And the strategies for joining the European cultural territory also mean an attempt to join the age of modernity. Many of the first lecturers at the State Arts School – Jan Václav (Ivan) Mrkvička, Jaroslav Věšín, Ivan Angelov, Raymon Ulrich, Zheko Spiridonov and others, Czechs and Bulgarians, were educated in Munich. In the earliest teaching staff, there was also a graduate of the Academy in Florence – Anton Mitov, who, along with I. Mrkvicka, was a major figure in The teaching staff of the Academy of Arts (State Arts School at that time)11 11 Published in: Юбилеен годишник на Държавното рисувално училище, 1906. 39 Nude Study class at the sculpture studio of Zheko Spiridonov Academy of Arts (State Arts School at that time)12 Teaching in Sofia in the early years followed the training in Drawing, Modelling, Anatomy, and Perspective covered by the traditional academic education. In other respects, however, it differed significantly from them. The Classicism line, so typical of the programmes of the art academies in Europe in the early period of their establishment in the age of the Enlightenment, was not the main ideology of the artistic education in Bulgaria. According to the vocabulary use, classicus (Lat.) referred primarily to works inspired by Greek and Roman antiquity models. In that direction, we will not find in our country the experience of Western and Central Europe of the 18th century but an eclectic impact of images of the Enlightenment and the ideas of 19th-century Romanticism and Historicism. Instead of classicism compositions with themes from the Greek and Roman antiquity or landscapes with ruins and fantastic ancient architecture, the first generation of Bulgarian art professors exhibited in the salons (both in the country and abroad) compositions with themes from everyday life and the material environment of the Bulgarian 12 Published in: Юбилеен годишник на Държавното рисувално училище, 1926 40 village and the pre-modern city. The idea of creating national classic to be recognizable as “Bulgarian” was perceived as a mission by the earliest protagonists of artistic education in our country. There was also a loose connection with the tendency of Orientalism – with the European view of the exoticism of the East. Similar interest in the various ethnic groups, costumes, material environment, and the Ottoman architecture in Bulgaria can be also found in paintings of the alumni of the Munich and other European academies. Such interest, manifested around 1900, was mentioned by A. Protich in his study Our Genre Picture13. The images of the daily life in Bulgaria at that time had traits of both European and Ottoman urban life and the first art professors presented exactly that heterogeneous admixture as authentic Bulgarian. To Bulgaria, however, the Orient was not as distant as to the West, but close and familiar from the everyday life. There was another difference to the early experience of the major European academies: The State Arts School in Sofia opened in the time of photography. The photographic revolution had changed Collective photo with the diaprojector called the “magic lantern” in the Grand Salon of the Academy (State Arts School at that time)14 Протич, Андрей. Нашата битова картина. // Сборник в чест на Иван Шишманов. – София, 1920, с. 171–181. 14 Published in: Юбилеен годишник на Държавното рисувално училище, 1906. 13 41 observation, way of thinking, and mastering of nature. Along with drawing and painting studies, photographs were also used to create pictures. Photography was used and practiced by academic teachers. In turn, diapositives radically changed the teaching and learning of historical art knowledge in Sofia and elsewhere An important feature of the Arts School was the reconciliation of basic, for classical academic education, courses with a programme oriented towards applied arts, which could be related to the experience of applied arts schools of European cultural centres such as Prague and Vienna. In 1909, after the renaming of the State Arts School into State Art and Industrial School, the classes of drawing in the general course were reduced from 24 to 16 at the expense of those of stylization and design. The training profile was changed. In the context of the programme thus changed, after 1910, the concept of Bulgarian style was formed, referring to the ornaments in architecture and material environment. The eclectic nature of the educational institution’s conception and ideology, which varied between periods, was due to the lack of sufficient resources and broad artistically-educated environment to allow the opening of two clearly profiled artistic institutions and to ensure the specific realization of the graduates of the academic or applied education. (School Review) journal, with a volume of 31 printed pages17. The text was organized in five parts preceded by a list of references on the subject. The thesis that Protich formulated and gave reasons for in each of the parts, was that artistic activity and its realization were related to long-term conditions of the environment. Artistic practice was influenced by context and, at the same time, gave a shape to it. The last chapter in the brochure was titled Societies, Painting School, and Artists. Following the story about the founding of the oldest society, the publication treated the foundation of the Painting School in 1896. There, Protich emphasized the merits of K. Velichkov, Minister of Education at that time and Honorary President of the Society; of Ivan Shishmanov, its first chairman, and of the artists I. Angelov, I. Mrkvička, A. Mitov for the creation of the first in Bulgaria state art school. Following the Jubilee Yearbook of the State Arts School issued for its tenth anniversary in 1906, Protich listed the areas the School prepared specialists for and the teachers of various artistic disciplines but omitted the names of those teaching Art History, Anatomy, and Architecture. He also mentioned the number of male and female students for the school year 1905–1906. According to the author, the State Arts School was also a link between the two, existing at that time, art societies: Society for the Supporting of Art in Bulgaria and Contemporary Art Society, coexisting in an “irreconcilable apparent or silent antagonism.”18 *** In the first decade of the 20th century, in a series of articles in Letopisi (Chronicles), Savremenna Misal (Contemporary Thought), and Znanie (Knowledge) journals, Dimitar P. Daskalov – one of the first historians and critics of art in Bulgaria – discussed the early state of the art institutions in Sofia compared to “Europe”15. In 1901, in Art in Bulgaria, he outlined the central role of the State Arts School in the artistic life at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, summarizing that “our first more perfect artists” were the first professors at the School16. Special attention was also paid to the role of the State Arts School by Andrey Protich in his early study Art in Bulgaria in 1908. It was published in a separate brochure, a printout of Uchilishten Pregled Catalogue prepared on the occasion of the Bulgarian participation at the Balkan States Exhibition in London in 1907. Cover page Даскалов, Димитър. Изкуството на България // Избрани статии и студии за изобразителното изкуство. / Съст. С. Даскалов. – Български художник, София, 1965. 16 Ibid., p. 45. Протич, Андрей. Изкуството в България. // Училищен преглед, [брошура], 1908. год. ХII, кн. IX 18 Протич, Андрей. Изкуството в България, с. 20. 42 43 15 17 Presentation of Bulgaria – the State Arts School in Sofia – at the Balkan States Exhibition in London in 190719 In 1910, Vassil Dimov – an artist, critic, and publisher – published a large article – The Modern Art Collection of the National Museum – in double issue of Hudozhestvena Kultura journal20. The first important events to modern art in Bulgaria in the narrative were the creation of an artistic association in the country in 1895 and the subsequent opening of the State Arts School in 1896. In the following period after 1896, the School was established as the centre of artistic life. With their high status and activity, the first professors at the School determined to a great extent the selection of the works provided to the National Museum and, hence, the possible saturation of the historical narrative with works, trends, and names. Another text by V. Dimov – About the Bulgarian Academy of Arts – was published in two consecutive issues of Hudozhestvena Kultura journal21. There was a specific occasion and motive for the article: the drafting of a bill for renaming the State Arts School into Academy of Fine and Applied Arts. According to V. Dimov, as early as at the time of its ten-year anniversary in 1906, the School had reached the “image of a real academy” and, more precisely, “the height at which all European academies would have been if in the same standard and conditions as Протич, Андрей. Изобразително изкуство в България. 1907, с. 32. Димов, Васил. Модерната художествена сбирка на Народния музей. // Художествена култура: Месечно илюстровано списание за изкуство и изящна литература, № 9 и 10, 1910, 131–134; 147–152. 21 Димов, Васил. За българската академия на изкуствата. // Художествена култура: Месечно илюстровано списание за изкуство и изящна литература, № 21 и № 22, 1911, 66–69; 82–85. ours.” However, the author did not say what the institutional features and the programmes of a modern academy were in his ideas. However, he explained the School’s success criteria. “It’s fascinating results [...] have led to the delight of foreign scholars who had the chance to visit it, to see in person or in reproductions its achievements. Their reviews, filled with admiration, made to the School’s management at different times, are another proof of its success [...]”22 The education quality criteria were somewhere else, outside Bulgaria and the Bulgarian cultural circles. But the desires for changes in the artistic institutions were more relevant to the local situational policy, although motivated from the position of the European history. In the second part of the article, challenging the insistence of certain circles to transform the State Arts School into a State Art and Industrial School, V. Dimov presented, albeit quite reduced, his view of the art history in Bulgaria or, more precisely, of the lack of such a history before the modern age, i.e. before the independent state and artistic institutions. His view of art was based on the ideas of the European Enlightenment of the 18th century – the time of the emergence of the concept of art, secular arts education and institutions. As a determining factor, the author pointed out that we did not have “wasteful patrons”, “artists of all-world glory” or “art schools”. “Otherwise said, there is a lack in our past of what can give us a brilliant position in the present in the sphere of arts [...]”23 For the polemic position of V. Dimov, this was an argument in favour of the Academy of Arts in support of the education in “fine” arts, as applied or industrial arts can only be successful where painting and sculpture flourish24. The flourishing of painting (must precede) precedes the beginning of the industrial age. V. Dimov did not treat the question of what kind of academic design would be appropriate for a city like Sofia in the second decade of the 20th century. Even assuming that his model was the Roman Academy, which he had graduated and knew well, he did not specify which programmes would be good for our highereducation art institution and whether there should be courses of ancient mythology, for example, or in composition on antique or biblical themes. 19 20 44 I. G. Ibid., No. 21, 1911, p. 69. Ibid., No. 22, 1911, p. 84. 24 Ibid. 22 23 45 The State Arts School in the Architecture of the Capital The building of the State Arts School (today National Academy of Arts) was a key one in the architectural appearance of Central Sofia of the early 20th century. The plot for the construction of the school was chosen in 1905 at the insistence of the Minister of Education Prof. Ivan Shishmanov. Its central location among the square areas of the Parliament, the State Printing House, and Alexander Nevsky Cathedral highlighted the importance of the site for the capital. Its designers were A. N. Smirnov and A. A. Yakovlev25. The building of the Academy was finished in 1906 under the supervision of Arch. F. Schwangberg 26. The exterior of the building was eclectically decided in the modern spirit of the early 20th century. In it, there were both the neoclassical proportions of the volume and the façade compositions and decorations in the Mediterranean Renaissance or NeoByzantinism styles. Globally, examples of Neo-Byzantinism decisions could be traced back to the middle of the 19th century. Today, they are most often associated with the designs of cult buildings: churches from the first decades of the 20th century such as some Sofia cathedrals or St. Vladimir in Kiev, Archangel Michael in Kaunas, the Naval Cathedral in Kronstadt, and many others. There were also some specific combinations of the style with other (neo-) Gothic concepts (St. Louis in Missouri, St. Francis Catholic Church in Philadelphia) or regional concepts (Marseille Cathedral) but the style could also be observed in the design of industrial buildings (the Grain Storage in Bristol). Being part of such a global trend, the Painting School (the first completed academic building in our country) managed to preserve its 25 Коева, Маргарита. Руски архитекти, работили в България през периода 1879–1912 година. // Архитектурното наследство и съвременният свят. Сборник студии и статии. – Варна, 2003. LiterNet, 2003–2012 http://liternet.bg/publish9/mkoeva/nasledstvo/ruski.htm (visited on 21.06.2018). 26 Ганчев, Христо, Дойчинов, Григор, Стоянова, Иванка, Кръстев, Тодор. България – 1900: Европейски влияния в българското градоустройство, архитектура, паркове и градини 1878–1918 – София: Академично издателство „Арх и Арт“, Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2002, с. 219. 46 Al. Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia, 201827 Designed by Arch. Al. Pomerantsev authentic character fully adjusted to the scale of Sofia and its stages of development on the border of the 19th and 20th centuries. The Russian designers, who worked in Bulgaria, among them the architects Smirnov and Yakovlev, formed one of the directions of the development of the post-liberation architecture of Bulgaria. (Other Russian authors after the Liberation were Vasily Fedorovich Maas, author of the designs of Dormition of the Mother of God Church in Varna; Mikhail Timofejevich Preobrazhenskiy who worked on the designs of the building of the Russian Embassy, the Russian Church, and Shipka Memorial Church; Alexander Nikanorovich Pomerantsev, the architect of Alexander Nevsky Cathedral). What they did showed their desire to comply with the standards adopted by Russia both in terms of the materials and quality of implementation as well as of the appearance and characteristic typological solutions of the buildings: in that case, churches and public buildings related to the empire. There was little consideration of the place in which they were built as well as of the specifics of the liberated Bulgarian territories (both historical and 27 Source: Archive of the Institute of Art Studies 47 Entrance to the Cathedral in Westminster, London, 200528 Designed by Arch. John Bentley social). At the same time, the scope of their implementation proved to be fully relevant to the late 19th and the early 20th centuries. The Painting School design envisaged several stages of construction. The corridor plan of the building was a logical solution to meet the needs of an educational institution. The need for functional extension of the building prompted various attempts to redesign its location and construction throughout the 20th century. The last approved version (2017) was made in the 21st century for the completion of a new training campus. And the search for adequate solutions in terms of the urban environment already existing and the new buildings is obviously continuing to this day. 28 Source: Wikimedia Commons, Adrian Pingstone, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Westminster.cathedral.frontview.london.arp.jpg (visited on 21.06.2018) 48 National Academy of Arts, Sofia 192629 Designed by Arch. Smirnov S. T. 29 Source: Източник: Държавна художествена академия. Годишник 1896–1926. С. Държавна печатница, 1927, p. 28. 4. Bulgarian 20th Century... 49 INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THEATRICAL ACTIVITIES One of the first state cultural institutions in the newly-liberated Bulgaria (along with the National Library, the National Museum, and the State Arts School) was the National Theatre. In December 1898, the Ninth Ordinary National Assembly voted at its th 39 session to set up a special fund to raise funds for the construction of a theatre building in Sofia.30 The design of the National Theatre was assigned to the atelier of Ferdinand Fellner and Hermann Helmer. Their company was founded in 1873 and they worked together for nearly 40 years until Fellner’s death. Plan of the National Theatre, 190731 Designed by Arch. Ferdinand Fellner and Arch. Hermann Helmer They were the designers of nearly fifty theatre buildings in various European cities: Vienna, Zagreb, Odessa, Budapest, Brno, Prague, Salzburg, Mainz, Timisoara, Cluj-Napoca, and others. That large-scale work was accomplished with many similarities between the individual objects and the architects were reasonably accused of working by template. But it was precisely the same designation and resemblance in their solutions that enabled them to improve the results in the specialized field of theatre construction. It also made them an example of high quality. At that time, the state-subsidized since its foundation in 1892 Sofia Capital Bulgarian Drama Group Salza i smjah (Tear and Laugh) was playing in the salon of Slavyanska Beseda Society in Sofia. The further institutionalization of the theatre was largely associated with the activities of Ivan Shishmanov, Minister of Education from 1903 to 1907. In its educational and cultural programme, presented in a report of 06.12.1903 to King Ferdinand, he raised the question of the construction of the building of a future national theatre, the latter to become a major cultural institute at the Ministry of Education.32 On 1 January 1904, Iliya Milarov, Manager of the group, was appointed Quartermaster by order of the Minister of National Education Iv. Shishmanov. In the spring of 1904, the group was renamed into Bulgarian National Theatre.33 The construction of the National Theatre building began in June 1904 in the place of the former Osnova Wooden Theatre, on the expropriated terrain pursuant to the Decree of the Council of Ministers dd. 22 April 1904 by Ordinance No. 258 dd. 22 November 1904 of Ferdinand.34 The building was planned with two towers flanking the entrance portico and emphasized space of the stage (the audience hall had 848 seats) and its technical solutions as well as the special decorations were spectacular and bravely selected. The murals on the ceiling and the walls of the hall were made by the Viennese artist Rudolf Fuchs. 31 Койчев, Пенчо. Народния театър в София. // Списание на БИАД. – София, 1904, № 11–12, с. 113 Шишманов, Иван. Програма за образование и култура. // Училищен преглед, 1903, № 6–7, с. 113–125. 33 Централен държавен архив, фонд 195К, опис 1–3; Попов, Иван. Миналото на българския театър..., с. 584; See Йорданов, Николай. Към дебата за 100-годишнината от основаването на Народния театър. Homo Ludens, № 8–9, 2003, 349–355. http://homoludens. bg/articles/kam-debata-za-stogodishninata-ot-osnovavaneto-na-narodnia-teatar/ (visited on 10.06.2018). 34 Постановление на Министерски Съвет от 22 април 1904; Указ № 258 от 22 ноември 1904 г. на Фердинанд. Cited after Тошева, Кристина. История на българския театър..., с. 28, 32. 50 51 32 Стенографически дневник. IX Обикновено Народно събрание, 39-то заседание, 15.12.1898. Cited after Тошева, Кристина. История на българския театър. Т. 3. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 1997, с. 23, 32. 30 Photograph of the National Theatre in Sofia, Ivan Karastoyanov, 190735 The National Theatre was one of the Sofia’s emblematic buildings in the early 20th century, along with the Parliament, the Palace, Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, the Mineral Baths, and the Synagogue. Its presence in the city centre could not be overlooked: in urban planning terms, it was an external connection of the capital space with the centres of many European cities and, at the same time, an inner intersection of the cultural capital city life. The choice of profiled well-known architects (as well as of a highly specialized building for theatrical activity) was also characteristic of the period when Bulgaria declared its new positions on the Balkans. The official inauguration of the National Theatre took place on 3 January 1907. The programme was conceived as a grand “unseen and unheard-of” apotheosis of the national spirit and arts. It included Ivaylo Solemn Overture by Dobri Hristov, winner of the competition for musical works for the opening of the National Theatre, performed by the orchestra of the Prince Guard Regiment with conductor A. Matsak; Slavata na Izkustvoto (The Glory of Art), a solemn prologue in three scenes by Ivan Vazov: 1. Fairy Централен държавен архив. 3K „Монархически институт“, опис. 7, архивна единица 328, лист 5, Wikimedia Commons https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:BASA-3K-7-328-5aSofia_Ivan_Vazov_National_Theatre,_1907.jpg (visited on 10.06.2018). 35 52 scene in the heart of the Rila Monastery; 2. Scene in the Sofia city garden around the fountain in front of the National Theatre, public celebration with folk dances and costumes from all over the country; 3. Apotheosis of the celebration of the muses and the people at the entrance of the National Theatre; fifth action of Ivanko – historical drama by Vassil Drumev with the participation of Vassil Kirkov, Sava Ognyanov, Ivan Popov, Zlatina Nedeva, Elena Snezhina. The three-dimensional decoration for the individual parts was prepared by the artist Aleksandar Milenkov. The ceremony gathered the elite of the capital society. Its splendour and beauties combined with the decorative luxury of the theatre introduced the spectators into another world. The selection of the people invited pursuant to a strictly regulated protocol, however, provoked the indignation of some circles of university intellectuals. On his way to the theatre, the Prince’s escort was booed. That led to a public scandal and, as a result, the Sofia University was closed for six months by a decree of Prince Ferdinand. All this obscured the brilliance of what was conceived as national celebration of the Bulgarian spirit.36 In 1905, a competition for a Bulgarian play was announced on the occasion of the forthcoming inauguration of the new building. It was won by Anton Strashimirov with his comedy Svekarva, premiered in the spring of 1907. On the stage of the new National Theatre, the first performances of the following plays took place: Kam propast (To the Abyss), Borislav, Pod igoto (Under the Yoke), Ivaylo by Iv. Vazov; Parvite (The First), Nevyasta Boryana (Bride Boryana), Zidari (Masons), Zmeyova svatba (Dragon’s Wedding) by P. Y. Todorov; Vampir (Vampire), Nad bezkrastni grobove (Above Graves without Crosses), Kashta (House) by A. Strashimirov; V polite na Vitosha (At the Foot of the Vitosha Mountain), Kogato grum udari (When the Thunder Strikes) by P. Y. Yavorov; Boyan Magesnikat (Boyan the Magician), Stariyat voin (The Old Warrior) by K. Hristov; Mazhemrazka (Androphoba) by St. L. Kostov; Juda, Dyado Klime (Old Man Klime), Plennikat ot Trikeri (The Trikeri Prisoner) by K. Mutafov, and others.37 36 Радев, Стоян. Трябва да говорим днес за снощното тържество, а мисълта ни отива неотразимо към снощния скандал. // Вечерна поща, бр. 1930, 05.01.1907, с. 1; Откриването на Народния театър. Бурна студентска демонстрация. // Ден, бр. 1075, 05.01.1907, с. 3; Телеграма на д-р Константин Иречек до д-р Любомир Милетич „Какви са тия работи... театрото убило университета“. // Ден, бр. 1081, 09.01.1907, с. 3; Опозоряване на нашата държава пред чуждия свят. // Мир, бр. 2060, 08.02.1907. 37 Народен театър „Иван Вазов” / Летопис: януари 1904 – юли 2004. Съст. Н. Вандов, Ан. Каракостова, Ив. Гърчев, Сн. Гълъбова, Ас. Константинов. С. Валентин Траянов, 2004; Тошева, Кристина. История на българския театър: Т. 3 – София,: Академично издателство „Проф. М. Дринов”, 1997. 53 In 1908, Peyo Yavorov was invited to be Artistic Secretary and until 1913, he was the playwright of the National Theatre. During that period, they began to choose the repertoire of the theatre more carefully. A balance was sought between the classical and the modern: European, Balkan, and national dramaturgy; comedy and drama. The National Theatre expanded its social and cultural influence. Slaveykov’s contribution to the institutional strengthening, modernization, and Europeanization of the Bulgarian theatre in the early 20th century was indisputable. Many of the pioneers of the Bulgarian theatrical art appeared on the stage of the theatre: Ivan Popov, Vassil Kirkov, Konstantin Sapunov, Geno Kirov, Hristo Ganchev, Krastyo Sarafov, Vladimir Nikolov, Nedelcho Shtarbanov, Atanas Kirchev, Sava Ognyanov, Kosta Stoyanov, Petar Stoychev, Stoyan Bachvarov, Stoyan Kozhuharov, Boris Pozharov, Vladimir Tenev, Yurdan Seykov, Petko Atanasov, Konstantin Mutafov, Georgi Zlatarev, Docho Kasabov, Tacho Tanev, Stefan Kirov, Vassil Gendov, Nikola Ikonomov, Georgi Stamatov, Stefan Kortenski, Vera Ignatieva, Adriana Budevska, Mariya Kaneli, Ekaterina Zlatareva, Schenka Popova, Zlatina Nedeva, Sultana Nikolova, Maria Hlebarova, Maria Iv. Popova, Roza Popova, Disgracing our country before the rest of the world; Mir Newspaper, issue 2060, 08.02.1907 The Czech actor and director Josef Smaha, who led the group from 1905 to 1908 also contributed to the development and recognition of the theatre during that period. Important was the period of management of the National Theatre by the writer, editor, and critic Pencho Slaveykov, who was at the head of the theatre from November 1908 to February 1909. In his programme speech in 1909 – National Theatre – published only in 1910 in the first issue of the journal Misal (Thought), i.e. one year after Slaveykov left the theatre, he affirmed that “national theatres are not institutions that make money or distract the audience’s attention with aimless and pointless pleasures but are cultural institutions [...] The placing on firm foundations of our theatre as a national and higher cultural institute, as a temple in which Bulgarian speech is used for worship and, through that speech, our creative power and our consciousness of life are manifested in artistic forms and images – this is what brings us closer to the task of the real theatre.”38 Kam Propast (To the Abyss) by Iv. Vazov, dir. Ivan Popov, National Theatre, 1907 38 Славейков, Пенчо. Национален театър. // Мисъл, 1910, бр. 1. Cited after: Славейков, Пенчо. Събрани съчинения: В 8 тома: Т. 5. Национален театър / под ред. на Ангел Тодоров. – София: Български писател, 1959, с. 268–301. 54 55 of directing, the aging of the group, the inadequate state subsidy. In 1921, Elin Pelin published an article titled Why don’t I feel like going to the National Theatre.40 In the following decades, efforts were made for its renewal: new artists and directors were appointed, the repertoire policy was improved by searching for a balance between national and translated dramaturgy, and a school was founded at the theatre. Over the years, actors such as Geno Kirov, Ivan Popov, Petar K. Stoychev, Nikola Balabanov, Vladimir Tenev were involved in the management of the theatre. Most of them were directors for only a few months. Prof. Mihail Arnaudov, Stefan L. Kostov, Konstantin Sagaev, Nikolay Liliev, and others also held the post for short periods of time. Ivan. D. Ivanov, Dr. Dimitar Strashimirov, Hristo Tsankov-Derizhan were heads of the theatre for nearly three years each of them. Bozhan Angelov was appointed director three times, and between 1923 and 1939, Vladimir Vassilev headed the theatre four times for two years, with interruptions, which was an unprecedented fact in the history of the theatre. Caricature of Pencho Slaveykov by Aleksandar Bozhinov39 Caption: The stubborn Pencho Slaveykov would rather carry the theatre on his back than allow the police to enter. Elena Snezhina, Milka Lambreva, Teodorina Stoycheva, Marta Popova, Donka Sarafova, Penka Ikonomova, Nevyana Buyuklieva, etc. Most professional first-generation artists were trained at theatre schools outside of Bulgaria or, at least, specialized in Russia or Western Europe. During the 1912–1918 wars, a number of artists were mobilized. Some of them (Hristo Ganchev, Atanas Kirchev, Nedelcho Shtarbanov, etc.) never came back from the front. The normal rhythm of the theatrical life was disturbed. The national post-war catastrophe imposed its imprint on all spheres of activity. The global-crisis situation – political, economic, and cultural – continued during the next decades until the outbreak of the World War II. The poverty, destruction, and low spirit inevitably affected the performance of the National Theatre. Moreover, there were new forms of entertainment and consolation that quickly entered the city life and became its competitors: the cinematography, the operetta, and the varietyshow. In the press, there was growing controversy about the “extinct spiritual appearance of the big building”, the obsolete repertoire, the lack 39 Божинов, Александър. Карикатура на Пенчо Славейков. // Българан, бр. 17, 14.02.1909. 56 The building of the National Theatre after the reconstruction, 1929 40 Елин Пелин. Защо не ми се ходи в Народния театър? // Развигор, № 1, 06. 01.1921, с. 1–2. https://chitanka.info/text/17300-zashto-ne-mi-se-hodi-v-narodnija-teatyr (visited on 12.06.2018). 57 Zidari (Masons) by P. Y. Todorov, dir. Sava Ognyanov, National Theatre, 1918 Despite the discontentment and the reproaches for the crisis and the backwardness of the newly-formed intelligentsia after the wars, the National Theatre managed to regain its emblematic place in the cultural life and to continue to be a model for the other theatres in the capital and the country. On 10 February 1923, during the jubilee performance Apotheosis of the Native Dramatic Art, a fire broke out and destroyed the theatre. It was then when some of its universal decors, made to order in Vienna and Prague, burned, which provided new opportunities for Bulgarian stage designers to work in the theatre and new modernist tendencies penetrated. The building was basically reconstructed in the period from 1924 to 1928 after the design of the German architect Martin Dülfer. A new reinforced concrete construction was built and stage equipment, produced by Krupp and Mann, was delivered from Germany. The same equipment has been working to this day and is used in performances on the Grand Stage of the theatre. Between the two world wars, it was absolutely necessary to resolve the “director issue”. Until the middle of the 1920s, the Bulgarian theatre, with few exceptions, was a theatre of actors. The actor and director Nikolay O. Massalitinov contributed a lot to the further development of theatre in Bulgaria, for the overcoming of the different-style playing of the actors, and for the subordination of the spectacle to the single concept of the director. In August 1925, he was 58 appointed Director General and almost immediately founded a theatre school. Another leading director was Hrissan Tsankov who had specialized Staging in Germany at Reinhardt Theatres in Berlin. During that period, at the theatre worked the directors Isaac Daniel, Boyan Danovski, Boris Espe, Nikolay Fol, Yuriy Yakovlev. They were well educated and had original ideas. Some of them set up schools where alternative theatrical experiments were often conducted. An important figure for the development of the theatre on the road to his Europeanization was the poet Geo Milev who made his mark as a theatre translator, critic, and director. A forerunner of the theatrical avantgarde in Bulgaria, he made efforts to impose a more modern view of the spectacle but his attempts to pave the way for expressionism in the theatre were not particularly successful. In the 1920s, 1930s, and the early 1940s of the past century, theatre became an integral part of the modern life in the major cities of the country and attracted the attention of both the intellectual elite and the ruling circles. Those were the years when the Bulgarian theatre joined the Albena by Y. Yovkov, dir. Nikolay O. Massalitinov, National Theatre, 1929 59 Boryana by Y. Yovkov, dir. Nikolay O. Massalitinov, National Theatre, 1932 cultural dialogue with Europe and the world through the translation of dramaturgical texts, by attracting foreign directors and by following world models in the field of the visual concepts of the performance, which were sometimes literally transferred onto the Bulgarian stage. Those imitations did not escape the exposing pen of theatrical critics, who became even more active and professional in the years between the two world wars. Most of the people writing about theatre were literary critics and only a few had special theatrical training. Major platforms for artistic, including theatrical criticism, were: Misal, Vezni, Zlatorog, Hiperion, and others. Almost all periodicals had theatrical columns in them. There were also specialized theatrical publications such as Komedia, Naroden Teatar, Rampa, Teatralen Pregled, Teatralen Svyat, Teatar, Teatar i Publika, Teatar i Izkustvo, Teatralen Zhivot, etc. Art criteria became higher.41 The repertoire of that period was quite varied and included both classic and contemporary plays. Particular attention was paid to the development of the Bulgarian drama. Among the classic works of the period were Maystori (Masters) by R. Stoyanov, Golemanov by St. L. Kostov, Albena and Boryana by Y. Yovkov, Elenovo Tsarstvo (Deer Kingdom) by G. Raychev. They were performed for the first time on the stage of the National Theatre.42 On the stage, alongside actors such as Vassil Kirkov, Krastyo Sarafov, Sava Ognyanov, Vera Ignatieva, Adriana Budevska, Zlatina Nedeva, Stoyan Bachvarov, Petko Atanasov, Teodorina Stoycheva, new talents from the second generation of Bulgarian actors won the recognition of the audience such as Marta Popova, Boris Mihaylov, Georgi Stamatov, Nikola Ikonomov, Vladimir Trandafilov, Ivan Dimov, Konstantin Kisimov, Olga Kircheva, Zorka Yordanova, Petya Gerganova, Irina Taseva, and many more. Talented directors established themselves such as Nikolay Massalitinov, Hrissan Tsankov, Boyan Danovski, Krastyo Mirski, Aleksandar Ikonografov, etc.; scenographers such as Aleksandar Milenkov, Ivan Milev, Ivan Penkov, Assen Popov, Pencho Georgiev, Evgeniy Vastchtenko, and others; composers such as Panayot Pipkov, Dobri Hristov, Venedikt Bobchevski, Pancho Vladigerov, etc.43 In the 1930s the theatrical network in the country expanded steadily. In 1942, the Act on Theatres was passed, which assigned the Ministry of National Education the management and organization of the theatres in the country. The Act stated that “by maintenance, the theatres in Bulgaria are national (state), regional, municipal, run by chitalishta, other societies and committees, and private; by type of group members, professional and amateur; and by genre, dramatic, opera, children’s, operetta, ballet, and others.”44 The adoption of this special act, which repealed all “ordinances of other acts and regulations in connection with the organization and regulation of the theatres45“, put the end to the important stage of institutionalization of the Bulgarian theatre. J. S., S. T. 41 Попилиев, Ромео. Театралната критика на две критични десетилетия. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2003, с. 66–160. 42 See. Народен театър „Иван Вазов” / Летопис: януари 1904 – юли 2004; Йорданов, Николай; Попилиев, Ромео; Николова, Камелия; Дечева, Виолета; Спасова, Йоана. История на българския театър. Българският театър между двете световни войни на ХХ век.: Т. 4. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата, 2011. 43 Йорданов, Николай; Попилиев, Ромео; Николова, Камелия; Дечева, Виолета; Спасова, Йоана. История на българския театър. Българският театър между двете световни войни на ХХ век.: Т. 4. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата, 2011. 44 Закон за театрите. // Държавен вестник, бр. 74 от 9. 04. 1942; Глава I, чл. 1. 45 Закон за театрите. // Държавен вестник, бр. 74 от 9. 04. 1942; гл. XI, чл. 95. 60 61 THE CITY AND THE CULT BUILDINGS The first impressions of Konstantin Jireček from Sofia in 1879 were: “a twisting street with trees and oriental workshops on the sides, terrible uneven pavement, and horrible mud. A big village! At last, an open square is seen. On the left, there is a one-storey house with 16 facade windows and guards at the entrance. That must be the palace [...] Everywhere, there are only one-storey Turkish houses made of brick and wood ... “ .46 The state of the capital (with about 20,000 inhabitants immediately after the Liberation) corresponded to the image of the cities throughout the country. However, at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the settlements underwent a turbulent reorganization and their development became in line with the state parameters set. There were many processes of acquiring new terrains, adapting and applying modern features, building and settlement typology, technical and aesthetic solutions. Some of the already adopted regional practices were preserved or developed. In the country, there were no opportunities for training architects or other technical specialties and, accordingly, the designers of that period had received their education abroad, either on their own support or as state View of Sofia and Vitosha from Shareniya Bridge (today’s Lavov Bridge) Felix Kanitz, Watercolor. Digital collection, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences scholarship students. Several foreign designers worked on the territory of Bulgaria: they had been invited by public figures or politicians or had won competitions for the construction of specific and new for the country buildings (such as Parliament, palaces, libraries, museums, universities, and cathedrals). The first scheduled surveying of Sofia after the Liberation was made by the Russian engineer Nikolay Kopytkin47, who was appointed Director of railways and public construction. During that period, the Czech Václav Kolář became Chief Architect of Sofia48. For foreign designers – Russian or European – the work in Bulgaria was mostly a necessary step on their ascending career line. Václav Kolář was one of the few who remained in Bulgaria until his death. The eclectic developments of the Bulgarian architects, who had received their education both in Bulgaria and Europe after the Liberation, undoubtedly played a major role in the building of the European hearts of the major cities of the country. During that period, they were also perceived as a form of apparent detachment from the traditions of the Ottoman Empire. (And there was an unmistakable amount of irony there, given the the work of parallel introducing of European practices by the Italianarchitect Pietro Montani, who came to East Rumelia from Istanbul.) In 1878, about a hundred representative public buildings and structures were opened in the Sofia’s urban area and the names of the neighbourhoods showed the ethnic characteristics of their population. It is believed that there were dozens of mosques, several synagogues and churches, and only a few hospitals, banks, and schools in the capital at that time. Due to the concept of following the religious canon in their structure, it was the cult buildings that had preserved many of the regional construction traditions developed during the Renaissance. After the Liberation, however, their designers began to look for new options for architectural impact. The new church buildings corresponded to the construction of the 46 Иречек, Константин Йосиф. 10 ноември, понеделник. // Български дневник: 30 октомврий 1879 – 26 октомврий 1884 г.: Т. 1. Прев. от чеш. Ст. Аргиров. – Пловдив: Хр. Г. Данов, 1930–1932. http://www.omda.bg/public/biblioteka/irechek/irechek_1_2.htm (visited on 21.06.2018) 47 Стоилова, Любинка, Коцев, Георги. От Освобождението до Първата световна война. // Градоустройството на София. Пулсът на града във времето. – София: ИТУС-98 ЕООД, РИМ София, 2016, с. 29. 48 He was born in 1841 in Bašnice, Bohemia, now Bašnice, Czech Republic. He was the designer of the building of the Ministry of War between 1878 and 1885; Kolář worked on the Prince Palace together with Rumpelmayer and Mayerberger. His were the original designs of the Military School 1887–1892, Bulgaria Grandhotel in the period 1880–1885, the Military Club 1895–1905, and the Monument of Vassil Levski in Sofia. Died in Sofia in 1900. See. Щерн, Марчела. Инженер – архитект Адолф Вацлав Колар. // Австрийски архитектурни влияния в София, края на XIX началото на XX век. Сборник. Двуезично издание. – София: Музей за история на София, 1998, с. 36. 62 63 modernized urban spaces:, they had a solemn appearance, increased size, and changed stylistic image. Some of the cult buildings in the centre of the capital were preserved, reorganized or reconstructed in the 20th century. Today, they form the socalled Square of Tolerance, which includes four Abrahamic temples of the Muslim, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish and Catholic Christian religions. These are Banya Bashi Mosque, St. Nedelya Orthodox Church, the Synagogue, and St. Joseph Catholic Cathedral. Unlike the churches existing at the end of the 19th century, which were strengthened and developed, the mosques at that period were destroyed or reorganized (Siyavush Mosque resumed its function as St. Sophia Church, Koca Dervish Mehmed Mosque was restored as Seven Saints Church, Gul Mosque became St. George, and Buyuk Mosque became an archaeological museum). Built in the 16th century, Banya Bashi was the oldest building on the Square of Tolerance and the only preserved mosque in Sofia from the time before the Liberation. It was located on Banski Square and was believed to be the work of the Ottoman architect Sinan. It had stone masonry and rows of red bricks, and the size of the temple as a whole, the dome silhouette, and the height of its minaret were significant for the urban perspectives. Banya Bashi Mosque, 190049 Designed by Arch. Sinan Wikimedia Commons, Swedish National Heritage Board https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Category:Banyaba%C5%9F%C4%B1_Mosque#/media/File:Banya_Bashi_1900.jpg (visited on 13.09.2018). 49 64 Sveta Nedelya (St. Nedelya) (Sveti Kral (Holy King)) 188050 The second vertex of the square – St. Joseph Catholic Cathedral – was built in 1889 and demolished during the World War II bombing. It was rebuilt as late as in the 21st century. In the place of the present Sveta Nedelya (St. Nedelya) Orthodox Church, at the end of the 19th century, a basilica with several domes rose, which was called Sveti Kral (Holy King). The first reconstruction of Sveta Nedelya (St. Nedelya) (Sveti Kral (Holy King)) was made by Arch. Nikola Lazarov. Being a novelty for Sofia, it had an eclectic spirit and realized a number of visual references to the searches of the National-Romantic stylistics and NeoByzantinism. After the destructive attack in 1925, the appearance of St. Nedelya Church changed once again. Made by the architects Ivan Vasilyov and Dimitar Tsolov (1933), its design already showed some spectacular and vigorous reflections of the architectural historic development in Bulgaria in terms of its medieval models and Eastern borrowings. The exceptional quality of the interior and exterior of the Synagogue built in 1910 (the fourth vertex of the Square of Tolerance) has been 50 Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_Nedelya_ Church_1880.png (visited on 23.08.2018) 5. Bulgarian 20th Century... 65 preserved until today in its authentic form.51 The architectural analyzes made contain enough information about the stylistic borrowings in the appearance of the building from Historicism to Secession and Neo- Byzantinism. At the same time, apparent and well-known are the relations with the construction traditions of the region as well as the national style searches typical for the Bulgarian architects before the World War I. Regardless of the influences of the European architectural trends, the synthesis with the projections of the old and the emphasis on the national Bulgarian remained in force until the middle of the 20th century namely in the appearance of the cult buildings. However, that was not the case with the emergence and development of the new types of buildings – industrial and public – as well as with the residential architecture. Sveta Nedelya (St. Nedelya) (Sveti Kral (Holy King)) Church, 192252 Sveta Nedelya (St. Nedelya) Church, miniature model 1930 53 Design for reconstruction after the attack; Architects: Ivan Vasilyov and Dimitar Tsolov “There is no doubt that in a period of prosperity of a nation, souls get elated and creative natures are full of verve. Moreover, the struggle period is a period of negation to what existed until then, and, of course, the thought goes beyond the routine of construction: it sheds what is practical and temporary and even finds universal horizons,” Anton Strashimirov concluded about the past two decades at the beginning of the 1920s. 54 51 More about the author of the building can be found in The Choice of the Camera: the Turkish Legation and Love is Folly. 52 Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_Nedelya_ Church_1922.jpg visited on 23.08.2018 53 Архитект. Към проектите на архитектите Иван Васильов и Димитър Цолов, Архитект, 3–4,1928, с. 16. 54 Страшимиров, Антон. Град и село. // Наши дни, кн. 10, 1921, с. 1–12 https://liternet. bg/publish5/astrashimirov/grad.htm (visited on 01.06.2018) 66 67 IMAGES OF WAR: FIRST BALKAN WAR, SECOND BALKAN WAR, AND WORLD WAR I Artistic Images The Synagogue in Sofia, 201755; Designed by Arch. Friedrich Grünanger S. T. 55 Source: Archive of the Institute of Art Studies 68 The modern times on the Balkans began with military actions: with struggles for the formation of independent states as well as for national unification. During the modern age, there were wars for territories between the national states throughout Europe but the Balkans seemed to be a synonym of war. In the period from the formation of the independent Bulgarian state to the World War I, the representations of the wars – of the extreme trials, battlefields, and triumphal marches along city boulevards as well as the imaginary scenes of historical battles and victories – were an important aspects of modernity. On the battle fields, prominent personages could be met and their images remained permanent in the quickly made sketches. Artists, poets, and writers of the young and middle generation were mobilized on the front with the task to reflect military events and glorify the victories of their national armies. Jaroslav Věšín was appointed a military artist. Emblematic compositions, such as They were victorious by Ivan Lazarov, went beyond the exhibition spaces and were included in textbooks of history and literature. Caricatures and drawings gained popularity in the press. Among their authors was Aleksandar Bozhinov. Some of the people on the front, including the poet Dimcho Debelyanov and the artist Goshka Datsov, never came back. Others were seriously injured: the poet and art critic Geo Milev lost his eye; the critic and artist Sirak Skitnik was injured in the chest and the right arm. The artist Elisaveta Konsulova-Vazova worked as a Samaritan in military hospitals during the Second Balkan War. Few were the protagonists of modern art who managed to avoid the hardships of the war. 69 Ivan Lazarov (1889–1952) They were victorious , 1913, bronze, 39 х 20 х 45 cm, Sofia City Art Gallery For Bulgaria, the defeat in the World War I, the victims on the battlefields, the collapse of the belief in the common European modernization, gave rise to an anti-war wave and left-wing attitudes. At the same time, however, an imagined new war could destroy the existing international order (the latter being “unfair” after the World War I) and pave the way for a new world (a “fair” one). The publicly propagated idea of injustice towards Bulgaria generated revanchist moods and created a utopian idea Vassil Zahariev (1895–1971). Golgotha, woodcut56 56 Везни, 1919–1920, № 9. Catalogue of the military art exhibition by German, Austrian, Hungarian, and Bulgarians artists at the Royal Academy of Art in Berlin in May-June 1917. Cover of an over-individual community. “Wars have been the first situation in the modern Bulgarian culture to produce a mass man” (wrote the historian Ivan Elenkov in his book Native and Right), “... huge human masses, overcoming their traditional isolation, have been connected – rationally organized, operating with technique, acting in synchrony with each other...”57 The wars and their consequences created common places of collective integrity. The images of death were often images of sacrifice and self-sacrifice; the images of Christ, Crucifixion, and Pieta transcended the traumatic experience. Nation became a key concept with a single positive use. There were multiple images of people and represented identities of the Bulgarian culture: from modernist affinities to right conservative waves. At first sight, the Modernism / Avant-Garde, intertwined with national identification strategies, was opposed to the universalistic utopias of influential cultural centres. However, in figures such as Geo Milev, both perspectives coexisted in an uncontroversial manner. His article Native Art read: “Under Bulgarian native art (...) we understand the art created 57 70 Еленков, Иван. Родно и дясно. – София: ЛИК, 1998, с. 38. 71 by the Bulgarian artists to manifest through it their Bulgarian soul – to bring through it the values of their Bulgarian soul into the treasury of the Universal Soul.”58 The images of the World War I and of the preceding two Balkan wars (1912–1913) revealed a wide array of artistic practices between representation and expression, between official narrative, individual stories, and personal artistic expression. The attempts of Academicism, 19th-century Realism, Symbolism, Expressionism, and Futurism – often in various hybrid versions – could be observed and discussed. We can find fanfare echoes, critical attitudes, nightmare visions, and even sublime poetics of destruction. Crescendo Artistic and Literature Journal published part of the poem Zang Tumb Tumb by Marinetti, which presented the Bulgarian airplane, and part of his article Geometric and Mechanical Glory (1914) in Bulgarian59. Quickly made sketches of battle fields – during breaks or in the trenches – represented close observations of people and behaviours. The exhibition by German, Austro-Hungarian, and Bulgarian military artists at the Royal Academy of Arts in Berlin in May and June 1917 provided an official framework for unique joint performance by the Central Forces. The forum, according to the catalogue, showed 481 works – paintings, sculptures, and drawings – by 117 artists. Most of the works were by German artists, 107 – by artists from Austro-Hungary, and 65 – by Bulgarian artists. Works of different interest and artistic experience were exposed next to one another: official kings, and army generals, portraits in sculpture and painting, battlefield panoramas, and ecstatic human conditions. In landscape viewes, we can see the geography of Europe assimilated in the experience of war. Permanent interest in the images was the otherness – a landscape or a human being, represented through the foreign ally or the captive. Who were the Bulgarian artists who exhibited in Berlin? They were all participants in the war, except the official portrait painter Nikola Mihaylov. Among them, there were some of the most influential representatives of the next decade – the 1920s, who made an effort to adapt the experience of European modernisms: Boris Denev, Nikola Tanev, 58 59 Милев, Гео. Родно изкуство. // Везни, № 1, 1920, с. 46. Маринети, Филипо Томазо. Цанг Тумб Тумб. // Кресчендо, 1922, № 3–4. 72 Vladimir Dimitrov – Maystora. Razpyatie (Crucifixion), 1920–1921, India ink on paper. Sofia National Gallery Hristo Kavarnaliev, Stoyan Raynov. Some of those artists and sculptors participated in the wide Movement for Native Art: Vladimir DimitrovMaystora, Ivan Lazarov, Nikola Kozhuharov. The international group included international artists who, at different times in their careers, cooperated with the official authorities. In the Bulgarian context, however, the differences between artists related to the institutions of power in the 1920s and particularly in the 1930s, and the protagonists of modernist and avant-garde tendencies were not always clearly outlined. Images of the two Balkan wars and the World War I appeared in group and solo exhibitions in Bulgaria. One of them was the Exhibition of the First Bulgarian Army in Sofia in 1918. Images of wars in the mass visual environment were also subject of research and debates in the recent years. The practice of photographic documentation became important for Bulgaria during the two Balkan wars and the World War I, although it was used earlier – at the end of the 19th century, during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1879. Reconstructions of military scenes with the aim to be photographed or filmed were made during the First Balkan War and the World War I after victorious battles, such as the capture of Edirne by the Bulgarian army in 1913. Paintings of military battles, panoramas of battlefields, portraits of military commanders, had been done using staged photographs. The archive of the artist 73 Jaroslav Věšín (1860–1915) Otstaplenie na Turtsite pri Luleburgaz, 1912–1914 (Retreat of the Turks at Luleburgaz, 1912–1914), oil on canvas, 122 х 240 cm. Sofia National Gallery Jaroslav Věšín contained a large number of such photographs and photo-negatives. Another part of the mass visual environment – drawn postcards, drawings in the press, and other circulated typographic images – deserves special attention in terms of opposing the own nation and its enemies. Naïvely drawn postcards – idealized images of the own army and grotesque images of that of the enemy – were widely spread. By comparing images of that type, which preceded comics to an extent, we could recognize visual similarities (characters, situations, compositions, etc.) in the context of the Balkans. As if only the distinguishing marks of the armies changed. Caricatures presented peculiar images of war. They were not involved in the invention of the national history, at least not in the high register of the solemn and the heroic as laughter could be hardly acceptable at that level. What was ridiculed by caricaturists? Political caricatures in the press most often portrayed King Ferdinand, his ministers, and their diplomatic mistakes. We could also observe daily-life situations in Sofia during wartime. The artistic images of the two Balkan wars and the First World War are numerous and contradictory. Such are also their uses in time. 74 Propaganda postcard for the victory of the Bulgarian army at Lozengrad in October 1912, during the Balkan War Anton Mitov (1862–1930) Posreshtane na IV-ta Armia, 1914 (Welcoming the 4th Army, 1914), oil on canvas, 196 х 194 cm. Sofia City Art Gallery I. G. 75 The Balkanskata Voyna (The Balkan War) – Documentary Film It was the war that became the theme of and the occasion for the first Bulgarian cinematographic production. The film Balkanskata Voyna (The Balkan War) (1913) by Aleksandar Zhekov has a particularly important place in the history of the Bulgarian cinema. It was not only the first fully-preserved Bulgarian documentary but also the first film made by a Bulgarian. At least until today, more than 100 years after its appearance, no other older Bulgarian film has been found. When the Balkan War began in 1912, several Bulgarians wrote to Tsar (king) Ferdinand asking for permission to film the war on the front. There are several negative answers of the tsar found in the archives. Refusal, for example, was received by the prominent architect Naum Torbov, who also wished to go with a cinematograph on the front. It could not be stated with certainty that there were no other filmmakers or directors to film on the front. Only the physical copy as well as the echo in the press about the Aleksandar Zhekov’s film has reached us. According to the cinema historian Petar Kardzhilov, “Not only did the Bulgarian cinema not stay away from the reality but, by overcoming the incredible difficulties of the pioneering beginning, it managed to reflect the events, to preserve them for the next generations, to make from the pieces of tape, so modern at that time, fragments of comprehensible history.60 He noted that the film The Balkan War was the first Bulgarian cinema production projected abroad. “...The film was also projected in Russia, and at several places – Odessa, Yalta, Sevastopol, etc. –, which means several times. [...] And all that happened in 1914, in the middle of which year its premiere took place in Bulgaria61. Its projection in Russia was not accidental as Aleksandar Zhekov was a Russian alumnus who had received his education and lived in Russia for many years. The context in which the film appeared was extremely important and enhanced the interest in its projections in the years to come. On 28 June 1914, the World War I broke out. The world had its eyes open for mil- Frame of the film Balkanskata Voyna (The Balkan War), dir. Aleksandar Zhekov, 1913. Archive of the Bulgarian National Film Library itary themes. It was normal that the art in that period was also devoted to war. Bulgaria did not lag behind in that respect. Aleksandar Zhekov managed to shoot a number of frames of the Balkan War. The film Balkan War is not only an important historical testimony and chronicle but also a work of art. The preserved 43-minute copy represents various places and individuals during military actions. In its five parts, different frames alternate: wounded soldiers; Luleburgaz and Lozengrad; the Bulgarian destroyer Drazki that defeated the Turkish Hamidie; Tsar Ferdinand; Tsaritsa Eleonora, and generals from the Bulgarian Army; captivated bashi-bazouk. The camera operator and director filmed even medical orderlies dancing polka, kasatchok, and Bulgarian folk dances. There is a significant portion of frames in the film, for which there are no inter-frame inscriptions, and for that reason we do not know today exactly where they were made but the fact that Aleksandar Zhekov included them among the other important events and people is a reason to consider them as quite significant. The fate of the film itself is very interesting and mysterious just like the fate of the author. Until recently, there was not even a photograph of Aleksandar Zhekov. Valuable was the contribution of Rossen Spassov62 who found a picture of Zhekov and a publication in the 1927’s Rousse edition of Kino Pregled on the occasion of the projection of the film The Balkan War in Rousse.Over the years, the film itself disappeared and appeared 60 Кърджилов, Петър. Филмът „Балканската война“ в историята на българското кино. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, 2011, с. 31 61 Кърджилов, Петър. Филмът „Балканската война“ в историята на българското кино. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, 2011, с. 136. Спасов, Росен. Периодични печатни издания за кино в България (1913–1944). Дисертация за получаване на научно-образователна степен „доктор“. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата, с. 136. 76 77 62 again accompanied by loud advertisements in the press. Of course, there was always interest in it. The Balkan wars were accompanied by a sincere patriotic feeling, and the heroism of the Bulgarian soldiers and army awakened admiration in our compatriots. During the first two decades after the filming, the film was repeatedly projected in a large number of cinemas of that time, both in Sofia and in other cities, especially in Varna, where Aleksandar Zhekov was born. After that, the film was lost for a long time. Its final appearance in the Bulgarian Film Library was as mystic as its disappearance: it was brought by a mysterious gentleman in a white suit, who introduced himself as Argir (from Greek: silver), gave the boxes with the tape to the director of the library, Georgi Stoyanov-Bigor, and left. Obviously, such was the strangeness of the time but, still, it turned to be beneficial to the story of our cinema, at least when it comes to the fate of this particular film. Such luck, however, was a rarity at the time. Unfortunately, a substantial part of the Bulgarian films produced before 1944 was not preserved. The reasons for that can hardly be a matter of negligence on the part of the filmmakers and authors. It is believed that a large part of the films were destroyed in the bombing of Sofia during the World War II. The fact that after 9 September 1944 an attempt was made to impose the thesis that the Bulgarian cinema began its actual existence with the appearance of the film Kalin Orelat (Kalin the Eagle) (1950, directed by Boris Borozanov) highly influenced the promotion of that idea. The physical absence of films of the preceding period was convenient, even necessary, to impose such a thesis. In this sense, there was reason to believe that the film copies were destroyed after 9 September for political reasons. The Balkan War – the first Bulgarian cinema production made by a Bulgarian – remains forever linked to the images of the war. It is one of the few films that can be seen today and this is extremely valuable. CAMERA’S CHOICE: THE TURKISH LEGATION AND LYUBOVTA E LUDOST (LOVE IS FOLLY) In its early history, cinema interacted with the development of architecture at various levels. An important part of the construction activity was related to the construction of cinemas (which had a new building typology and created their own specific urban environment). On the other hand, the use of pre-existing buildings in film productions can be viewed in two aspects: as background or decor with a distinctive appearance and a visual message included in the filming of the first Bulgarian films but also as a visual catalogue of authentic exterior, interior, and urban landscapes. However, at the beginning of the 20th century, that charming synergy between the two arts was rather chaotic. Sofia cinemas were often included in blocks of flats and hotels.63 Some of the first self-contained cinema buildings were described by Alaricus Delmard in his article Cinematographs in Sofia from 1912, but they do not T. D. Odeon Theatre, Sofia, 191264 63 Кратка история на българската архитектура. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. М. Дринов”, 1956, с. 524. 64 Delmard, Alaricus. Cinematograph Theatres in Sofia. The Cinema News and Property Gazette, 06 06.1912, 8–9. Вж. Янакиев, Александър. Кинематографските салони в София. // Проблеми на изкуството, № 3, 2015, с. 7–9. 78 79 Announcement in Sofiyska Vecherna Poshta (Sofia Evening Post) Newspaper, issue 74, 5.03.1912, p. 2, photograph of Arch. Naum Torbov exist in their authentic form today. Cinema shows were also held in other spaces: concert and theatre halls. Profiled complexes such as cinema centres, sound- and film-recording studios, etc., appeared in the country as late as in the second half of the 20th century. An interesting coincidence was the fact that among the key architects of the pre-war Sofia in 1912 was Naum Torbov, the only representative of Pathé Frères – the French concern for production, processing, and distribution of films for Bulgaria. *** Frame from the film Lyubovta e Ludost (Love is Folly), directed by Vassil Gendov in front of the Turkish Legation, 1917 Archive of the Bulgarian National Film Library One of the first Bulgarian films – Lyubovta e Ludost (Love is Folly) (1917), directed by Vassil Gendov – was shot in the yard of the remarkable building of the Turkish Legation. The main characters in the film were V. Gendov himself, Zhana Gendova, and the prominent theatre actress Maria Toromanova-Hmelik. The building of what is nowadays the residence of the Turkish ambassador in Sofia was once conceived as home for the family of the lawyer and diplomatist Haralampi Sarmadzhiev. Dr. Sarmadzhiev (as he was often called by his contemporaries) was a prominent figure of the post-liberation Bulgaria. He worked for Evlogi and Hristo Georgievi brothers’ office, was secretary of the Bulgarian virtuous group and a diplomatic agent in Belgrade and Vienna. The beautiful “house-palace” 65 in the centre of the capital was built for him, his wife Elena Pulieva, and their five children in 1903. Its designer was the Viennese architect Friedrich Grünanger, at that time Chief Architect at the Ministry of Common Building, Roads, and Public Works.66 Some of the buildings, for which the Austrian is famous today, are the Sofia Synagogue, the Theological Seminary, and the Sofia Mineral Baths. They interpreted Medieval Byzantine models and some Balkan architectural forms. The buildings successfully accentuated the distinct appearance of Sofia of the pre-war decades of the 20th century. However, Sarmadzhiev’s house shows another trend in his architectural quests. The description of the house in the collections of Europeana reads: “A rich and representative city dwelling [...] The planning is a vestibule-type one, with a good functional solution presenting an achievement for that time. Extremely rich plastic decoration on all facades.” 67 It successfully combined several romantic trends typical of the European architecture: (Neo-) Baroque, Secession, and even elements of Rococo and Mediterranean Renaissance. 65 The definition of "house palace" is by Pepi Iokimov. Софийската елитна къща (1878– 1920). // София – 120 години столица, Юбилейна книга. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, с. 477. 66 Щерн, Марчела, архитект Фридрих Грюнангер. // Австрийски архитектурни влияния в София края на XIX началото на XX век. Сборник. Двуезично издание. – София: Музей за история на София, 1998, с. 23 67 Europeana Collections 2018, Резиденция на турското посолство, арх.Фридрих Грюнангер. https://www.europeana.eu/portal/en/record/2023816/Other_MonCultSof_ Image_0039_jpg.html (visited on 21.06.2018). 80 6. Bulgarian 20th Century... 81 Turkish Legation, Sofia sole purpose of decorating the appearance of the film and relying on what was available and having no funds for decoration, I chose the house of the Sarmadzhiev family on Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd., occupied at the time and to this day by the Turkish Legation.”68 According to Gendov’s words, the filming of Love is Folly at the Turkish Legation had its good aspects in relation to the visual picture but there were also a number of inconveniences. In the early morning of the shooting day, the noisy team awakened the military attache Mustafa Kemal (later named Ataturk)69 who not only made the team leave but also insisted that the tape be destroyed. For the poor Bulgarian filmmakers, it was a serious danger for the screening of the film because of their scant means and the high prices of film tapes. Luckily, they managed to save the tape. At that time, the funds invested in the creation of the few Bulgarian films were private. In order to make his films, Gendov relied on his own funds, too. Shortly before the filming of Love is Folly, Gendov met his future wife – Ivanka Ivanova –, better known as Zhana Gendova, who, in love with both Vassil Gendov and the cinema, gave all her money for the film. That was the first Bulgarian film based on a previously written scenario. What was more, in a special notebook, V. Gendov wrote notes related to the film. Today, we would call it a director’s book. Such were the solutions and styles (often referred to as Viennese influences and late Historicism) used by Grünanger in the development of some other designs, e.g. the eastern wing of the Palace (1893–1894) or the house of Dimitar Yablanski built in 1907. Several years after the death of Dr. Sarmadzhiev, his widow sold the house to the Republic of Turkey, after which the building was used as an embassy and residence. The legacy of architect Grünanger in Bulgaria has not been fully preserved but both the exterior and the interior of the home of Sarmadzhiev’s family have been carefully preserved. As soon as the building was finished, it evoked the interest and admiration of the contemporary people. It was due to its luxurious urban appearance that in 1917 it became the scene for the filming of one of the first Bulgarian films Love is Folly. In his memoirs Vassil Gendov wrote: “In 1916 in Sofia, there were only few beautifully looking buildings and houses, whether private or public. And even fewer were the nice house facades that could serve as the decor of a film. And as the film implied such a facade, even for the Гендов, Васил. Трънливият път на българското кино. – София: Фабер, 2016, с. 97. Unfortunately, there is no sure evidence of this historic meeting of Kemal Ataturk and Vassil Gendov. This is just another unclear event related to Gendov's activity. 82 83 Vassil Gendov . Archive of the Bulgarian National Film Library 68 69 Lyubovta e Ludost (Love is Folly) occupies an important place in the history of the Bulgarian cinema and culture as the oldest preserved Bulgarian feature film. That was Vassil Gendov’s second film, after Balgaran e galant (The Bulgarian is Gallant) (1915), which, unfortunately, has not been preserved. The significant role of an absolute pioneer in the Bulgarian cinema belongs to its creator Vassil Gendov, whose image has been surrounded by myths, long-standing controversies, urban legends, and unproven claims. V. Gendov made 11 films, of which only 17 minutes of Love is Folly have been preserved till present days. He was one of the most controversial and, at the same time, most intriguing personalities of the early period of the Bulgarian cinema. S. T., T. D. ARTS AND CHILDREN School Buildings At the beginning of the 20th century, a number of key changes could be observed in the structure of the society and the development of the social processes: migration from villages to cities, adoption of new labour and social practices, and gradual emancipation of the Bulgarian woman. The idea of the family and the foundations on which it was built was also reconsidered. “The small bourgeois family is now detached from the control of the tribal-patriarchal societies, its purpose is not just the continuation of the husband’s family but the family happiness and the good education of the children”, Popova, Vodenicharov and Dimitrova wrote70. The role and influence of the state institutions grew and new healthcare standards were imposed. The first orphanages, babysitters, children’s hospitals, and sanatoriums were also organized. Schools were one of the typical examples of the development of children’s architecture. The educational buildings were constantly and purposefully developed almost throughout the 20th century (except for the transition period), with the traditions of their construction dating back to the previous century. Educational institutions existed as early as in the Ottoman Empire: the schools in Gabrovo and Plovdiv were emblematic. According to Georgi Peev71, there were about 1,500 schools on the eve of the Liberation. However, the Tarnovo Constitution put the emphasis on education, stating that “initial education is free and compulsory for all subjects of the Bulgarian Principality”. Thus, the number of the school buildings in the country grew up (and tripled before the World War I), and their functions, activities, organization, and configurations changed many times. Попова, Кристина, и др. Жените и мъжете в миналото, XIX–XX век. / Други авт.: Петър Воденичаров и Снежана Димитрова. – Благоевград: Арт Принт, 2002. 71 Пеев, Георги. Изграждането на българското образование в началото на Третата българска държава. // Годишник на Департамент „Публична адмнистрация“, НБУ, 2014, с. 9 70 84 85 The newly-built schools and high schools could conditionally be divided into author and model ones, although the particularly successful author’s solutions were also repeated (and typified) subsequently. One of the first school buildings in the liberated Sofia was designed by Konstantin Jovanović, the architect of the Bulgarian Parliament. With its representative appearance and vision, First Sofia Male High School (nowadays Faculty of Journalism and Mass Communication at St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia) was significantly different from the Bulgarian Revival school buildings. In a similar, solemn and impressive spirit, a number of school buildings were erected in the capital and the big cities: the High School of Commerce in Svishtov, Alexander 1st Male High School in Plovdiv, etc. One of the key school projects of the beginning of the 20th century was built in 1900 in Varna. That was the State Girls’ High School and German School, Sofia, 193473 Designed by Arch. Stancho Belkovski and Arch. Ivan Danchov Maria Luisa Boarding House made by the architect Petko Momchilov. He was the doyen of the professional society in the country after the Liberation;: he had studied in Munich and Prague and was one of the founders of the Bulgarian Engineering and Architectural Society (BEAS). In the period 1894–1906, Petko Momchilov was Head of the Architecture Department at the Ministry of Public Buildings, Roads, and Public Works. Other of his designs were the Thoracic Diseases Sanatorium in the town of Tryavna, the Male High School in Rousse, Alexandrovska Hospital in Sofia, the old building of Maichin Dom (Maternity Hospital), the Mineral Baths in Sliven, the high schools in Plovdiv, Tarnovo, and Lovech, etc. Particular attention also deserve his projects created by him in cooperation with Architect Yordan Milanov. The Neo-Renaissance Mediterranean architecture of the Girls’ School was complemented by an up-to-date functional and hygienic solution. In the three-storey building with a patio and an outside yard, there were State Girls’ High School and Maria Luisa Boarding House 190272 Designed by Arch. Petko Momchilov 72 Момчилов, Петко. Зданието за държавна девическа гимназия и пансион „Мария Луиза“ във Варна. // Списание на БИАД в София, бр. 3–4, 1902, 42–43. 73 Белковски, Станчо. Архитектурна дейност 1922–1942: Жилища, общ. сгради, селища. – Пловдив., Хр. Г. Данов, 1943, с. 34. 86 87 laboratories, classrooms and offices, servants’ rooms, a laundry room, a kitchen and a dining room, a gym, and an own steam heater system. The high quality of execution was in line with the objective set: “for the education and training in it of citizens and daughters of our fatherland Bulgaria”, as it was formulated in the act of Ferdinand of 1893. Today, the building functions as an archaeological museum. Similar was the solution applied by Petko Momchilov in the design of Kniaginia Evdokia High School for Girls in Rousse in 1909. The building of the Commercial High School in Sofia, made by Mihail Pushkarov and Nikola Kostov, is a unique example of the designs of high-school buildings of the interwar period. It was completed in 1930, in an eclectic combination of the stylistic trends typical of that time – Neo-Classicism and Neo-Renaissance, Art Deco and Modernism. The solutions of the Stolarsko School in Plovdiv and the German School in Sofia (today Pancho Vladigerov National Music Academy) had a highly modernized appearance. Indicative of the spirit of the time was the increased and complex use of reinforced concrete structures in the designs of that type. In a close but not so explicit style, the tandem Belkovski-Danchov designed the so-called Studentski Dom (Students’ House) in Sofia – “The home that freely and casually should unite all students and do it not as an official and state institute but as their common home”.74 The elegant compact building on the central square of the Tsar Osvoboditel Monument was meant to support students’ life and all events and Stancho Belkovski travelled to Germany to study similar designs there. The mass character of education for younger children in the first half of the 20th century led to some simplification, but also to qualitative profiling, of the buildings dedicated to training, which was evident in the school buildings of the 20s and 30s. They were also strongly influenced by the global trends in the construction of school buildings and by the methods of teaching children recommended at the time. Meanwhile, schools were also built in small settlements, mostly modest-size standard-solution ones, with details in the spirit of Historicism. After the earthquake of 1928, their designs were completely renovated by the Directorate for Assistance to the Victims and Settlements 74 Белковски, Станчо. Студентски дом. // Студентска борба, бр. 9, 01.03.1930. 88 Typical rural school design, 193075 of the Earthquake of 1928), along with the designs of small churches and municipal homes in the villages. In their new versions, a stronger link was sought with the architectural heritage of the Balkans. We can summarize that the architecture for children of that period followed the general architectural and constructional development. Unlike other areas in the construction industry, it was actively regulated and promoted by the state and its sites were widespread. In schools, children spent a great deal of their time and for that reason both modern hygienic conditions and opportunities for improving the educational, and sometimes the training, process were sought. The increased presence of schools in the urban environment was significant for the period and they gradually acquired characteristic, representative aesthetics with emphasis on tectonicity and functionality. S. T. 75 Гадев, Апостол. Из възстановителната дейност на „ДИПОЗЕ“. // Списание на БИАД, бр. 3–4, 1930, с. 7 89 Children’s Literature – from Boring Didactic Models to High Artistic Samples Characteristic of the beginning of the Bulgarian literature for children was the underlined didacticism and the use of intrusive edifying elements and folklore motifs and stories from the traditional lifestyle and the festive ritual calendar. Such was the thematic and stylistic paradigm that included the children’s poems of Petko Slaveykov, Tsanko Tserkovski, Ivan Vazov and Elin Pelin. Another circle of poetic stories – interpreted instructively or jokingly – was related to the value system of the Bulgarian people: love for knowledge, development of working habits, respect for home and family as a sacral space, love and respect for mothers. Gradually, these emblematic patriarchal moral issues and toposes expanded their meanings; the perimeter of the personal not only changed but identified itself with the national as historical realities and images that became universal identities of the native language, nature, land, and characters. In his only children’s book, Pesni i Stihotvorenia za Malki Detsa (Songs and Poems for Little Children) (1883), Vazov nostalgically shared his memories of the comfort of the home, the caress of his mother, work as a responsibility and children’s play as entertainment. The whole colourful palette of the child’s everyday life was Cover of Pesni i Stihotvorenia za Malki Detsa (Songs and Poems for Little Children) by Ivan Vazov (1883) 90 Cover of Detska Kitka (Children‘s Bunch) by Uncle Stoyan (1941) interpreted not so much from the position of the knowing and teaching lyrical self but through the prism of the child’s worldview and with the voice of the child describing their world and feelings. Uncle Stoyan (Stoyan Mihaylov Popov) was the author who consistently imposed this style on the poetry for children. This, however, does not mean that he created infantile or elementary-message verses. On the contrary, they reflected children’s imagination and incorporated the child’s passion for play, the desire for mischief and the infant rebellion against the strictly regulated adulthood. The author made it fun, with humour, but also with a little sadness because of the irretrievable time of childhood. Uncle Stoyan’s merit was the creation of high-quality artefacts that gave a new status to the literature for children. This trend was confirmed by the works of Vasil Iv. Stoyanov. His books conveyed the world of children in an insightful and imaginative way. It was filled with smiles, sadness and delicately presented knowledge. The child was equal to the adult so the dialogue between them did not bear the suggestion of edification, it was interesting and provocative. Undoubted was Elin Pelin’s merit in making art for children part of the Bulgarian literature, which the critics not only noticed but also started to appreciate. The child characters in his poems are in harmony with nature, 91 they are part of the rural lifestyle not burdened by hard work but presented on the background of entertaining events accompanying the child’s day or reinforcing their emotional experiences with folklore-mythological connotations. The child’s world in E. Pelin’s poetry is original and unique; it is a universe of small miracles and a lot of laughter. From the beginning of the 20th century to World War I, the children’s poetry, closed in its instructive norms and textbook canons, opened to a dialogue with children. This enabled children to get to know themselves naturally and with ease, with the wise irony and delicate nobility of adults, unintrusively conveying the knowledge of life experience accumulated. Of course, the developmental processes in adults’ poetry were much more dynamic and complex, so it is difficult and unnecessary to make aesthetic comparisons. The children’s prose during the period also went a long and difficult path of development and validation. The enhanced publicistic reflex characteristic of the Revival gave way to the artistic fiction, which transformed the realistic uniqueness of the events of the modern times or the traditional folk motifs into complicated psychological and existential messages. At the beginning of the century, it was natural to make Bulgarian adaptations, which became the basis for upgrading the Bulgarian artistic attempts by copying stories, pouring authentic stories into foreign genre forms, transferring popular characters from other literatures or literally inserting them into Bulgarian moralizing clichés. That was how the spelling-books and collectanea actively used in the pedagogical practice looked like at that time. Gradually, however, they became author’s literary aids, with texts selected or written by writers who are today, without hesitation, called classics: E. Pelin, Nikolay Raynov, Angel Karaliychev, Assen Raztsvetnikov, Ts. Tserkovski. Literary reviews also had an important role in promoting the art for children. Aleksandar Teodorov Balan, Slavcho Paskalev, Aleksandar Balabanov, Georgi Tsanev and others opposed to the excessive didacticism and insisted that the children’s literature be assessed with the same strict aesthetic criteria as adults’ poetry and prose. There were also radical critical texts such as that of Slavcho Paskalev76, who denied the division of literature by age criteria and opposed to one’s need to read in early childhood. The author got to the extreme to claim that this was detrimental to the normal development of children. In an implicit dialogue with that 76 № 5–6. Паскалев, Славчо. Нашата детска художествена литература. // Мисъл, ХVІ, 1906, thesis entered the article by Stilian Chilingirov Detskata Literatura (Children’s Literature)77. Without any public controversy, those two statements actually pointed to two opposing views on the importance and place of children’s literature in the spiritual life. The writer convincingly argued his concept that talented poetry and prose for children not just had the right to exist but were are an essential part of every national literature because they educated good aesthetic taste in children as well as ethical and moral values and built intellectual bridges to other arts. Between the poles of denial and enthusiastic support at the beginning of the 20th century the literature for children – with effort but with confidence – occupied its sovereign place in the socio-cultural space. The Bulgarian society gradually realized its mission which was perhaps most accurately formulated by Violino Primo, an author today forgotten. “Today’s Bulgarian child is Bulgaria tomorrow,” he wrote in his essay Za Deteto (About the Child)78. Although today this phrase sounds like a cliché, it was taken then as a formula that synthesized the responsibility of the literature for adolescents. And while the art for children still asserted its equal status in the literary field, the children’s literature was already politically institutionalized. In 1920, the government of Aleksandar Stamboliyski adopted a law to support the publication of books, series, and journals for children and set out measures to encourage reading. That was an extremely far-seeing legislative act thanks to which emblematic journals with a long life and fundamental importance for the emergence of works for children were created that turned into classics and became part of the firm canon of the Bulgarian literature. Such were the journals Detska Radost (Children’s Joy) (1910–1947), with Ran Bosilek as its long-time editor; Venets (Wreath) (1911–1944); Svetulka (Firefly) (1904–1947), whose editors were Aleksandar Spasov and Elin Pelin; the newspapers Pateka (Path) (1933–1947) and Vesela Druzhina (Jolly Crowd) (1933–1947); in the latter, a strip cartoon was published for the first time and had many admirers. An interesting tendency that marked the growing role of children’s literature was that many of the Bulgarian writers who wrote for adults started to create talented works for children: Dora Gabe, Georgi Raychev, Elisaveta Bagryana, Nikola Furnadzhiev, Nikolay Raynov, Emanuil Popdimitrov, Angel Karaliychev, Assen Raztsvetnikov, Konstantin Konstantinov, etc. Though being creators 77 78 92 Чилингиров, Стилиян. Детската литература. // Ученически преглед, ХІ, 1904, № 3,4,5. Виолино Примо. За детето. // Развигор, № 227, 30.10.1926. 93 officially recognized by the literary critics and authoritative members of the Union of Bulgarian Writers, some of them decided to set up their own artistic organization: Society of Writers, Friends of Children79 (1928), later renamed as Society of Children’s Writers, which had 80 members until 1944. The Society published the yearbook Detska Kniga (Children’s Book), which celebrated the Day of the Child and – in 1933 – the first anthology with children’s works Ognishte (Fireplace) was published. The critical discourse on children’s literature changed in the 1920s. It was the subject of many reviews published in popular publications such as Zlatorog, Hyperion, Razvigor, Izkustvo i Kritika (Art and Critique), Literaturen Glas (Literary Voice) and others. Texts analyzing the artistic processes in the poetry and prose for children were published by E. Pelin, R. Bosilek, G. Tsanev, D. B. Mitov and others. In 1927 the first comprehensive study on literature for children was published: Nashata Detska Literatura (Our Children’s Literature), Part I. Although with no remarkable trace in the history of literary criticism, the author Petar Dimitrov made very accurate assessments of children’s poems as aesthetic trends and personal artistic achievements as well as interesting parallels with adults’ poetry. One of the main topics that were inevitably placed in the critical texts then was about the specifics of children’s psyche and its harmony with the world; children’s sensitivity, trust and loneliness; about how literature affected the quite vulnerable child’s soul and how glamorously it reflected the emotional vibrations of this complex and fragile universe. In her article Detska Dusha i Detska Literatura (Children’s Soul and Children’s Literature)80 D. Gabe discussed these issues and made one of the most insightful analyses of the mission and responsibility of writers creating for children. The change of the artistic paradigm in the 1930s and 1940s provoked literary controversy about the need for intention in children’s poetry – a key term in the article by Atanas Dalchev Nashata Savremenna Detska Poezia (Our Contemporary Children’s Poetry)81, which set the beginning of a very long and sharp debate. The poet backed with arguments his concept of the harmful consequences of preconceived ideas in children’s poetry which deprived it of spontaneity and sincerity. His opponent, Hristo Radevski, defended his conviction that the presence of a great deal of weak poetic works was not due to intention but simply to the lack of talent, as was the case with adults’ art. There was turbulent polemic tension around this controversial term and it was precisely what provoked a large number of literary-critical texts outlining the essential aesthetic characteristics of the Bulgarian literature for children, marking the transition from the traditional patriarchal and moralistic themes to the psychoanalytic scrutiny of children’s world. For the first time the questions about the place of children in the family, the love and respect of family members for children, the trust but also the jealousy, the fear and the traumas that accompanied one’s early age, the transformation in behaviour and feelings that growth caused were openly discussed. The importance of the controversy was that it discussed children’s literature not only as artistic qualities; it also discussed important issues related to the raising, education, training, physical and mental health of children. In the period to the end of World War II the main genres in which the children’s writers worked were poetry and short fictional forms – short story and tale – but the challenges of novelette and novel attracted more and more authors. Thus, the first novel for children Zlatno Sartse (Golden Heart) (1929) by Kalina Malina appeared in the Bulgarian literature. It told 79 Founders were also E. Popdimitrov, Em. Stanev, R. Bosilek, V. Paspaleeva, L. Stanchev, and others. 80 Габе, Дора. Детска душа и детска литература. // Изкуство и критика, 1938, №7, с. 364. 81 Далчев, Атанас. Нашата съвременна детска поезия. // Изкуство и критика, 1942, № 4–7; № 9–10; 1943, № 1–2. 94 Cover of Zlatno Sartse (Golden Heart) by Kalina Malina (1929) 95 the touching story of an abandoned and found child who learnt the secret of their life. The plot in the artistic style of sentimental, fabulousromantic, and fictional traces the peripeties on the path to the truth, which is tough but also full of doing good and encounters with people ready to help unselfishly and with dedication. The story provokes empathy, Christian humility, and compassion in the reader. It teaches children not to be afraid of loneliness, to overcome the fear of life trials, and not to succumb to despair. In this sense, it was a wise novel for children and adults that laid the beginning of the novelist tradition in the Bulgarian children’s literature. Ran Bosilek’s Patilansko Tsarstvo (Patilan’s Kingdom) (1927) was the book that most definitely pushed away from the moral educational norm, turning mischief, play and laughter not into a reason for sanctions against the child but into a creative impulse and an attractive role model. The world of the child here is fun, filled with witty replicas and an enticing sense of freedom; it is motivated by the child’s desires and the instinctive impulse to violate the rules established, to free oneself from the restraints and limitations. It was precisely that push away from the traditional and largely conservative education models imposed by both education and literature that made Patilan’s stories the favourite ones of many generations of Bulgarian children. They also opened the artistic space to the plot challenges of Elin Pelin’s novels Yan Bibiyan (1933) and Yan Bibiyan na Lunata (Yan Bibiyan on the Moon) (1934). They also Cover of Patilansko Tsarstvo (Patilan’s Kingdom) by Ran Bosilek (1927) 96 Cover of Yan Bibiyan by Elin Pelin (1933) enjoyed the readers’ interest of both children and adults for nearly a century. With his classic for the Bulgarian literature works, the writer introduced previously unknown thematic fields and strongly opposed to the realistic social trends in the children’s prose. The narrative is dynamic, fascinating, seen through the child’s eyes, emotions and imagination. Obstacles, trials and adventures overlap in the storyline. The character struggles to turn from a charming unruly child into a good and governable boy. His world turns from everyday-life one into a fantastic world filled with miracles. Yan Bibiyan and Fute the devil are cheerful, funny, and mischievous look-alikes of every child. The reversed plot matrix turns the characters into a denial of the expected ideal images of the obedient child and the little evil devil. It was this violation of the norms that made the novel so popular; and the gestures of disobedience of the characters, their tricks and ingenuity with which they try to preserve their world from the rules and deformations of adults make them a kind of an imitation model. The second novel by E. Pelin was real fiction. Yan Bibiyan’s adventures on the Moon are the reflection of each young boy’s dream to conquer new spaces, discover, look for new challenges but also assert his dreams, learn to get to know himself and others. The associations with the current problems of the earthly world are obvious without being intrusive or violating the parodic depiction style. The writer did not want to create a 7. Bulgarian 20th Century... 97 Cover of Toshko Afrikanski (Toshko the African) by Angel Karaliychev (1940 moralistic-didactic narrative. He took advantage of all the nuances of funny in terms of expression, images and storyline twists. The humour is cheerful but provokes in the reader not only smiles but also an impulse to free choice; in a natural and easy manner, it inspires in children confidence and strength to overcome life trials. In A. Karaliychev’s novel Toshko Afrikanski (Toshko the African) (1940, with wonderful illustrations by Ilia Beshkov), Toshko’s passion for adventures is provoked by his curiosity about the world, the desire to get to know it but also arrange it without any prohibitions according to his ideas of good and bad. This makes him and the characters of E. Pelin and R. Bosilek persistent symbols of childhood, of the child’s rebellion against hypocrisy and aggression, of his desire to make adults not only to love him but also to support his dreams and brave flight of imagination so that they can remember that, back in time, they were children, too. A basic place in the literature for children during the period under consideration had the author’s or authorized folk tale. It was a preferred genre because it provided great opportunities for ethical and moral lessons embedded in familiar storylines and with characters loved by children. E. Pelin was the first Bulgarian writer who creatively interpreted folk tales published in the edited by him journals Veselushka (Merry Girl) (1908–1910) and Svetulka (Firefly) (1920–1932). They were organized 98 in several collections published in the 1920s: Gori Tilileyski. Prikazki za Detsa, Naredeni v Stihove (Desolate Forests. Children’s Tales in Verses) (1919), Sladkodumna Baba (Honey-Mouthed Granny) (1919), Pravdata i Krivdata (Truth and Falsehood) (1920). One of the smartest narrators of children’s tales in the Bulgarian literature was Ran Bosilek. He uniquely combined the creative approach with the brilliant knowledge of folklore archetypes, the delicate sense of children’s sensitivity and the masterly use of the most colourful means of expression. The tales, brilliantly retold or rather re-created by A. Karaliychev, made adults and children enjoy the Bulgarian folklore treasury and the traditional literature of many other peoples. Fundamental was the work of N. Raynov, who collected and published 30 volumes of Prikazki ot Tsyal Svyat (Tales From All Over the World). The writer created literary works on many folklore themes, which gave grounds to the critics to define him as the most popular and most productive tale narrator in Bulgaria. The tales by Konstantin Konstantinov Zaharno Petle (Sugar Cock), Kotarakat Marmorko (Marmorko the Tomcat), Medenata Pitka (Honey Bread), Snezhnoto Momiche (Snow Girl), Prastenoto Petle (Earthenware Rooster) and many others were fun, entertaining and edifying for the young readers. They revealed to them the daily world, which was colourful, filled with small miracles, a world of dreams come true and victorious good. Characteristic of A. Raztsvetnikov’s tales is the romantic artistic style. They are rather poems or rhymed lyrical prose, in which traditional characters discreetly sent and keep sending to children moral-ethical messages, provoking their intellect and emotional empathy. The humorous interpretation of familiar folklore motifs and the entertaining play upon words made his tales very popular. The first novelette in our children’s literature D. Gabe’s Malkiyat Dobrudzhanets (The Little Dobrudzha Boy) (1927), created a beneficial tendency in the establishment and development of this genre. In this book by D. Gabe, the socio-political context82, the realities of living on a farm, the legends and traditions – as they were perceived by Petyo’s child’s imagination – create a colourful picture of the generic cosmos, with its rather tragic than happy and harmonious dimensions. The curiosity towards the world as an unfamiliar but enticing territory filled with mysteries and adventures, the clash between the urge to good deeds and 82 The occupation of southern Dobrudzha by Romania after World War I 99 Cover of Prez Vodi i Gori (Across Waters and Woods) by Emillian Stanev (1943) Cover of Malkiyat Dobrudzhanets (The Little Dobrudzha Boy) by Dora Gabe (1927) mischief, the difficult choices life offers to the grown-up child, the trials to overcome the leave of the shelter and safety of his home. These were the universal existential problems the writer discussed not only in this book but also in her later autobiographical prose. These were the problems that A. Karaliychev wrote about without rough didacticism. In the novelette Aneto (The Little Ani) (1938) the writer created the image of a child perceiving the world with wide-open senses, trying to get to know it and to understand its secrets. The narration is fun, intriguing but also with ironic implications of the treacherous surprises brought by human duality manifested even at an early age, of the naivety but also the instinctive wisdom of a child who, on their way, stoically accepts the difficult lessons of life bringing pain but also wisdom. Quite different is the artistic paradigm in E. Stanev’s animalistic short stories. Prez Vodi i Gori (Across Waters and Woods) (1943) does not fit into the genre frame of the novelette; the compositional structure of the book is rather a cycle of short stories bringing the readers into the world of animals and acquainting them with it through happy and sad events. The writer depicted the harsh conditions in nature where the struggle for predominance among its inhabitants made them cruel at times. He did not adhere to the tale patterns of good and bad characters and, without crossing the thin line between the realistic and naturalistic depiction, showed that in the hard struggle for survival the strong ones are the winners no matter how unfair it could be. Between the didactic texts and the high artistic samples, after acute polemic controversies which asserted the right of children’s poetry and prose to exist, they not only established themselves in the Bulgarian spiritual space but experienced a creative bloom that made the children’s literature not only equal but, in some of the works, an undeniably talented part of the history of the Bulgarian literature. Cover of Aneto (The Little Ani) by Angel Karaliychev (1938) 100 E. T. 101 Artists and Books for Children Children’s literature is the privileged field of expression of artists of books. It needs and requires visual images and, at the same time, provides an opportunity for experiments. The interest of artists and audience in children’s books in Bulgaria intensified in the post-war period. During those years, some special paper forms were created such as colouring albums, alphabet teaching books, comics. Album books were published to value the national history and its heroes. At the beginning of the 1920s, stimulated by his impressions of foreign, mostly German, children’s books and school aids, Aleksandar Bozhinov prepared in Germany a Bulgarian pictorial alphabet АБВ. Azbuka za Malkite (ABC. Alphabet for Children). It was printed out in 1921. Both the alphabet and his Zlatna Kniga za Nashite Detsa (Golden Book for Our Children) (1921) could be compared – as design, composition, handwritten fonts, and colourfulness – with paramount Secession exemplars of the book publishing for children of the first decade of the century in England and Germany. Again in Germany, during his post-war healing, Geo Milev was engaged in the preparation of two children’s books with German illustrations. He himself wrote the texts in Bulgarian. Zlatna Kniga za Nashite Detsa (Golden Book for Our Children), 1921 Aleksandar Bozhinov (1878–1968) 102 Sirak Skitnik (1883–1943) Cover for Pesnichki (Short Songs) by Elin Pelin Biblioteka za Malkite (Library for Children), issue 16, 1927 In the 1920s, the publishing houses Hemus and T. F. Chipev as well as the publishing house of the Ministry of National Education (MNE) began to issue series of books, and some of the best Bulgarian artists such as Ivan Milev, Sirak Skitnik, Ivan Penkov, Dechko Uzunov, Ilia Beshkov, Georgi Atanasov, and Vassil Zahariev were invited as illustrators. The best in quality and the most prestigious were Biblioteka za Malkite (Library for Children) (MNE) and Biblioteka za Poslushnite Dechitsa (Library for Good Children) (T. F. Chipev). The illustrations were usually India-ink and pencil drawings accompanying the text and several colour, most often watercolour pictures on separate pages. There were numerous examples of artistic participation, stimulating the fairytale imagination, as well as of complete layout design with features of exquisiteness, fantasy, and naivety. “It [the children’s book] is the most good-looking one in our country today,” wrote Sirak Skitnik in the Slovo newspaper in 1929. “It incorporates faith and affection for the child, so seemingly untypical of us. It is unexplainable and even strange that only for a few years it acquired such a cultural appearance that we can hardly see continuity between the children’s tasteless and illiterate booklets (with few exceptions) from five or six years ago and those of the last year.” 103 Ilia Beshkov (1901–1958) Illustration for Vartushka by Simeon Andreev. Biblioteka za Malkite (Library for Children), issue 19, 1927 The article made it clear that state funding was substantial in the process. The ministry’s publications “made private publishers award us editions – both children’s and adults’ – which we could hardly dream about 4–5 years ago. Private publishers were interested in the artist, the good taste, the work of the competent person, and thus added a modern trend to their work.” Dechko Uzunov (1899–1986) Illustration in Sharena knijka (Colorful Booklet) by Jordan Stubel, 1929 104 Stefan Badzhov (1881–1953) Cover of Detski Svyat (Children’s World) Journal 1925–1926,1921–1943 The great interest in the children’s book in the 1920s was also confirmed by an extensive article by Nikola Mavrodinov, Our Children’s Illustration, published in Zlatarog journal in 1930. At the beginning of the article, Mavrodinov expressed his view of illustration: “It does not imitate the reality. It moves in two dimensions. Its main tool is the line. The line unfleshes the reality and transmits it into a completely different plan. The two-dimensionality gives it a strange primitive look and brings it close to the very soul of the things.” As historical examples, he pointed out William Blake, Gauguin, and Beardsley. In his article, he reviewed the works of Aleskandar Bozhinov, Sirak Skitnik, D. Uzunov, Vadim Lazarkevich, G. Atanasov, Pencho Georgiev, and Il. Beshkov as the ones representing in the best way the children’s illustration in Bulgaria. Illustration in Sharena Knizhka (Colorful Booklet) by Yordan Stubel. T. F. Chipev Publishing House, S. 1929 The pages of the children’s periodicals Detska Radost (Children’s Joy) (1910–1947, Hemus Publishing House) and Detski Svyat (Children’s World) (1921–1943, D. Chilingirov Publishing House) were full of ornamental frames and illustrations of bright colour. Stefan Badzhov actively worked for Detski Svyat. Nikolay Raynov made ornamental 105 Georgi Atanasov (1904–1952) Illustration in Neznaen Yunak by Ran Bosilek. 1932. Pencho Georgiev (1900–1940). Illustrations in God‘s Gifts by Georgi Raichev. 1930. butterflies and birds for Detska Radost. There were also illustrations by Al. Bozhinov, G. Atanasov, V. Lazarkevich, Nikola Tusuzov, and Rayko Aleksiev. Nikola Kozhuharov made cover layout designs and illustrations in a festive-decorative Secession style. Nikolay Raynov was editor-in-chief of Kartina i Prikazka (Picture and Fairy Tale) magazine (1928–1930, T. F. Chipev). He designed the cover of the magazine – the composition and the painted title font – and also participated with decorative-style texts and illustrations, which created the impression of unity between the layout and the text. The textbooks were an important part of children’s books. Because of their many editions and widespreadness, they formed style preferences and tastes in childhood. Most interesting in artistic terms were the ABC books. In the decorative interlacings, wreaths, coloured ornaments as well as in the drawing of the illustrations by layout designers and illustrators such as N. Petrov, Al. Bozhinov, H. Tachev, G. Atanasov, R. Aleksiev from the beginning of the century to the end of the 20s, the secessionist’s taste in decorative and comparatively more conservative variants was most often reflected. In the 1930s and early 1940s, well-known names and artists of the younger generation took part in the layout designs of ABC books and other types of textbooks and teaching aids. The period until the World War II was fundamental in the development of modern typography in Bulgaria. Particularly important was the role of artists for the appearance of Bulgarian books, journals, magazines, and readings for children. Vadim Lazarkevich (1895–1963) Cover for Bate Patilan. by Ran Bosilek. 1943 106 I. G. 107 Theatre for Children The traditions of the different varieties of Children’s Theatre in Bulgaria were related to the wandering Turkish Ortaoyunu artists who danced and played various improvised sketches, to the Karagözcü artists (puppet-players) and their theatre of shadows, the home theatre, the school celebrations, and the community-centre performances before the Liberation. Another direction of development of performing arts for children originated from the children’s small operettas. They were performed at schools in the 1880s as part of the music and arts education programme. The performers were children but, gradually, adult performers began to take part in the performances. In the 1890s, the suitcase theatre appeared. Stick puppets were poked through thin tubes on the lid of a small suitcase or chair and moved with the threads tied to them. A daire (tambourine), laterna (street-organ) or gadulka (rebeck) was used for sounding. Among the famous characters were Karakolyo and Penka in South-Eastern Bulgaria. Popular in North-Eastern Bulgaria were the rag puppets Racho and Deshka made by the considered-to-be-the-first Bulgarian “professional” puppet-player and bear-trainer Neno Milchev83of Gabrovo. The spectators of those various street, square, home, classroom, chitalishte amateur theatre performances were both adults and children. Often performances were not intended for young audience but mostly through them children managed to get in touch with theatre art. The European Puppet Theatre, which entered our country through the touring professional groups at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, was also not specifically aimed at the children’s audience. One of the first groups seen by the Bulgarian audience was that of the English puppet-player Thomas Holden. Within the Plovdiv Exhibition, two performances were staged at Luxembourg Theatre on 30 June 1892, one of them was played during the day: “Because of the small children whose parents cannot take them the theatre at night.” 84 The staged puppet variety with the unknown-to-the-people intricate and exquisite Victorian mechanical puppets was welcomed with unprecedented interest. Prošek brothers Brewery, Sofia, 188485 A decade later, the popular in Europe Czech puppet art reached the Bulgarian viewer thanks to the Prošek brothers. Born in the Czech Republic, they arrived in Bulgaria in the second half of the 19th century and remained in the country forever. They were one of the builders of the bridges Lavov Most (Lions’ Bridge) and Orlov Most (Eagles’ Bridge), and greatly contributed to the transformation of Sofia into a modern European city. Prosek are also known as founders of the first printing house in the capital, among the printed products of which were Darjaven vestnik (State Gazette), a number of periodicals, the Bulgarian Literary Society Journal, letter-heads for the Palace and the state institutions. In 1884, the brothers established Prošek brothers Brewery in Sofia. And in 1903, they founded a puppet theatre for adults at the Czech Society, which was housed in one of the halls of the factory. That was the first specially equipped puppet theatre in Bulgaria with 200 seats. Владова, Елена. Благословия на куклите. – София: Съюз на артистите в България, 1997, с. 65. Балканска зора, бр. 733, 26.09.1892. Cited after Владова, Елена. Благословия на куклите... с. 87, 97. 85 Албум с фотографии на български индустриални предприятия от периода 1887– 1912 г., подарен от Съюза на българските индустриалци на цар Фердинанд І по случай 25-годишнината от възшествието му на българския престол. [1912 г.]. Фонд. 3К, опис 7, архивна единица 511, лист 101. http://www.archives.government.bg/553-Уникални_и_особено_ ценни_документи (visited on 05.07.2018). 108 109 83 84 House of Arts and Press Aleksandar Bozhinov, Kupchinkata na Brambazatsite, 1924 Inscription: „We are glorious artists. We can play all instruments” The opening took place on 17.04.1904 with the show Oldřich and Božena.86 In the following years, classical pieces, including Shakespeare, Goethe, Czech plays, and Bulgarian folk tales, were performed with puppets and had great success. The performances were played in Czech and Bulgarian. The way of developing the national puppet theatre by absorbing models imported from Europe was open. A special event that took place and, a few months later, led to the foundation of the first professional puppet theatre in the hall of Slavyanska Beseda Chitalishte was the first Bulgarian puppet show Vikat ni v Zhivota (They call us into life). It was performed at the Military Club during the next Spring Carnival Ball, organized by the House of Arts and Press on the occasion of the Day of Arts on 8 March 1924. The preparation of the performance was entrusted to Kupchinkata na Brambazatsite Orchestra. It included Aleksandar Bozhinov – daire, Sirak Skitnik – tarambuka, Boris Denev – kaval and tamboura, Konstantin Shtarkelov – drum, and Nikola Tanev – with two spoons instead of castanets. Occasionally, Iliya Beshkov and Pencho Georgiev joined them, too87. The orchestra regularly performed at the House of Arts and Press founded in 1920 by Aleksandar Milenkov, Kosta Stoyanov, P. Morozov, Sirak Skitnik, and Stefan Kirov. 86 Юбилеен алманах на чехите в България 1868–1928, С. 1928, 34. Cited after: Владова, Елена. Благословия на куклите. – София: Съюз на артистите в България, 1997, с. 91, 98. 87 Владова, Елена. Благословия на куклите. – София: Съюз на артистите в България, 1997, с. 101–102. 110 The performance prepared by the Bohemian Circle of Artist Intellectuals and Members of the Native Art Society, Vikat ni v Zhivota (They call us into life), was a humorous and caricature one. It was probably the idea of the Italian alumnus Arch. Atanas Donkov who was inspired by the performances of Teatro dei Piccoli by Vittorio Podrecca. The marionettes were made in the image and likeness of their puppet designers and participants in the performance: Konstantin Shtarkelov, Boris Denev, Aleksandar Bozhinov, Andrey Nikolov, and Nikola Tanev. Arch. Donkov had a significant contribution to their elaboration. The performance had a loud success and was played several times that night. It won the ball award88. The only preserved photo from Vikat ni v Zhivota (They call us into life), 08.03.1924 (From left to right) Andrey Nikolov (in the foreground to the left), Nikola Tanev and Aleksandar Bozhinov (on the donkey), Boris Denev (with the wings), Konstantin Shtarkelov (in the foreground to the right)89 88 Балът на изкуствата и печата. Успехът му. // Демократически сговор, бр. 130, 10.03.1924; Сензацията на Бала в Дом на изкуствата и печата. // Илюстрована седмица, бр. 64, 16.03.1924. 89 Personal archive of Elena Vladova 111 Painting by Boris Denev of the performance Vikat ni v Zhivota (They call us into life), owned by the National Gallery of Arts The caricature performance was also aimed at the older audiences. The professional theatre, in its different genres, was redirected to the younger audience only after the World War I. Performances specially prepared for children’s audience by professional artists began to be made thanks to the efforts of a number of actors from the National Theatre, musicians, artists, writers, and critics. The aspiration of the Bulgarian intellectuals, educated mainly in Europe, was the introduction of modern methods in the education and emancipation of the Bulgarian society, the different social strata, and age groups, with its goal being the formation of new aesthetic tastes as well as audiences capable of perceiving the modern contemporary quests and phenomena in the sphere of arts. Again on the initiative of Arch. Atanas Donkov in 1924, an Art Puppet Theatre was set up at Slavyanska Beseda Society. Actors from the National Theatre were invited: Yordan Cherkezov, Mara Penkova, Zoya Sharankova, Konstantin Kisimov, and others. Some of them had gone through Isaac Daniel’s Theatre Studia and the school of Konstantin Sagaev. Among the founders of the theatre was Elisaveta KonsulovaVazova, the wife of Boris Vazov. The main character in the performances, mostly for children, was Glavcho. Stefan L. Kostov, Yordan Cherkezov, Georgi Raychev, Dimitar Stoyanov and others began to write and translate works for the theatre. In 1942, the actress Mara Penkova was sent by the Ministry of National Education to specialize puppet theatre in Frankfurt, Germany. 112 After her return in 1945, by Letter No III 9445 / 06.06.1945 of the Ministry of Propaganda90, a Children’s Puppet Theatre was founded under her guidance. In 1948, the theatre became property of the state. That was the end of the initial stage of nationalization of the professional puppet theatre for children in Bulgaria. Meanwhile, in the first half of the 20th century, the professional drama theatre for children began to be built thanks, once again, to the efforts of some of the actors of the National Theatre as well as other actors of performing arts. They set up theatre schools for children such as Bulgarian Drama School with Konstantin Sagaev’s Theatre for Children and Adolescents, Pesha Radoev’s Children’s Ballet School, Russka Koleva’s Dance School, and others. In them, performances were prepared especially for the young spectators, in which children participated and, sometimes, professional actors. In 1926, Teatara na Mladite (Theatre of the Young) was established at the National Theatre. The first performance was Snezhnata Tsarkinya (The snow Queen) on the text by H. Andersen. In it, actors from the National Theatre played with the participation of the students from the Dramatic School at the National Theatre founded in 1925 by Nikolay O. Massalitinov. Directors were Ekaterina Krasnopolska and N. Massalitinov. Letter No III 9445 / 06.06.1945 of the Ministry of Propaganda 90 Вандов, Никола, Гюлева, Веселина, Димитрова, Кремена. 60 години столичен куклен театър 1946–2006. – София: Валентин Траянов, 2006, с. 12. 8. Bulgarian 20th Century... 113 Until the World War II, more than 40 works were specifically written and staged at Teatara na Mladite (Theatre of the Young). Most often, those were dramatizations of Bulgarian and world fairy tales and legends but there were also author’s plays such as Zhar Ptitsa (Bird King), Zlatka Zlatnoto Momiche (Goldie the Golden Made), Pedya Chovek – Lakat Brada (Span Person – Elbow Beard) by Svetoslav Kamburov-Furen; Valshebnata peshtera (The Magic Cave), Yunak Gogo (Gogo the Hero), Malkiyat Tsar (The Yong King) by Georgi Karaivanov; Ivan Gotovan (Ivan the Slacker), Glupcho (The Young Fool), Chiracheto i Dyavolat (The Young Apprentice and the Devil) by Georgi Drandarov; Zavistliviyat Pobratim (The Envious Sworn Brother) by Konstantin Mutafov; Sestri (Sisters) by Konstantin Sagaev; Babini Vidini Kuli (Old Woman Vida’s Towers) by Dimitar Panchev; Kasmet (Luck) by Nikola Nikitov; Malkiyat Haidutin (The Young Haidut) by Emil Koralov; Lambo Lambushkata by Ivan Bakalov; Tsarkinya Bisser (Princess Bisser) by Nevena Milosheva, etc.91 That rich repertoire was mainly staged by Boris Borozanov, Yordan Sveshtarov, Hrissan Tsankov, and Nikolay O. Massalitinov. Tsarkinya Bisser (Princess Bisser) by N. Milosheva, dir. Boris Borozanov, National Theatre, 1941 Momche i Vyatar (A Boy and the Wind) by N. Trendafilova, dir. Mara Penkova, Sofia Puppet Theatre, 1948 In January 1945, Detski Naroden Teatar (Children’s National Theatre) was opened as a department of the National Theatre under the direction of the theatre worker Petar K. Stoychev. The following year, it became an independent state institution under the name Naroden teatar za Mladezhta (People’s Theatre for Youth). In the mid-40s of the 20th century, the long-term process of professionalization and institutionalization of the children’s theatre in Bulgaria finished, which included the idea of joining the modern European cultural traditions in the field of performing arts. J. S. 91 See Народен театър „Иван Вазов” / Летопис: януари 1904 – юли 2004... 114 115 Music for Children The music for children occupied a significant place in the work of the first Bulgarian composers – a trend which at the beginning of the 20th century continued to be expression of the enlightening Revival pathos and the road to modern Europe. The creative interest in that field was also related to the fact that the representatives of the so-called first generation of composers were often teachers of music, conductors, and public figures. It was no coincidence that they shared the notion of democratic musical art which “did not go beyond the limits of the modest needs of the musical life, the amateur choir, the military brass-band music, and the school, which could sound at literary and musical evenings, on the city square on festive days or at school celebrations ...”92 According to some testimonies, compared to the other Balkan countries with a similar historical destiny, Bulgaria, at that time, had a high educational standard and active cultural life. “The spiritual uplift of the late Renaissance era was transformed into building the intelligentsia of the new society in the conditions of its own state organization. The education system was aimed both at overcoming the illiterate legacy of the past as well as at providing solid secondary education [...] At the beginning of the 20th century, more than 60% of the children to be educated benefited from that right; there were 26 high schools, with their number growing constantly.”93 The fact that, as early as in 1878, Music became a compulsory subject at general school speaks of the attitude to art of the education system and, at the beginning of the 20th century, they already discussed the issues of the content of Singing as a school subject, the teaching methodology, the song repertoire. A significant role was played by the prominent musician and publicist Georgi Baydanov who first considered musical-pedagogical issues in his publications A Few Words on the Material and the Way of Teaching Singing in our Primary Schools” (1893), Opinion (1901), and The Music Education of Our Children (1904). 92 Кръстев, Венелин. Очерци по история на българската музика. – София: Музика, 1970, с. 122. 93 Бобев, Боби. Записки по история на България, 1878–1944. – София: Булвест 2000, 1992, с. 83. 116 Title pages of publications by Georgi Baydanov (1853–1927) A significant step in the stimulation of the creation of music for children was undertaken by the music teacher Dimo Boychev who, in 1905, put in Plovdiv the beginning of the so-called children’s musical potpourri performances and, in 1912, founded in Sofia the Union of Children’s Musical Potpourri Groups, whose statute was approved by the Ministry of Education. In 1936, there were 59 such groups all over the country. In practice, they represented children’s music societies which included first-grade pupils to third-grade junior-high-school pupils selected from different schools. Along with the children’s musical development and the creation of works tailored to the early-age performance skills, the potpourri performance groups also had a general education goal associated with the spirit of that time and the romantic belief in the ennobling role of art. Specially for the needs of that highly-perspective for the time musical and stage form in school practice, Maestro Georgi Atanasov wrote five small operettas on stories of popular Bulgarian folk tales treated in the spirit of the characteristic of the time sentimental-didactic moral tone and using mainly simple melodic folk-tone vocality: Bolniyat uchitel (The Sick Teacher) (1909), Za Ptichkite (About the Birds) (1911), Samodivskoto Izvorche (The Samodivski Sring) (1911), Malkiyat geroy (The Litle Hero) (1915), Zlatnoto Momiche (The Golden Girl) (1920). 117 Their own place in the history of children’s music had the songs written by Aleksandar Krastev. His first school songs collected in 30 Pesni na 2 i 3 Glasa za Osnovnite Uchilishta (30 Songs in 2 and 3 Voices fro Primary Schools) (1903), reissued in 1904, did not bring any particular melodic ingenuity but, in his later works, especially in the cycles Koledari and Lazarki, the author achieved an interesting metro-rhythmic and intonation colouring. The topical circle of children’s and school songs by A. Krastev was extremely wide: from folk customs and seasons and activities related to them to topics of religious and moral upbringing. Among the many songs for children printed in the 1920s mainly in various periodicals, most famous were Star Ovchar (Old Shepherd) (on the text by Ivan Vazov), Peperuda (Butterfly) (on the text by Elin Pelin), Koledarska Pesen (Christmas Song) (on the text by L. Bobevsky), Himn na Truda (Anthem of Labor) (on the text by P.R. Slaveykov), and others. Cover of Izvorcheto Pee Collection (The Small Spring Sings) with songs by Dobri Hristov (1937) K. L. The example of children’s potpourri performance groups was followed by a number of enthusiastic teachers. In the 1930s, choirs were set up at primary schools which presented one-act plays with music. The children’s theatrical activity developed, which stimulated the writing of a number of plays by authors such as Kalina Malina, Dora Gabe, Elin Pelin, and others. Among the authors of music for children, the composer Panayot Pipkov stood out, who created songs that are still present in school practice: Himn na Kiril i Metodiy Varvi, Narode Vazrodeni (Hymn of Cyril and Methodius March Ahead, Oh, People Revived) on the text by Stoyan Mihaylovski (1901) and Sladkopoyna Chuchuliga (Sweetsinging Lark) on the text by Tsonyo Kalchev (1903). His small operettas Shturets i Mravka (Cricket and Ant) (1910) and Detsa i Ptichki (Children and Birds) (1909) also gained a great popularity. His children’s songs were published in three collections (1902–1904). Children’s music was written by Emanuil Manolov – e.g. Hubava si, Tatkovino (Beautiful You Are, Fatherland) and Dobri Hristov, whose collections Detski Pesni (Children‘s Songs), 2 rolls in 1904; Roy Zvezditsi (A Swarm of Stars), 2 parts in 1925; and Izvorcheto Pee (The Small Spring Sings) in 1937, were particularly indicative of the enhanced development of music in that field. 118 119 School Cinematograph Originally, the newborn cinema was seen more as a fair entertainment than an art. In his memoirs, the director of the first Bulgarian feature film Vassil Gendov said: “The Sofia highlife began to visit the cinema only in 1910 and, at the beginning, only on the premier day of the programme and only from the second evening performance, driven by snobbery and, most often, by the desire to meet relatives and acquaintances there. Cinema served as a meeting point.” 94 It took years for the cinema to be taken seriously. It took years until the regular production of native films by native authors became a fact. The beginning of the production of Bulgarian feature films was put in 1915 with the film Balgaran e galant (The Bulgarian is Gallant). Initially, there were few films produced in Bulgaria. They were realized with limited funds and, mainly, thanks to the inspiration and the incredible continuous efforts of their authors, among whom were Vassil Gendov, Petar Stoychev, Aleksandar Vazov, Boris Grezhov, and others. A curious fact about the connection between the cinema and the art for children was the performance by Stoyan Popov – also known as Chicho Stoyan and one of the best known for his time writers of Bulgarian children’s literature – of the role of Bay Ganyo in Vassil Gendov’s film Bay Ganyo (1922). Unfortunately, we cannot talk about specialized children’s cinema in that period. At that time, however, the so-called school cinematograph became popular and was important not only because it promoted cinema as art but also because it allowed both regular screenings to Bulgarian spectators all over the country and the creation in students of habits of going to the cinema. Also, the school cinematograph played an important role in creating films, most of them documentary ones, which today are a wonderful video archive of that time. The cinemas in the country were extremely insufficient or there was none at all. For that reason, school buildings were a convenient option for displaying films. On the other hand, young students had a strong interest in watching films. That stimulated the allocation of state funds for the creation of Bulgarian documentaries as well as for the purchase of foreign films. In 1920, the Ministry of Education held a conference devoted to the opportunities of using cinema for education and upbringing purposes95. The first school cinematograph was opened in 1920 and was housed in the gym of First Sofia High School for Girls96. Director of the school cinematograph was Gercho Markovsky, doctor of physics, a longtime teacher and, obviously, a person with a mission, who realized that cinema, was a “new powerful lever for widespread science and culture.” 97 There was an idea that such school cinematographs be opened all over the country. The other purpose was to film Bulgarian documentary and educational films to be projected at schools and to educate the youth. That could also be defined as the first consistent care of the state towards the youngest art, its creation, and dissemination. In other words, although it was documentary cinema, that was the beginning of the state production of Bulgarian films. Together with school cinematographs, state mobile cinemas were created. And in 1930, the Cinematographs Act was adopted which regulated the organization and management of school and mobile cinemas. It ensured the provision of funding for those events through the Cinema Education Fund. There was also a special film library and the so-called film workshop or, as we would call it today, a film laboratory. In its pioneering period, the Bulgarian cinema could not take credit for the creation of films for children mainly because cinema was an expensive art and because it usually required special preparation and conditions. In Bulgaria, everything was slow to happen, especially that latest art. The school cinematograph was not only aimed at children’s audiences but had a very positive role both in the production of documentaries and the distribution of the new art and in the cultivation of public demand for cinema, especially in younger generations. That was why the school cinematograph occupied an important place in the cultural history of the Bulgarian 20th century. T. D. 94 Гендов, Васил. Трънливият път на българския филм. – София: Фабер, 2016, Българска национална филмотека, с. 37. Янакиев, Александър. Синема.bg. – София: Титра, 2003, с. 66. Ibid. 97 Кърджилов, Петър. Филмът „Балканската война“ в историята на българското кино. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, 2011, с. 132. 120 121 95 96 WOMEN IN MODERNIZATION OF BULGARIAN CULTURE Women’s Realization in Bulgarian Literature “Men and women are not only physically and spiritually different. Women should remain themselves even when they work. The greater the difference, the richer the literature and its radiance.”98 These words by Dora Gabe emphasized the distinction of literature created by women, insisting on its uniqueness. Beyond the subjective opinion of the great Bulgarian poetess, in the context of the literary theory and criticism, the division of artistic work by gender was repeatedly problematized and denied, for only talented works fit into the disputed or persistently canonized space of literary classics. In spite of the strict patriarchal regulation of the society, in the not yet liberated Bulgaria there were highly educated women such as Elena Muteva, Stanka Nikolitsa, Karamfila Stefanova, etc., who were remembered in our literary history with their poetic attempts. At the beginning of the 20th century, Mara Belcheva, Ekaterina Nencheva, and Dora Gabe embodied in their poems the women’s striving for love, romance, and independence. E. Nencheva was the first Bulgarian poetess who, although under a pseudonym99, dared to share the intimate feelings of women. In her only poetry book, Snezhinki (Snowflakes) (1909), she treated, in a painfully inmost way, the existential problems of the meaning of life and death100, the complex universe of relationships between men and women, and the dedicatory doom of motherly love. Dora Gabe (1888–1983) The personality and artistic work101 of M. Belcheva remained in the shadow of the impressive figure of Pencho Slaveykov. The poetic world of that remarkable woman, remembered by her contemporaries as one of the most intelligent and beautiful ladies of the Sofia society, was filled with Mara Belcheva (1868–1937) 98 с. 145. Кралева, Снежина. Докосване до Дора Габе. – София: Отечествен фронт, 1987, The poetess published mainly in the elite journal Misal (Thought) under the pseudonym Velerina 100 E. Nencheva died from tuberculosis too young – only at the age of 35. 101 Only in recent years, thanks to Professor Milena Kirova – compiler of two volumes (with A. Vacheva as author of the notes and the comments on them), the literary heritage of the poetess was published: Мара Белчева. Поезия. Т. 1 – София, 2018, с. 271; Мара Белчева. Проза и преводи. Т. 2. – София, 2018, с. 361. 122 123 99 Christian virtues and reflections on the transient values of being, on love as a sacred spiritual connection, on the pain from the loss of one’s beloved. It was a world of suffering, loyalty and stoicism, high morality and longing for harmony. The debut of D. Gabe was under the sign of the strong poetic influence – even open co-authorship – of P. K. Yavorov. Temenugi (Violets) (1908) was in the context of the secession poetics characteristic of the beginning of the century, rich in sentimental and naive experiences. Obviously, the young poetess and her mentors102 shared one and the same artistic vision about the poetry written by women. But Gabe emotionally kept as a sacred memory the existential and creative commitment repeatedly narrated and described by her, marked in a series of dedications in her wonderful mature poems. Early recognition of D. Gabe was her inclusion in the anthology Nashata poezia ot Vazov do dnes (Our poetry from Vazov to This Day) (1910), compiled by Dimcho Debelyanov and Dimitar Podvrazchov, which turned into an elitist model of the Bulgarian poetry of the beginning of the 20th century. What is important here is that it was not only a personal success for her but also the beginning of the spiritual emancipation of Bulgarian women – the first time a woman left the marginal area of literature, an act of overcoming prejudices, underestimation, and kind of “anonymity”. In the 1920s and 1930s, the socio-cultural status and role of women definitely changed. Women left the closed conservative space of family life and achieved success in the social and spiritual spheres which, until then, mainly belonged to men. Compared to the rights won by women in other European countries, Bulgarian women still did not have the status of equal persons. It was only in 1937 when a law was adopted to give women the right to vote though without the right to be elected to political positions. Although the law was too late, the role of women in the social and cultural life was becoming more and more tangible, and the women’s societies played an important role, with their number rising from twenty at the beginning of the century to sixty in 1925. Typical of those clubs, associations, and unions was that they were based on interests or regional principle. Active participants in the social, cultural, and political spheres and in the promotion of certain feminist positions unfamiliar to the Bulgarian 102 Редактор на книгата е Яворов, а съставител проф. Боян Пенев. 124 society were the following organizations: Club of Sofia Women, Thracian Women’s Union, and Association of Bulgarian Women with Higher Education, Association of Women Intellectuals, and others. Periodicals were also actively involved in the discussion of women’s emancipation in support of their right to choose for professional and personal realization. Newspapers, magazines and journals published many materials by Bulgarian authors and translated texts presenting current research on the social, economic, and legal situation of women, revealing the unique nature of women’s spiritual world through psychoanalysis, discussing taboo problems from their intimate lives. The cause of women’s equality in a cultural, historical, sexual, and domestic aspects was a subject of lectures, the latter being a very popular form of communication between intellectuals and the general public. Some of the most famous lecturers of that time considered the subject from different points of view: Professor Al. Balabanov sought the genesis of the problem in the context of ancient literature but also analytically evaluated the place of the Bulgarian Woman as a Lyrical Poet103. Kiril Krastev tried to sort out the intricate puzzle of the relationships between The New Man and the New Woman in Love; his views were also depicted in his book of essays Savremennata Lyubov (Modern Love) (1939). Provocative with the open treatment of the question of women’s free sexual choice – despite the traditional moral constraints and conservative views of the society – was the study by Nayden Sheytanov The Sexual Philosophy of the Bulgarian. Introduction to Our Nonofficial Folklore104. During that period, the periodic press marked an unprecedented bloom. More than fifty journals, magazines and newspapers for women were published with different thematic and conceptual orientations, some of them with a fleeting existence, but others with a long-standing and authoritative presence in the cultural life. The most popular, most read, and most influential not only on the Bulgarian women’s lifestyle but also on the literary trends during the two decades of its existence was Vestnik na Zhenata (Women’s Newspaper) (1921–1944), with editor Hristo Cholchev. In an accessible language, it discussed from current themes of 103 Балабанов, Александър. Българката като лирически поет. // Пряпорец, № 102, 7.05.1914. 104 Шейтанов, Найден. Сексуалната философия на българина. // Златорог, ХХІІ, 1932, № 3, с. 342. 125 Vestnik na Zhenata (Women’s Newspaper) (1921–1944) fashion, culinary art, and family relations to in-depth political analyzes. The newspaper covered the whole range of women’s world: from the daily routine of housewives to the feminist struggle to win new rights; from cooking recipes and fashion tips to literary works selected with exquisite artistic taste. In this sense, Vestnik na Zhenata (Women’s Newspaper) was an institution – its co-operator was the intellectual elite of the time, but the works by women had a sovereign place on its pages and, thus, it played an exceptional role in legitimizing women in the cultural space. The talented female presence was characteristic of all other artistic spheres though. More and more Bulgarian women were working as lecturers at the Sofia University. In the National Theatre, actresses played and their roles left a lasting impression in its history: Adriana Budevska, Zorka Yordanova, Marta Popova, Olga Kircheva and others. In 1928 Bulgarian women artists (Elisaveta Konsulova-Vazova, Ruska Marinova, Vera Lukova, Ana Balsamadzhieva, Mara Tsoncheva, etc.) organized their first solo exhibition opened by D. Gabe. They received recognition not only in the country but also at great artistic exhibitions at the centres of European art: Rome, Paris, Vienna, London and Leipzig. Remarkable was also the triumph of the Bulgarian women opera singers. Hristi126 na Morfova, Maya Hristova-Frateva, Lilyana Dobri Hristova, and others conquered the European stages and set the beginning of the extremely successful until today opera art school. Going back to the women writers from the 1920s to the 1940s, to their ever-increasing popularity among the readers, the increasingly enthusiastic ratings that their books received from authoritative critics, we should add their institutional recognition as well. Prizes of the Ministry of National Enlightenment were received by D. Gabe (1922) and E. Bagryana (1924) and M. Belcheva’s Soneti (Sonnets) (1925) received the best-poetry-book-of-the-year prize. Their works and, in the 1930s, those of Magda Petkanova, Ana Kamenova, Yana Yazova, Maria Grubeshlieva, Fani Popova-Mutafova, and others were included in anthologies issued abroad105. Bulgarian women writers received international recognition with translations of their works and reviews in English, French, Polish, Italian, German, Serbian, and other European languages. In the country, they did a huge amount of translation, very precise as a creative transformation. Readers got to know the poetry of Anna Akhmatova and Marina Tsvetaeva (E. Bagryana), contemporary and classical Russian prose (M. Grubeshlieva), the work of Jan Kasprowicz and other Polish poets (D. Gabe), Desanka Максимовић and Jiří Wolker (Blenika), and a number of other authors. Special contributor to the reception of the German philosophical thought and classical literature in Bulgaria was M. Belcheva with the translation of F. Nietzsche’s Also sprach Zarathustra (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) and G. Hauptmann’s Die versunkene Glocke (The Sunken Bell) as well as many other translations printed in the literature publications. In 1921 D. Gabe published her Anthology of Polish Poetry, which became a cultural event. 1927 was a notable year for the Bulgarian literature created by women. Vera Boyadzhieva and Sanda Yovcheva published Literaturen Sbornik Nashi Pisatelki (Our Women Writers Literary Collection)106. The uniting in it was the women’s worldview, the specific attitude of women towards the world, the complex vibrations of women’s emotionality; all that made their work not only talented but also different in the field of 105 In 1938, Gustav Heinse published an anthology of the Bulgarian literature with poems of E. Bagryana 106 An important cultural and historical significance have the two editions of the Club of Bulgarian Women Writers – the collections Snop I (1934) and Snop II (1937), which not only collected the best works created by women but were also kind of a ritual act of their public affirmation. 127 Elisaveta Bagryana (1893–1991) artistic verbalism. In the same year, Magda Petkanova made her debut in literature with Makedonski Pesni (Macedonian Songs)107. In this poetry book as well as in her later poetry, the revolutionary-romantic gestures and social dramatism were refracted through the optics of the loving and expecting woman who preserved the sacred family cosiness. The subject of maternity as duty and responsibility, anxious trial and all-pervading affection, ran like a red thread through all her work. In M. Petkanova’s late verses the bared sensitivity and the sentimental colouring of experience were transformed into an analytical, philosophical introvert attitude to existential and moral-ethical issues. Permanent topics in her poetic world were the clash between illusions and reality, the transience of youth and happiness and lonely maturity, love like pain and unfulfilled expectations. Her lyrical heroine is divided between the burdensome duties of everyday life and the ambition of the modern woman to be an independent and free person, between the pursuit of spiritual realization and the limiting norms of the patriarchal home. M. Petkanova’s poetic style was heavily influenced by folklore and some of her poems were perceived and performed as folk songs, the most popular of which was Ako Zazhalish Nyakoy Den (If You Feel Sad One Day). The end of 1927 marked the triumphant beginning of E. 107 The poetry book was released with the signature of Magda Mineva. 128 Bagryana’s long artistic presence in the Bulgarian literature. Her debut book, Vechnata I Svyatata (The Eternal and Sacred), was not just enthusiastically accepted by the critics but occupied an unmistakable place in the literary canon – an area into which a woman had never been admitted so far. What was more: E. Bagryana became an award-winning classic of the Bulgarian poetry. Vechnata I Svyatata (The Eternal and Holy) created a high model which not only the other poets but also E. Bagryana herself found it difficult to stick to on her rough creative way. That enormous artistic success was connoted with a deep personal tragedy: the death of her beloved Professor B. Penev that same year. Bagryana’s lyric heroine is a modern woman with free will and choice who boldly rejects prejudices and overrides traditional limitations. She is an independent, rebellious, and challenging bacchante. She is a wanderer who carries the memory of other women and other destinies. She is the woman – loved and loving, doomed to a tragically interrupted or dramatically impossible love. She is a person who violates the trivial norms of sedentary and home, and shakes the traditional notions of wife and mother. She is doomed to travelling and voyages. Cities, exotic and favourite, are shared intimate spaces: Brittany or Paris. She travels around the world with open eyes and open imagination, not only to get to know the world but also to get to know herself through the challenges and temptations it offers to her. The heroine’s experiences are situated in moving temporal strata. They are a metaphorized picture of people’s being, in which moments and eternity and memories of past lives and dreams of new horizons meet to arrange the puzzle of scattered pieces of longing for wings and roots, home and vast open spaces; to gather in an absurd unity the good and the evil, the beautiful and the ugly; to reconcile love and death. The omnipotent power of death, pain and disappointment implies the reflection of life as a work – beautiful, enticing, cruel, and unique. This very complex and multifaceted reality characterizes Bagryana’s poetic world in Zvezdata na Moryaka (The Star of the Seaman) (1932) and Sartse Choveshko (Heart of Man) (1036). Those poetry books broadened the thematic horizons of the Bulgarian poetry of the 1930s. But they encoded the changed lyrical self. The way is no longer filled with miracles; it does not only lead to safe shores. The lyrical heroine is wiser, intellectually more introverted, and socially more critical. Vitality gives way to responsibility, Amazon’s passion to loneliness; the woman descendant’s mystical impulse for eternity faces the impossibility of the spirit to protect the perishable body. Bagryana’s po9. Bulgarian 20th Century... 129 etry treated not only the existential problems of the 1930s; it shaped the spiritual identity of the emancipated woman. In 1928 D. Gabe’s book Zemen Pat (Earthly Path) was published. The lyric heroine is a mature woman who left the sentimental-naive illusions and the decorative ornamentation of the outside world in order to focus her emotions and intelligence on the exploration of new spiritual spaces. In this complex crossroad situation, she is lonely, homeless and unheard, burdened with memories, realizing the transience of love, asking herself the anxious questions of the meaning of one’s earthly path that steadily leads to the inevitable, frightening but also mystical and attracting beyond. Yet, this is not a traumatic-pessimistic poetry. The lyric world of D. Gabe is filled with the little wonders of the day, the hope for beauty and harmony. The strong impact of her poetic word is due not only to the open-hearted confession accentuated by critics but also to the complex thematic and style syntheses that it makes. In the poems of D. Gabe, there are psychological, cultural, and philosophical layers laid one over the other and not just marked; the poetess penetrates into their deep essence to rationalize the mysteries of being. The poems from the poetry book Lunatichka (Dream-walker Woman) (1937) are emblematic for the filigree syntheses which intertwine folklore archetypes, social gestures, introverted self-knowledge, and personal confession. The images, metaphors and associations characteristic of the poetry of the 1930s, driving away from the dominant aesthetics of symbolism, form some kind of concentric circles. The poetic phrases not only sound in a melancholic-musical rhythm; there are colours and shapes overlaid in them like in embroidery to create the magic of women’s worldview and to share women’s knowledge suffered. The constantly increasing attention to the presence of women in the Bulgarian literature implied the realization of the repeatedly discussed in the periodic press idea of creating a women writers’ union. Together with the cooperation of the Society of Bulgarian Women with Higher Education, on 24.01.1930 a Club of Bulgarian Women Writers was created. Among the founders were D. Gabe, E. Bagryana, M. Petkanova, M. Belcheva, Evgenia Mars, Ana Kamenova, F. Popova-Mutafova, and others. The programme of the Club aimed to support the artistic realization of the Bulgarian women artists, to promote their works in Bulgaria and abroad, to discover and encourage new talents, to realize social and cul- tural activities, to organize lectures, literary evenings, and anniversary celebrations. The active and very talented wave of women’s creativity in literature, theatrical critique, and journalism (with its most prominent representatives being A. Kamenova, Lydia Shishmanova, M. Petkanova), of travel literature (A. Kamenova, Y. Yazova, V. Boyadzhieva), of philosophical essayistic writing (Zhana Galabova, Vesela Vasileva) was noticed by the researchers of the cultural processes of the 1930s and 1940s not only in Bulgaria but also abroad. In that period, valuable books were released that gave significance to the presence of women in the spiritual life. Some of them were: Anton Strashimirov’s Zheni i Mazhe v Zhivota na Literaturata (Women and Men in the Life of Literature) (1930); Sonya Vicheva’s Nashite Pisatelki (Our Women Writers) (1939); Petar Gornenski’s Vdahnoveni Zheni (Inspired Women) (1938), and others. A number of analytical texts were also published, giving significance – both theoretically and historically – to the trends in women’s literature. In the socio-cultural context of that period, one of the most productive women writers was Fani Popova-Mutafova. Highly educated – a graduated pianist in Munich – she was part of the intellectual elite not only in our country but also in Germany. Her very connection to the German culture – organized exhibitions of the German book, active work in the European Union of Writers , were the “grounds” of the People’s Court which accused her of subversive fascist activity. The woman writer was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and her books for decades (after 1944) were under the sign of strict ideological bans. During the period under review, however, the novels of F. Popova-Mutafova were very popular. M. Kirova called her “the first bestselling author of historical prose”108 in Bulgaria. Characterized as a mass trivial literature, her novels actually incorporated in the fiction of the artistic space authentic historical facts, some of which were little known as the author made in-depth studies of historical documents, archaic chronicles, and scientific research. The historical stories of Solunskiyat Chudotvorets (The Wonder Worker of Thessaloniki) I-II (1929–1930), Dashteryata na Kaloyana (The daughter of Kaloyan) (1936), Tsar Ivan Assen II (1937), and other novels of hers were narrated in a fascinating and intriguing manner. The narrative is dynamic, with dra- 130 131 108 Кирова, Милена. Между традицията и еманципацията. Българските писателки във времето 1944–1989 г. В: Неслученият канон. Български писателки от 1944 година до наши дни. – София: Алтера, 2013, с. 7. matic twists and turns; in every phrase, the high culture of the intellectual, seeking the philosophical meaning of the historical happening, is evident. The word for F. Popova-Mutafova was her fate; it carried that high degree of self-awareness of the woman artist, who, though with effort, gained her worthy place in the Bulgarian literature. Her novels, which most often drew the epic image of a heroic-romantic or tragic era, were precisely structured in the plot-frame composition; the writer’s imagination sought the intersections between the legendary – which inevitably accompanied the distant past – and the real traits of the historical characters, between the canonical in the images of the national heroes (Hristo Botev, Vasil Levski, Angel Kanchev) and the forgotten or neglected messages that those personalities and events carried over time. In this sense, the national in her novels has much more complex and deeper dimensions than the pathetic nationalism she was many times blamed for. The debut book of Yana Yazova Yazove (Dams) (1931) was under the sign of her artistic closeness and scandalous love with Prof. Al. Balabanov. Read through the optics of avant-garde which radically and vividly invaded in the Bulgarian literature in the 1930s, the poems in the book as well as those in her later books Bunt (Revolt) (1933) and Krastove (Crosses) (1934) sharply moved away from the trivial love and sentimental problems characteristic of the women’s poetry of that time. They were a successful surrealist experiment in which the poetic imagery, rebellious spirit, bared social reflection, painful visions, strange rhythm, and violation of the genre norms and volumes characteristic of the Bulgarian poetry made of her verses original avant-garde experiments. That was namely what her poetry shocked the readers and the then critics with, and the literary speech even saw spectacular mystification of authorship. After 9 September 1944, the artistic and everyday life of Yana Yazova was too difficult. She did not want to make compromises by writing custom works under the ideologemes of the socialist realism. Her poetic and prose works were completely forgotten. Yana Yazova lived in isolation, but documentarily studied Bulgarian history and worked actively. However, political censorship did not allow the novels created during that period to be issued. After her death, the circumstances of which remained unclear, the first copies of her works were appropriated. A monumental epic for the Bulgarian national liberation heroics – the Balkans trilogy – was published on copies kept in her archive. The novels Levski (1987), Benkovski (1988), and Ship- ka (1989) (parts of the trilogy) as well as her other fictional works published posthumously, marked the return of Yana Yazova in the Bulgarian literature. They enjoyed an extraordinary reader’s interest and brought the writer her deserved, though late, recognition as a literary classic. This text attempted to trace the metamorphoses in the concept of the woman as an artist and person. Of course, it does not claim to be exhaustive; it marked various life stories and talented literary achievements in the socio-political and cultural context of a period in which, though with effort but irreversibly, important existential, social, and institutional changes in the women’s identity, worldview, and positions occurred. A period in which the poetry and prose created by women were realized in a challenging and bright manner and received their deserved public recognition, though still a small part of them found their place not only in the narrow space of the canon but also in the contemporary curricula. 132 133 E. T. The Society of Female Artists in Bulgaria In 1924, a Society of Women with Higher Education was established in Bulgaria, having three sections: lawyers, writers, and artists. In 1925, the Society became a member of the International Federation of University Women109. It was the society that organized the first exhibition by women artists in 1928, which became an annual event in the 1930s. The first exhibition by women artists in Bulgaria took place from 1 to 14 January 1928 at the State Academy of Arts. Paintings, drawings, etchings, sculpture and ceramic works were shown. Among the participants were Elisaveta Konsulova-Vazova, Nevena Gancheva, Vera Ivanova, Ekaterina Savova, Natalia Futekova, Olga Shehanova, Vaska Emanuilova. The fact of the creation of the Society of Women Artists in Bulgaria as well as the regularly organized women’s exhibitions in the 1930s spoke of a social need to distinguish female participation in the field of fine arts. The modern times in Bulgaria as well as the formation of cultural institutions occurred late (after the establishment of the independent state), which was why there was no experience in the fight for the rights and access of women to vocational education. In Europe, between 1900 and 1930, the number of women participating in artists’ societies, presenting in common exhibitions, and organizing individual ones increased significantly. In our country, the number of Vestnik na Zhenata (Woman’s Newspaper), 1931, No. 457, 13 June. Article by V. Boyadzhieva Даскалова, Красимира. Жени, пол и модернизация в България, 1878 – 1944. – София: Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 2012. 109 134 Vestnik na Zhenata (Woman’s Newspaper), 1935, No. 609, 20 April. Article by D. Drumev women educated in the field of fine arts and members of professional societies grew considerably after the World War I in the 1920s and, especially, in the 1930s. Their social composition also expanded to some extent but was still much more limited than that of men. The women artists were mainly from the big cities. In the 1920s, many of them specialized abroad but, like in the first decades of the 20th century, almost everyone studied at their parents’ expense and received no state scholarship. The women artists in Bulgaria, like elsewhere, were encouraged to work mainly in the field of applied arts. In the 1930s, Sirak Skitnik wrote about one of the women’s exhibitions: “It is a pity that women artist do not have vivid interest in applied arts – it is there they could actually demonstrate both taste and ingenuity. “110 In critical articles, women often got advice on what they should draw according to the conventional view of “female nature”. Similar was the situation in England, France, and other European countries. From a pragmatic point of view, it was believed that home-related arts were the most promising area for finding paid employment. At the same time, the social stereotypes linked women’s artistic appearance with the home decor and the decorative arts, which took the low levels of the artistic hierarchy. According to History of Women, female identities were multiplied towards the end of the 19th century in Western Europe111. Along with the images of 110 с. 233. 111 Сирак Скитник. Изложбата на жените художнички. // Златорог, № 5, 1937, Duby, Georges, Perrot, Michelle. Histoire des femmes en Occident, Vol. V, Plon, 2002, с. 14. 135 the wife and mother, those of the working, emancipated, unmarried woman also appeared. The practicing in life as well as the presentation/ expression of different identities often created tensions and contradictions. It is worthy of notice that many of the women artists in our country who worked in the late 1920s and 1930s did not create a family: they never married or gave birth to children. It was as if the women who had chosen the career of artist understood that they could not reconcile work and private life with the same ease as men did. In Western Europe, the image of the unmarried woman, happy with her status, emerged during the last decades of the 19th century and was associated with the Western modernity. Women from wealthy environment who worked in various art areas had a desire and could travel and study foreign cultures. In Bulgaria, that image was represented and expressed in the paintings by Vera Nedkova, Vera Lukova, Zoya Paprikova, Todorka Burova, Nevena Gancheva, etc. in the paintings of the 1920s. The professional identity and self-esteem of women were expressed in self-portraits in which the women artists presented themselves with attributes of the artistic profession: brushes, palettes, etc. The modern city was the new frame for the image of the woman – in self-portraits or portraits of fashionably dressed women with short-cut hair against the background of high buildings and electric lanterns. After the World War I, the presence of women artists in representative exhibitions and societies became more noticeable. It was then when new artists’ societies appeared: Rodno Izkustvo (Native Art) (1919), Nezavisimite Hudozhnitsi (Indipendent Artists) (1920), Severobulgarskite Hudozhnitsi (North Bulgarian Artists) (1920). But the interest of women artists in their participation in the institutions of artistic life seemed to remain unformulated until 1928 when the Society of Women Artists was founded. We can assume that the societies did not sufficiently address the issue of socializing the work of women until then. The other and, perhaps, the most significant reason was the activation of the women’s movement in Bulgaria at that time. The first exhibition by women artists in Bulgaria evoked different reactions. The social meaning of such an expression of women was discussed: “Here we have seen the talent of the woman and her creative energy in the field of plastic arts, which were known even without this exhibition, as a collective exhibition rarely took place without the participation of women artists. [...] However, here we have been given the opportunity to ascertain, on a larger scale, the results and efforts of the 136 Vera Lukova (1907–1974) Self-portrait in a hat, 1931, oil on canvass, 100 х 80 cm. Nikolay Shmirgela Centre-Studio Todorka Burova (1902–1985) Self-portrait, End of 1920s – beginning of 1930s, oil on canvass, 35.5 х 40.5 cm. Private collection Vera Nedkova (1908–1996) Self-portrait, 1936, oil on plywood (double-sided), 97.5 х 40.3 cm. National Gallery, Sofia, Vera Nedkova Museum House 137 woman in this creative field and to complete our notion of what was a fact.“112 In those and similar lines, it was found that women participated in other exhibitions equally with men but it cost them more effort and was more successful for them. Exhibitions like that distinguished the presence of women and, at the same time, affirmed it. Women artists could be flattered at that success. The artistic qualities were also discussed: “The exhibition was varied in terms of techniques and plots and, partly, of directions.“113 The laconicity of the writer in that case meant that the artistic work was assessed as lacking in personality or “nothing special”. Nikola Balabanov, in an article about the exhibition by the Society of Women Artists in 1935, also considered the similarity of their works to those of the “male” art as inferiority. “The efforts of the Society [...] could not establish the image of the woman artist. Her art is still the traditional art of our time: searching for ways, adapting to social conditionality, searching for the Bulgarian nature without the latter being felt in a different way by the lyrical soul of the Bulgarian woman artist.“114 On the occasion of another exhibition of the Society, Sirak Skitnik asked the main question: “Is the way of experience and vision of women and men the same? It is in that particular atmosphere that determines the woman’s attitude to the world and things where the woman’s art would acquire a new intrigue, a new value no matter how imperfect it still is. It is true that our woman artist is experiencing a period of learning, orientation, and is unwillingly learning from the patterns of men artists. However, this does not prevent her from consciously keeping her own identity from imposing her look on her artistic works ... “115. The “specifics of the female art” compared to the art of men were discussed in many critical articles. Exhibitions by Bulgarian women artists in Belgrade and Zagreb were organized in 1938. The exhibitions featured 45 women artists and sculptors with about 180 works. An article in the Zagreb newspaper Obzor again raised the question of the need to express Catalogue of the exhibition by women artists from Bulgaria in Belgrade, 1937. Library of the Institute of Art Studies, Sofia the “specifics of the temper and soul” of women artists. It was reproached the works of the Bulgarian women artists were not “specifically women’s ones showing some new abilities” and that they were “not yet strong enough and individual” to build their own vision of artistic problems (implicitly, “different to that of men”). Exhibition of women artists in Aksakov Gallery Publication in Dnevnik Newspaper, Central State Archive, Fund 1771 k Из художествения свят. // Художествена култура, 1927–1928, № 5–6, Ibid. 114 Балабанов, Никола. Дружеството на жените художнички. // Завети, 1935, № 4–5. 115 Сирак Скитник. Изложбата на жените художнички. // Златорог, 1937, № 5. 112 113 138 139 In the discourse of the articles cited, the professional merits and disadvantages of women were determined through their “natural” qualities. This phenomenon was common in the process of professionalization of women in the modern age. Therefore, the criticism of language and attention to texts became so important in the history of women. Those comments contained contradictions and ambiguity similar to the situation of women in artistic life. After the formal institutional involvement of women in education, their participation in the exhibition life, the reviews of specialized critics, they seemed not to be impeded in their manifestations. Despite the seemingly liberal nature of the Bulgarian art relationships, women remained at the border of the institutions, the public and private space, the professional practice associated with material security and income-free amateurism. In critical economic times, their problems were exacerbated. I. G. Women in Architecture Although there were single cases of ladies with higher education in Construction at the end of the 19th century, the entry of women into the architectural profession became obvious only in the first decades of the following 20th century. Some of the first academies to allow the graduation of women architects were in Helsinki, Darmstadt, Belgrade, Bucharest, and Vienna. In Bulgaria, as early as after the World War I, several women started to work as full-fledged architects. Two significant examples were MariaLuisa Doseva-Georgieva, who graduated in 1917 in Darmstadt, and Viktoria Angelova-Vinarova, who graduated from the Polytechnics in Dresden in 1925. The designs by Maria Luisa Doseva included Boulevard Hotel in Burgas as well as a number of residential and school buildings. Viktoria Angelova-Vinarova was the designer of the building of the Ministry of Public Buildings, Roads, and Public Works in Sofia (now functioning as Sofia Library) as well as of several high schools, hospitals, and blocks of flats. The first publications by a woman architect in the edition of the Society of Bulgarian Architects belonged to Richka Krastanova. Her in-depth work on housing issues lasted for several decades. The contest designs of public buildings made by the spouses’ duo of Elena Varakdzhieva and Genko Skordev, were often awarded and published on the pages of the professional periodicals. The German citizen Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, one of the first women to graduate from the University of Applied Arts in Vienna, lived in our capital from 1945 to 1947 and designed a kindergarten in the post-war Sofia. The number of women accounted for only 5–6% of the total number of architects working in Bulgaria until the middle of the 20th century. However, ladies actively designed, worked in societies or on their own, in private or government offices. At the same time, “of all 26 women architects who finished their education before the end of the World War II, 16 were married to colleagues ...”, Lyubinka Stoilova wrote in her study116 and added that 116 Стоилова, Любинка. Българските архитектки между двете световни войни. Образование и социален статус на пионерките. // Граници на гражданството: Европейските жени между традицията и модерността: Сб. материали от международна конференция, съст. К. Даскалова, Р. Гаврилова. – София, 2001, с. 280–301. 140 141 Women in Early Bulgarian Cinema Kindergarden N:1, Bregalnica Str. № 48117, Sofia. Design of architect Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky because of teamwork “family co-operation was one of the most stable ways of professional establishment of women architects.” Gender also partly determined the typology of designs that women often focused on: schools, hospitals, kindergartens, blocks of flats, and small residential buildings. Although effectively implemented, they were seldom assigned symbolic or representative functions. Given the diversity and quality of their architectural legacy, we could define the work of women architects as first-class and conscientiously accomplished. However, we should not look for a special, “purely female” side of their worldview and the architecture created. At the same time, as authors, they fit perfectly into the existing stylistic context and pace of development in the country. S. T. 117 Source: Archive of the Institute of Art Studies 142 In the first 3 to 4 decades of the 20th century, both globally and in Bulgaria, women who were engaged in cinema were mostly actresses. Women directors, producers, screenwriters were extremely rare. They were slowly entering the “serious” cinema professions but, still, there were such even in Bulgaria. In the period from the beginning of the 20th century to the World War II, two Bulgarian cinema workers were known for their significant contribution to the Bulgarian culture and, in particular, the cinema. Those were Zhana Gendova and Fani Popova-Mutafova. The first book of Bulgarian film theory and criticism was Opit za Estetika na Kinoto (A Try for Aesthetics of Cinema) by Kiril Krastev in 1929. In addition, the various periodicals as well as the specialized cinema publications were written by the prominent intellectuals of that time. Among them, a significant place (having in mind both qualitative and quantitative criteria) should be assigned to Fani Popova-Mutafova although her critical reviews were less known to the general public. She was the first Bulgarian woman to write cinema reviews at a time when the cinema criticism was making its first steps. Her reviews were regularly published in prestigious cinema periodicals such as Nasheto Kino. In the book Cinema.bg, the cinema critic Aleksandar Yanakiev selected and published some of the most impressive reviews of that time. Among them, there were two written by Fani PopovaMutafova. Fani Popova-Mutafova was an exceptional woman. A writer, public figure, and intellectual, who possessed the talent of a writer and an indomitable spirit. She managed to achieve what was reserved only for men writers in Bulgaria before her appearance. After 1944, she had difficult times; she was sent to prison and forbidden to work. Until that moment, she actively wrote reviews of various cultural events, including film reviews. In a number of them, she praised the women who devoted themselves to that art. For example, F. PopovaMutafova expressed her enthusiasm for the cast of the main female character of the film Byalata Sestra118 (The White Sister) “There 118 „The White Sister“ (1923), dir. Henry King 143 has never been a film in which the art of an artist prevails to such an extent that only one character remains and overshadows everything else in the film. In Byalata Sestra, we can see only that little white sister. And she is enough for us. We watch her in many and long actions and that is never enough. And everything else is just a set for Lillian Gish’s play119.” Fani Popova-Mutafova was a sophisticated intellectual, a lover of high art, and her assessments were erudite and a pleasure to read even today. She achieved a remarkable career and glory and, before she reached the age of forty, she received national recognition in her field. She was popular among the people and a favourite of the readers. The role of a cinema critic that she played at her own will allowed her to work on her own and be independent. In the practice of collective cinema art, the opportunities for the realization of a woman during the period under consideration were far more difficult to realize. The first woman to be successful in the field of cinema production in the early years of the Bulgarian cinema was Zhana Gendova. She was the constant supporter of the pioneer of the Bulgarian film – Vassil Gendov. According to her own memoirs, she and Vassil met in 1916 and, thus, her march began on the uneven paths of the newly-born Bulgarian cinema, which, in her person, won an extraordinary engine, an enthusiast and, later, a professional, as the cinema was slowly and gradually becoming professional thanks to the work of people like Zhana Gendova and Vassil Gendov. It could be said that Zhana Gendova was the first woman producer in the Bulgarian cinema as, after her acquaintance with Gendov, she was so attracted not only to him but also to making films that she withdrew all the money her father had saved for her education – about 680 leva – and gave it to Gendov with the words: “The film will be shot. We do have the money. “120 That was the beginning of the shooting of the film Lyubovta e Ludost (Love is Folly), which is also the oldest preserved Bulgarian film. There were, still, many difficult battles to finance Vassil Gendov’s next films. Generally, for almost a year, the Gendov family toured the country and 119 Попова-Мутафова, Фани. „Бялата сестра“. // Нашето кино, 01.10.1926, бр. 71. Cited after Янакиев, Александър. Синема.bg. – София: Титра, 2003, с. 291–292. 120 Гендова, Жана. Това, което се премълчава в историята на българския филм. – София: Фабер, Българска национална филмотека, 2016, с. 11. 144 Zhana Gendova Archive of the Bulgarian National Film Library played theatrical performances in small towns and large villages. All the money earned during those long tours was spent for the purchase of tapes and, after that, the next film was shot. Zhana joined her husband many times when he had to knock on the doors of ministers, wealthy and influential people and regularly ask them for money so that he could buy some more tape or pay someone’s fee. Zhana Gendova was also the main actress in all her husband’s next films. Her memoirs started with a replica which was not only very eloquent but, also, quite true: “Bulgarian films are my whole life!”121 Zhana Gendova’s credits to the early Bulgarian cinema were undoubted. Her decision to engage in cinema was predetermined by her acquaintance with Vassil Gendov. The fact that she worked with her husband was not insignificant. At those times, a woman in Bulgaria could not produce or direct films herself. However, this does not diminish her personal contribution. She is considered one of the pioneers of the Bulgarian cinema, along with her husband Vassil Gendov. There were no such events in the field of cinema as those organized by the Bulgarian women artists in the fields of fine arts and literature, so there were no lenient, encouraging or any at all comments with regard to the women in the Bulgarian cinema (except for individual reviews of the 121 Гендова, Жана. Това, което се премълчава в историята на българския филм. – София: Фабер, Българска национална филмотека, 2016, с. 7. 10. Bulgarian 20th Century... 145 play of some actresses). While there were many women artists in the field of fine arts, in the field of the seventh art, Zhana Gendova was the only woman so dedicated to the cinema: a producer, assistant director, make-up artist, scenographer, and actress. She was not professionally trained as she had no such chance, not only because of her gender but mostly because of the “young age” of the seventh art. However, Zhana Gendova was one of the first cinema professionals in Bulgaria. Zhana Gendova and Fani Popova-Mutafova were two outstanding, though very different, women; what they had in common was their contribution to the early Bulgarian cinema. T. D. THE NEW CENTURY AND THE TRANSITION FROM REALISM TO MODERNISM IN LITERATURE The beginning of the 20th century bore the sign of the polemic clash between tradition and modernity. The pushing apart (sometimes painful) from the patriotic enthusiasm and social and everyday life issues also implied a change in the aesthetic paradigm in which the literature, the personality of the artist, and his mission were thought. The merger between writers and people, which found its most vivid embodiment in the face of Vazov and his canonical perception as a patriarch of the Bulgarian literature, gave way to the unique creative individuality. In their different ways, Pencho Slaveykov, Peyo Yavorov, and Petko Todorov pushed the Bulgarian literature to the modern one through the spiritual rebellion against the popular, profane, against the “social sadness – that cracked violin playing the most worn melodies122.” Their work led the Bulgarian literature onto the bridge of decadence and placed it in a new context – that of modernity. The transition was philosophically grounded and analytically interpreted in founding studies and articles by Dr. Krastev as well as in a series of texts by P. P. Slaveykov, most of which of a manifest nature. It was them who, with the consciousness of cultural missionaries, marked the border that outlined the conflicting oppositions of young and old; past and modern times. The first decade of the 20th century was the crossroads of achieving by the Bulgarian literature of the self-consciousness of an autonomous spiritual space. The differences between styles and genres were clearly outlined: the documentary-publicistic was not aesthetically equivalent to the artistic fictionality as the talk of the town was despised by the exquisite verbalism. That implied the aesthetic polysemy and heterogeneity of the Bulgarian modernism. Set in the national sociocultural context, it invariably reflected its specificity and colouring but, 122 146 Славейков, Пенчо. Предговор към П. К. Яворов „Стихотворения”, 1904, с. 4. 147 Nikola Petrov, Portrait of Silva Mara (Mara Belcheva) in Na Ostrova na Blazhenite by Pencho Slaveykov. 1910. and the painful sensibility of the modern man. The image of the beloved woman most precisely synthesized the realistic touch and the symbolic metaphysics, the untouchable and the demonic in the image of the woman, the confrontation of two aesthetics culminating in the tragic act of suicide. In his prose, Georgi Stamatov also combined the dimensions of the realistic tradition with modern storyline and innovative style inventions. He made the city’s topos not just a background but a sinister metaphor. His discerning psychological dissection revealed (very often in a satirical way) the deformation of the personality, the cheapened patriarchal morality, insincerity, and hypocrisy even in relations traditionally perceived as sacred. Elin Pelin asserted the realistic line in the literature in the era of Modernism but without being old-fashioned. In the classical for the Bulgarian literature plots, he imparted the psychological reflexes of the modern personality refracted through the optics of the bitter experience and the suffered wisdom, the scepticism, and the cleverness of the Bulgarian man. His stories, in spite of their specificity and storyline simplicity, turned into metaphors of human life. Thus, they broke the unique dimensions of the social issues and provoked analytical consideration of the metaphysical problems of good and evil, life and death, the possibility to choose and the inability to change the fate. at the same time, could not be thought beyond the general ideological and artistic features of the French, Russian, and German modernism. In that sense, the Bulgarian modernism or Bulgarian modernisms, as artistic phenomena should be called more precisely, were critically and theoretically conceived in a series of manifesto texts. They changed the Bulgarian literature thematically, linguistically, and stylistically; opened it to a free, productive dialogue with the other arts. The temporal boundaries of the Bulgarian modernism were mobile because it was not only a literary-historical period but also a process that passed through different stages, manifestations, creative realizations, and aesthetic transformations. In the transition to modernism and its versatile manifestations, a number of periodicals with a common cultural and literary direction played a significant role: Misal Journal (1892–1907) Hudozhnik Journal (1905– 1909), Balgaran Newspaper (1904–1909), and others. A journal with a modernist orientation was also A. Strashimirov’s Nash Zhivot (1901– 1912). It could be seen as a bridge between the aesthetic paradigms of Misal and the symbolism. However, in a series of texts (mainly by Dimo Kyorchev), the scientific approach and systematisation were denied as well as the critical system in general, the latter introduced by Dr. Krastev as a method of the literary criticism. Dimitar Boyadzhiev’s poetry was at the threshold between the classic romantic worldview marked by the colour of the folk archetypes In the years of intense cultural development, there could not be only one concept of literature, no matter how well theoretically rationalized or brilliantly and creatively applied. In the era of modernity, the aesthetic processes happened rapidly. The elitist literary model imposed by the Misal circle, with a strong emphasis on individualism, gave way to the first theoretically grounded and most sustainable aesthetic direction in Bulgaria: the symbolism. In his texts, mainly published in Hyperion (1922–1931), Ivan Radoslavov, its most zealous and consistent critic and theorist, believed that the Bulgarian symbolism, as a dominant aesthetic direction, evolved under the sign of Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy 148 149 Symbolism and the poetry of Charles Baudler. But the entire concept of the journal was dominated by the term Modernism and, probably because of that, the symbolism, even in its later period of the 30s of the 20th century, continued to embody the Bulgarian modernism. “Symbolism is not a school, it is an Art.123“ That definition by Geo Milev might be the most accurate, at least for the Bulgarian symbolism. Its representatives were bright and very different creative individualities. The aesthetics of the symbolists preserved and further developed the Misal’s concept of pure art that pushed itself apart from (and, because of that, was incomprehensible for) the mass taste of the crowd. Their poetics insisted on the complicated associativity, the play of metaphors and symbols, the complex symbolism of colours and images, the code system embedded in biblical and mythological archetypes. They created a new poetic style devoted to music and rhythm. The pursuit of symbolists was the perfect poetic language that not only described but also provoked the senses, inspired feelings, and discovered unexpected though dreamt spiritual spaces. At least, such was the symbolism at the beginning of the 20th century, before being encapsulated in its linguistic, figurative, and thematic self-sufficiency, deformed and templatized by talentless and countless epigonic attempts. Dimcho Debelyanov created his own complex, changing, original symbolic poetics, both as a language and an expression. Influenced by Yavorov’s poetry but recognizing P. P. Slaveykov as his spiritual teacher, whom he brilliantly defined as “priest warrior”. Loneliness, split mind, and death were the main thematic circles of his poetry. The symbolic abstraction of Debelyanov was refracted through the melancholism of the dream, the nostalgia of the memory, the painful impossibility of love. His lyrical character did not experience the beauty of the happening here and now but in the fictional world of the dream, humility, and contemplation. That was why his elegies bore the sign of homelessness, hopelessness, and doom turned into a fateful premonition of the tragic death. Nikolay Liliev reached the limit of the virtuosic musical sounding of the Bulgarian verse. According to G. Milev, in Liliev’s poems, the Bulgarian poetry achieved that perfection of expression through which it could express the most perfect images and the most subtle emotional experiences of the 123 Милев, Гео. Символизъм. // Везни, 1919, кн. 2, с. 20. 150 modern man. In them, the absolute existential loneliness of the intellectual, doomed to be different, alienated both from “this century of predatory destruction” and himself. Stoically humble to the “horror of being virgin” and having never met his beloved No one’s and Never, Liliev remained a standard of elitism in the Bulgarian literature, an ethical corrective, despite the temptations and trials of the time. Emanuil Popdimitrov made his original contribution to the poetics of the Bulgarian symbolism. He created a series of poems bearing exotic female names: Emma, Laura, Irena, Clara, Efrosina ... Enveloped in romantic mystery, among mystical scenery, his female images were dense, tangible, and spiritual. They were far too away from Liliev’s fleshless visions and from the strokes of memory and dream of Debelyanov. The romantic attitude of his poetic vision sharply changed with acute social criticism in his verse novel V Stranata na Rozite – a poetic replica of Aleko’s Bay Ganyo. The poetry of Teodor Trayanov was supported by the collaborators of Hyperion Journal and, especially, by his editor Iv. Radoslavov, as the most representative one of the Bulgarian symbolism. His poetry collection Regina Mortua was considered by some scholars to be the first purely symbolist book. His poetry was indeed an emanation of symbolist poetics. It was monolithic, unified, though thematically too heterogeneous. In Pantheon, he conceived the works of culture as a sign of a higher spiritual value and created a unique poetic anthology of the world and Bulgarian poets that had become a moral, ethical, and artistic standard. The symbolist-mystical reflection to death was strongly expressed in his popular lyrical works Taynata na Struma and Smart v Ravninite. They created a ballad-stylized world in which the characters, events, and natural realities carried strong antiwar and social messages. Having existed for only one year, Zveno Journal (1914) had an important place in the literary history, Just like Misal, it created its elitist, though much wider, highly friendly literary circle: Dimitar Podvarzachov, N. Liliev, D. Debelyanov, Georgi Raychev, Konstantin Konstantinov, and others. It published works of the Bulgarian symbolism that had long before been written in the sustainable canon of the Bulgarian literature (Legenda za Razbludnata Tsarkinya), the cycle Pod Surdinka by D. Debelyanov, Kam Rodinata, Talpite, Devstvenik by N. Liliev), works by G. Milev, T. Trayanov, L. Stoyanov, etc. The publication was the “transition between 151 Tseno Todorov (1877–1953) Portrait of Teodor Trayanov, 1909, oil on canvass, 100 х 81 cm. Sofia City Art Gallery two epochs”, as K. Konstantinov said. A necessary symbolic bridge between the epochs of Misal and Zlatorog. The Period between the Wars – “Dead Timeline” or Spiritual Bloom? The change in the social paradigm, i.e. the pushing apart from the ideology of the national – as an unachieved political ideal and a failed historical mission after the three consecutive wars (the First Balkan, the Second Balkan, and the World War I) – implied a profound sense of crisis of the traditional values and spirituality. The meaningless of the national project, the complicated socio-political context caused a change in the aesthetic attitudes. This does not mean that the time between the wars (1912–1918) was a dead timeline in the Bulgarian literature (as defined by Georgi Bakalov). During that period, many literary circles, societies, publications, strands, and institutions had an important role to play. For example, the Union of Bulgarian Writers (1913) was established which had important creative and institutional functions. An artistic and moral response to the grief of the defeats was the poetry of Ivan Vazov, some of the poems of Kiril Hristov, T. Trayanov, and 152 others. The tragic doom of the war was embedded in D. Debelyanov’s predeath poems and refracted through Yordan Yovkov’s humanistic reflection in his early prose. In his later works, the writer created the most mature synthesis of tradition and modernity. The war as a plot and a reason for national psychological analyzes was also included in the books by Anton Strashimirov (Voyni i Osvobozhdenie, Kniga za Bulgarite, Vihar), in Mihail Kremen’s Bregalnitsa, in Vladimir Musakov’s Karvavi Petna documents-and-essays diary, in the novel Manichak Svyat by Georgi Raychev, etc. A new existential vitality was created by Elisaveta Bagryana. As an antithesis of the symbolism, Atanas Dalchev and Dimitar Panteleev imposed the subject-daily figurativeness and the intellectual-philosophical aesthetics. Despite its dominant presence, especially in poetry, the symbolism, burdened by epigonism and clichés, was pushed to the periphery of the artistic space. Therefore, though unfairly used by N. Liliev, the metaphor dead poetry124, used by A. Dalchev and D. Panteleev for the symbolic poetics, corresponded to the changed aesthetic inventions of the post-war period. If, at the end of the 19th century, the prose was obviously prevailing, with emphasized epical monumentality and, at the beginning of the 20th century, poetry prevailed, in the interwar period in the Bulgarian literature there was pronounced genre equilibrium. Many style, genre, and topical Aleksandar Bozhinov (1878–1968) Yordan Yovkov, 1916, India ink, nib, 23.8 х 15.9 cm. Sofia City Art Gallery 124 Далчев, Атанас; Пантелеев, Димитър. Мъртва поезия. // Развигор, бр. 188, 13.6.1925. 153 interlacings – both in prose and poetry – were rather superimposed; new artistic paradigms were created that synthesized realism and modernity, classics and avant-garde. The publications and ideology of the left had a serious influence on the literary life. The journals Nov Pat (1923–1925) by G. Bakalov, Cherven Smyah (1920–1943), Izkustvo i Kritika (1938–1943) united (and divided) a number of talented Bulgarian writers: Nikola Furnadzhiev, Assen Raztsvetnikov, and Angel Karaliychev left Nov Pat and became collaborators of Zlatorog. From symbolism L. Stoyanov redirected to the realistic and social art; his aesthetic metamorphoses also reflected in a genre transition: from poetry to prose. The left intelligentsia underestimated (or did not at all accept) the poetry of Hristo Smirnenski – an innovative synthesis of revolutionary pathos, symbolist poetics, and social issues. Later, that synthesis of me and us, the revolutionary figurativeness and the intimate-confession lyricism, characterized the poetry of Nikola Vaptsarov, also underestimated and unaccepted by his ideological adherents during his lifetime. A journal-institution not only in that period but in the history of the entire Bulgarian literature was Zlatorog. Thanks to the high aesthetics set and maintained by his editor Vladimir Vasilev, the classical works published in it and the elite circle of authors created the canon of the New Bulgarian Literature. Interesting phenomena in the cultural space of the period were the creation of the first literary newspaper Razvigor (1921–1927, 1937) by Prof. Aleksandar Balabanov and the role in the cultural life of his successor Literaturen Glas (1928–1944) by Dimitar B. Mitov. The many aesthetic circles and publications, the complex polemic relations between them, testified of a rich and dynamic literary life analytically interpreted in the critical texts and thorough historical research by critics like Boyan Penev, Vladimir Vassilev, Ivan Meshekov, Georgi Tsanev, Al. Balabanov, Vassil Pundev, Spiridon Kazandzhiev, Malcho Nikolov, Konstantin Galabov, Yordan Badev, and others. The literary criticism, like the literature itself, was strongly influenced by modern philosophical and aesthetic inventions. In their books, reviews, digests, studies, and articles, the critics outlined the trends in the development of the literary process, refracted the historical development of the Bulgarian culture and literature through the optics of the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche and Henry Bergson, through the national psychology and psychoanalysis, the historiography and essayism, the “Russian formalism”, and the European modernism. The third most active and fruitful stage of the Bulgarian literary modernism was the avant-garde. That was why, in its poetics, there were images, motifs, combinations of words typical of the symbolism and other artistic manifestations of the modernism but they were transformed and put into a new aesthetic context. Compared to the historical time of the symbolism, expressionism, surrealism, imagism, diabolism, futurism, constructivism, etc. had a much shorter presence in the Bulgarian literature. Probably, that sense of rapid transitory compressed time implied the provocative meaningful and radical manifesto gestures of artistic realization. The aesthetic varieties of the avant-garde appeared almost simultaneously, caught up with each other, entered into polemic clashes and, in an absurd way, complemented and justified each other. In the context of the Bulgarian socio-cultural reality, the expressionism was fundamental. The fragmentation of the expression, the barbarized language, the socio-political actuality definitely displaced the symbolist poetics. The other avant-garde trends were understood and identified through it by recognizing the similarities and marking the differences. The personification of the Bulgarian expressionism and, in general, of the avant-garde, was undoubtedly concentrated in the personality and the creative work of Geo Milev, with his ability to be a leader, to create a synthesis between the arts, to get ahead and impose artistic tendencies through critical texts and poetic creative work. The journals that inculcated the expressionism in the Bulgarian literature were Vezni (1919–1922) and, to some extent, Plamak (1924–1925), despite the changed conceptual and aesthetic direction. They came with the mission declared by Geo Milev to be the tribune of the Bulgarian modernists, to present and advertise them through their own works. That placing under one and the same terminological denominator of different aesthetic 154 155 The Literary Avant-garde directions was also characteristic of the manifesto texts of the Bulgarian avant-garde. An important place in the cultural life of that time was occupied by the Strelets circle. Its publication: the newspapers Strelets (1927) and Iztok (1925–1927) actively discussed the topical of the 20s and 30s of the 20th century issue of the native. The native-foreign opposition and the native art movement were unifying and emblematic signs in the cultural space of the period. The avant-garde loudly displayed and urgently imposed its aesthetic inventions in a series of manifests and manifesto texts published in the literary periodicals. The journals closely related to the avant-garde artistic directions were Novis (1929–1932), edited by Lamar, and Crescendo, the tribune of the Yambol modernists – poets and artists strongly influenced by dadaism and futurism. Their most prominent representative was the critic, art expert, and essayist Kiril Krastev, the author of the most radical avantgarde Manifest na Druzhestvoto za Borba protiv Poetite. The messages of those publications were ambiguously accepted in the cultural space of the 20s and 30s of the 20th century; they remained underestimated by the literary history, too. One of the paradoxes of the Bulgarian avant-garde was that the most impressive and talented artistic experiments of almost all Bulgarian writers happened at the beginning of their creative journey. Their mature works disaffiliated or strongly rejected the avant-garde aesthetic gestures. Besides the complex existential motivations, a certain reason for this was the accepted as a norm realistic monomentality of the Bulgarian literature, which did not recognize them as significant. The only exception was G. Milev, whose personality and creative work steadily fit into the narrow limits of the literary canon. But the reasons for that were encoded in both his tragically interrupted life and the ideological norms of the socialist realism. His most valuable avant-garde verses and manifesto texts found their real literary-historical recognition and adequate critical interpretation only after the political changes in 1989. Talented and original, the avant-garde prose and poetic works were bold extravagant attempts that discouraged the monolithicity of the literature in the process of affirming its national identity. Therefore, the value criteria and traditional literary hierarchies were strongly discouraged in the filling of the historical gaps of the avant-garde tendencies with less known or completely forgotten authors and works. For example, such were the representatives of the Yambol avant-garde: Teodor Draganov and Todor Chakramov; collaborators of Novis and Plamak like Marko Bunin and Yassen Valkovski; the surrealistic poem Bureni by the Professor of Classical Literature Al. Balabanov or the poems of his beloved Yana Yazova from her first poetry collections Yazove (1931), Bunt (1933), and Krastove (1934); as well as some vivid manifestations, especially in the poetry of the futurism (Lamar and Nikolay Marangozov); the imagism (the early N. Furnadzhiev, Slavcho Krasinski, D. Panteleev); decorativism (Chavdar Mutafov, Sirak Skitnik); diabolism (Svetoslav Minkov, the poetry of Assen Raztsvetnikov, Georgi Karaivanov, Atanas Dalchev); dadaism (Teodor Draganov, Boyan Danovski); constructivism (Chavdar Mutafov, works by Lamar, by the forgotten writer Pancho Mihaylov, or marginalized poems by Elisaveta Bagryana). If there were dominants in the stylistic and thematic diversity of the Bulgarian avant-garde, such were the critical visions of old Europe, the astonishment by the technical achievements, the exultation by the rhythm of motorcycles, the admiration for planes, the apocalyptic pictures and images of death mostly characteristic of the expressionism and provoked by specific political events: the September Uprising (1923) and the attack in Sv. Nedelya Church (16.04.1925). Some of the characteristic manifestations of the Bulgarian avant-garde were the manifesto texts which encoded not only the essential characteristics of the individual aesthetic directions but also became kind of acts of selfawareness of the avant-garde phenomena. But along with those longestablished creative expressions, whose stylistic features, thematic accents, 156 157 Kiril Tsonev (1896–1961) Portrait of Svetoslav Minkov, 1939, oil on canvas, 106 х 86 cm. Sofia City Art Gallery and genre specifics were largely influenced by the French, German, Austrian, and Russian avant-garde, in the Bulgarian literature there were also specific, aesthetic, and thematic-based directions such as the mysticreligious and the myth-folklore avant-garde. In them, persistent folklore images, dramatic historical symbols, and emblematic national toposes were encoded that built the sacred Bulgarian space. Brilliant examples of contribution to the history of the European poetic avant-garde were created by N. Furnadzhiev, A. Raztsvetnikov, A. Karaliychev, Em. Popdimitrov, Nikolay Raynov, L. Stoyanov, B. Danovski, etc. The Bulgarian avant-garde was dialogically open as our literature was equally situated in the European cultural context. The Bulgarian writers did not simply fit into the models of the modern artistic tendencies of their time but were ahead of them as they were working freely and without the complex of late development or unskilful imitation. One of the emblematic examples was the epistolary relation between Tommaso Marinetti – the pope of the Italian futurism – and the Yambol avant-gardists and his visit to Sofia and Yambol (1931). Impressed by the Bulgarian heroism during the First Balkan War, he wrote his famous manifesto text The Bulgarian Airplane, which referred to the unique for that time military operation carried out by our fighter-pilots who bombarded the Turkish positions in Edirne (1913). Famous was also the close cooperation of G. Milev with the German expressionists from the journals Der Sturm and Die Action as well as the visit of the Moscow Art Theatre in Sofia, the performances of which provoked a wave of polemic clashes between the admirers of the realistic and the avant-garde art. Very popular was the ironicparadoxical way in which Al. Balabanov described Stanislavski’s method: “Enough for God’s sake! Show me a man with six arms, a calf with two heads, give me a green horse but just free me from this naturalness125. “ The avant-garde, in all its thematic and stylistic manifestations, upgraded the late modernisms and, many times, was also realized as a synthesis of various arts. Thus, a colourful and original picture was created of the Bulgarian literary life of the beginning of the 20th century, in the times of its artistic apogee in the 1920s and 1930s and in the late aesthetic reflections that followed. Е. Т. 125 Балабанов, Александър. Художествен театър или „Вишнева градина“. // Зора, бр. 346, 2.1.1920. 158 MODERNISM AND NATIONAL IDEA IN VISUAL ARTS The formation of national states on the Balkans in the second half of the 19th century was a prerequisite for the problematization and understanding of the national cultural identity126. At the beginning of the new century in Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Serbia, institutions that organized the artistic scene, after the model of modern Europe, were already functioning. The European cultural paradigm no longer had alternatives on the Balkans. The desire to achieve uniqueness of the cultural identity coupled with the effort to creat it through modern artistic expression in different ideological and formal-and-style versions was characteristic of the aesthetic pursuit of the artists for decades. That tendency was manifested in the participation of the Balkan countries, including Bulgaria, in international exhibitions at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. In the years after World War I, the theme of national identity was a central one in visual arts. With the appeal to recall the traditional pre-academic artistic systems recognized as genuine, with the movement for native art, the artists in Bulgaria were searching for their original non-imitating modern expression by rediscovering the pre-modern artistic culture – the folk and the orthodox art – as a possible mediator of modernity. That trend was reminiscent of the modernist interest of the major European centres in the so-called primitive in non-European ethno-cultures. The difference was that on the Balkans alternative systems were sought only in the national artistic heritage, with the idea of its recognition at the internationalizing centres. The material culture of the immediately preceding era within the Ottoman Empire was too close and still present in everyday life and could not be accepted as the possible other of the European cultural paradigm. The national idea was also manifested in the representation of historical events. The glorious history of Bulgaria was a priority of the 126 On nation in modern national states see: Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. – London, New York: Verso Books,1983. 159 academic art. Not surprisingly, there was a nationalistic tendency in that genre and storyline from the late 1920s through the 1930s. The modernist-oriented artists were looking for realization in different areas of urban life and culture. Stage and book design, interior and furniture design, clothing and advertising were the fields for formal and style experiments and attempts to integrate specific features of the folk and the ecclesiastical art. The modern artistic forms bearing the idea of national art inevitably included and remoulded, albeit without naming it, the historical experience of the subject environment and the artistic exchange within the Ottoman territories. The years after World War I were among the most intense ones in the Bulgarian art. Having survived the horrors of three consecutive wars (the First and Second Balkan Wars and the World War I), which brought only defeats and losses for Bulgaria and were considered a national catastrophe, the Bulgarian artists seemed to be in a hurry to get rid of the nightmare memories and to made up for what was missed. As early as in 1919–1920, several artistic societies were founded, numerous collective and solo exhibitions were organized; and the Society Dom na Izkustvata (House of Arts) was established. New exhibition halls and commercial galleries were found. Many new literary and artistic journals and magazines appeared. The most significant among them were Geos Milev’s Vezni (1919–1922), with pronounced orientation to modernisms; Vladimir Vassilev’s Zlatorog (1920–1943), oriented to the contemporary cultural phenomena in Bulgaria and, also, influencing them; Hyperion (1922–1931), issued by the symbolists around Teodor Trayanov and Ivan Radoslavov. In 1922 the three issues of the Yambol’s Crescendo (four with the last issue of Lebed, which was the first issue of Crescendo) were published – perhaps the most openly modernistic ones as an expression – with materials on Dadaism, Constructivism, Purism, Futurism, with translations by Marinetti, texts by Kiril Krastev, and reproductions of works by Mircho Kachulev. Developed were the characteristic of the modernity forms of social criticism, i.e. the caricature and the publicistic graphics. During the social turmoil of the decade, journals and newspapers not only appeared but also disappeared. Short was the existence of the left humorous journals and magazines, Vik (1923–1924) by Joseph Herbst and Plamak (1924–1925) by Geo Milev. In 1925 their authors and editors – Geo Milev, Joseph 160 Herbst, Hristo Yassenov, and Sergey Rumyantsev – also disappeared in the waves of the white terror. The period of severe economic and social turmoil in Bulgaria, similar to Berlin and Paris in „the Mad Twenties“, was characterized by impressive intellectual energy and productivity. In the 1920s, the young Bulgarian artists sought the larger scale as well as points of reference outside the Bulgarian space, in the European cultural centers. They were looking for opportunities (such as training, specialization, private trips and participation in exhibitions) to expand their artistic experience. At the centre of the art events in the post-war Europe were the wave of expressionism in Germany, the Bauhaus in Weimar and the transformations of the Russian Constructivism, the Dadaism and Surrealism in France, the second Futurism in Italy, metamorphoses of the abstract. The visual image was imaginary, dreamt, constructed. The systems and theories of the beginning of the century seemed to blow out in their quest to overcome the boundaries between them, to individualism in its widest sense. Few were the Bulgarian artists who having got into those circles went straight into the adventures of the Modernism. Such were George Papazoff and Nikolay Diulgheroff. The artistic appearances in the field of the modernity by the Abrashevi brothers in Brazil and the United States George Papazoff. Bulgarian apron, 1927, oil on canvas, 93 x 74 cm. Petit Palais Museum, Geneva 11. Bulgarian 20th Century... 161 were unique. The Bulgarian artists reacted differently and assimilated to a different extent what they perceived with their attitudes and sensitivity. The very selectivity in their interests in European art revealed the characteristics of the artistic culture in Bulgaria. The impact of German Expressionism, for example, often coexisted, in an uncontroversial way, with that of the late Secession, the Art Nouveau or the Russian Modern Style in the work of Vassil Zahariev and Sirak Skitnik. In the 1920s, the generally expressed tendency to the primitive in our country interacted, in different variants, with the interest in the folk art and the icon in the work of Ivan Milev, Ivan Penkov, Ivan Lazarov, Vassil Zahariev, and Pencho Georgiev. The eclecticity, the overlapping of different stylistic features, was one of the main characteristics of modernisms in Bulgaria. Every attempt at a narrative, which would logically derive the new In Bulgaria, the ideas of the impact of the artistic image through light, space, and shapes abstracted from their mimetic functions, of the image without a reference, of the abstract image appeared in the critical articles Vasil Zahariev. Sv. Sophia Basilica, ca. 1926, wood engraving, coloured, 45.5 x 64 cm (50.5 х 70 cm), National Gallery, Sofia Ivan Milev. Maglizh Monastery, triptych, 1924, gouache, gold bronze, paper, left panel 59 x 77 cm, central panel 78 x 57 cm, right panel 59 x 76 cm, National Gallery, Sofia by Geo Milev, Sirak Skitnik and Chavdar Mutafov after World War I. In his article Protiv Realizma (Against Realism), Geo Milev – disappointed but, at the same time, in a challenging manner – noted that “[...] this aesthetics, the aesthetics of any real art, the aesthetics of antirealism, is something unpopular, even unknown in our country”. For him, the subject of the “real, absolute art” was “life combined with the cosmic elements of the eternity.127” In Paris, Berlin and New York the artistic movements were internationalized. The inevitable in practice learning and processing of previous experience were not nationally limited. In our country, the pursuit of cultural continuity was within the national: the interest in icons, revival woodcarving, folk crafts, folk songs, and fairy tales generated wide amplitude of individual artistic solutions. The history of visual arts was considered as national. Hence, the requirement to create a self-centred Bulgarian genealogy of the modern art – a paradoxical task – as a criterion of actuality was elsewhere. In that aspect, the reception of the Bulgarian art outside the country was indicative in the years before and after World War I. In the 1920’s, as well as earlier, the interest in the Bulgarian was very often expressed in curiosity about the unknown and the exotic128 but not in an attempt to situate various works among the contemporary artistic phenomena. On 127 Милев, Гео. Против реализма. // Слънце, 1919, № 5. https://liternet.bg/publish7/geo_ milev/realizma.htm (visited on 16.09.2018) 128 In the foreign press, purely Bulgarian referred to the works by Nikola Marinov and Nikola Tanev, the graphics by Vassil Zahariev, Pencho Georgiev, and others. 162 163 the other hand, the interest abroad towards the ethnographic layer of the Bulgarian culture reflected and seemed to “have opened the eyes” of the Bulgarian artists to the pre-modern artistic heritage from a contemporary point of view. Confirmations of that were found both in memoirs and articles as well as in the purposeful collection activity during those years. Was it possible that the mission of native art could be synchronized with the interest in modernisms? That controversial point was debated by the artistic critics of the time. In the second issue of Vezni, Geo Milev shared his view of the universal character of the art: “It is necessary for the Bulgarian literature – like all other literatures – to go out of itself. For there is an era of complete unification in art; this is the most important process in the history of the Bulgarian art.”129 On the other hand, as a possible way to modern artistic expression, the modernist-oriented critics recommended the stylistic principles of the Bulgarian icon, woodcarving, mural paintings and folk art. In them, they saw the possible reconciliation with the interest Vladimir Dimitrov – Maystora. Peyzazh ot Tsarigrad (Landscape from Tsarigrad), 1926, oil on cardboard, 69 x 99.2 cm, National Gallery, Sofia 129 Милев, Гео. Посоки и цели. // Везни, 1919, № 11. 164 of modern art in the pre- and extra-academic art, gothic, and primitive (in Cubism, Expressionism, Dada) and a chance to achieve authentic artistic richness. The rebellion of the modern art began with the rejection of the value system of Academicism, with the escape from the tradition. The Modernist-wave artists in European centres were looking for creative impulses in various cultural contexts (Japanese engraving, African masks, etc.). An Egyptian painting from the pages of the German avant-garde journal Der Sturm appeared in Vezni journal. But the Bulgarian artists of the new, post-war wave did not oppose the tradition recognized as national: on the contrary, it just led beyond the academic art, beyond the realism of the 19th century as there was no national tradition of academic or secular institutionalized education in the figurative art in Bulgaria. The quests of the new wave of Bulgarian art of the 1920s were not limited to the mediation of the lost native. It moved between our and universal, between the hand-made unique and the industrially printed; created a new attitude to the applied and mass arts. Those problems were dealt with by some of our most prominent critics: G. Milev, Ch. Mutafov, Sirak Skitnik. In the field of visual arts, modernist ideas were realized in works that overcame both the academic perceptions of the 19th-century painting and realism as well as the impressionist approach. What makes impression is the frequent use of tempera and gouache, suitable for the expression of the decorative characteristics of an image. The compositional elements, the line and the colour, were emancipated by the visible reality without reaching an absolute abstraction. The paintings by Vladimir Dimitrov Maystora of the 1920s, including his Tsarigradski Tsikal (Tsarigrad Cycle) with oil and watercolour, were perceived by Ch. Mutafov and G. Milev as modernistic; influencing with colours, light, and forms; emancipated by the visible reality and, at the same time, inspiring the impenetrable appeal of the Orient. In Germany, France, Italy, the taste for modernity had a keen interest in the discoveries of the technical 20th century that changed the perception of the object world. That was the soil that favoured the Constructivism and Futurism, the poetization of the machine reality. In Bulgaria, those artistic movements appeared as ephemeral experiments in drawing, painting, and sculpture by Sirak Skitnik, K. Krastev, Petar Ramadanov. Attempts geometrization of forms were made by Ivan Penkov, Ivan Milev, Dechko Uzunov. However, there were no lasting manifestations of those trends. 165 systems: that of Konstantin Stanislavski, during Tsankov’s stay in Moscow from September 1911 to January 1912, and the one of Max Reinhardt in the period from 1921 to 1924 when Tsankov worked in two Berlin theatres led by him. The role of the visual in the theatre in our country increased in the 1920s. In the modern understanding of the overall impact of the theatrical production, the works of the director, the artist, the composer, and the choreographer were inseparable. In that notion of performance, the artist acquired special significance as an adherent and co-author of the director. The decisions of the stage design and the costumes revealed the plastic movements, the motoric activity, and the transformations of the human body. They left bright images in the spectator’s mind, often competing the words. Tsankov staged several plays, including Periphery by František Langer and Burzhoata Blagorodnik (Le Bourgeois gentilhomme) by Molière, both in 1929. The stage design of the first production was by Ivan Penkov and the second – by Max Metzger. Both caused a lively response Vladimir Dimitrov – Maystora. Moma ot Kalotina (Young Woman from Kalotina), ca. 1930, oil on canvas, 80 x 66 cm. National Gallery, Sofia Many of the names of modernism protagonists such as M. Kachulev, Ivan Boyadzhiev, Peter Dachev, disappeared in the 1930s from the art scene. N. Diulgheroff remained in Turin; George Papazoff settled in Paris; the Abrashevi brothers opened art schools in New York and Boston. The modernist ideas from G. Milev’s circle around Vezni found no continuation. The published works and critical articles did not lead to new modernist appearances and seemed to have been forgotten. That experience remained marginal for long in the historization of the art in Bulgaria. Some of the most honest modernist attempts were also marginal in a different sense: they were in the applied arts, most often in polygraphy (covers, headers, vignettes, illustrations, posters, etc.), in theatre, in the arts of the subject environment. The examples in that regard were numerous. A desirable field for modernist practices of the artists of the 1920s was the stage of the National Theatre. The experience of Futurism, Expressionism, Bauhaus, and Constructivism intertwined on the Bulgarian stage. The director Hrissan Tsankov was a central figure in the theatre experiments. Tsankov was formed under the influence of two theatrical Ivan Milev. Nashite Mayki vse v Cherno Hodyat (Our Mothers are ever Mourning), 1926, tempera on paper, 58 х 86 cm, National Gallery, Sofia 166 167 Ivan Penkov. Scenography of Periphery by František Langer. Staged by Hrissan Tsankov, Naroden Teatar (National Theatre), 1929. Published in the programme of the production Georgiev. In the autumn of 1928 Pencho Georgiev won a competition for a one-year scholarship in Paris and, in the following 1929, went to the French capital. The revival and the variety of the Paris art scene in the late 1920s, tending to return to figurativeness, were a fruitful environment for his further artistic formation. P. Georgiev remained in France until 1932. At the end of the 1920s in Paris Lyubomir Pipkov – a student at École normale de musique at that time – came with the idea of the opera Yaninite Devet Bratya (Yana,s Nine Brothers). The young composer shared the project with his friend P. Georgiev. Recalling that moment, L. Pipkov wrote: “In a small empty bistro on Rue de la Gaîté in Montparnasse, we spent the long night hours in quiet conversations about what we were going to do together ... On every accidentally caught piece of paper, he endlessly sought solutions of the difficult scenes and, with an astonishing insight, covered the dramatic essence of the work ... He vehemently painted, drew, designed and Yaninite Devet Bratya materialized so unfamiliar and incomprehensible to me. It got a new life in its graphic transformation ... “130 In P. Georgiev’s archives, there was a Paris notebook in which traces were found of the drawing transformation of the production project. The premiere of the opera Yaninite Devet Bratya (Yana,s Nine Brothers), directed by Hrissan Tsankov, with stage design and costumes by P. Georgiev, took place in October 1937 in Sofia. In the 1920s the artists in Bulgaria felt free to experiment in the socalled applied areas – the marginalia. At the same time, they responded to the formed in the great art centres understanding of the artist’s total expression. There, however, irreconcilable contradictions – between the artistic aspirations and the possibilities of the society (materials, technology, industry, etc.) appeared, which were characteristic of our cultural situation. Those performances by artists outside the exhibition halls were not until recently subject to consistent interest in the history of the modern art in Bulgaria. They were discussed in critical articles that are particularly significant today for the historization of the modernisms. I. G. in the audience and a lot of critical articles. The turbulent controversy over Molière play overcame all theatrical discussions known to that time. Another specific case of interaction between author, composer, director, and artist was the cooperation between Lyubomir Pipkov and Pencho 168 130 Пипков, Любомир. Пeнчо Георгиев. Спомен. // Посмъртен лист. – София, 1941. 169 THE TRANSITION TO MODERNISM IN MUSICAL ART Savremenna Muzika Society (Society of Contemporary Music) The idea of a society of the young composers in Bulgaria was a logical expression of the need for a progressive dialogue on music issues and for creation of favourable conditions for the development of musical art. It was also an expression of new thinking cultivated among the representatives of the artistic intelligentsia in the 1920s and 1930s, who knew closely the essence and scale of the European art. Indicative in that sense were the words of Vesselin Stoyanov, published in Zlatorog, about the excitement of the Bulgarian composer of that time. “Berlin, Vienna, Paris, Prague are the focuses where he gets a vision of the huge growth of the music in the West ... His musical and spiritual growth there evolves in a highly skilled creative and concert life that absorbs him with its diverse problems. The amplitude of diversity – from Ramo to Schoenberg and from Gluck to Alban Berg – is too large [...] The Bulgarian composer returns to his homeland transformed, with increased ability and self-esteem. His new interests acquired in a foreign, non-Bulgarian environment, make him feel in his homeland ahead of his time. Now he has a much wider look [...] for him, the return to the primitive conditions of his environment is painful, most often impossible. “131 It was that new look at the specifics of a varied aesthetic world as well as the conscious intellectual care about the perspectives of the Bulgarian music in the context of the European 20th century that necessitated the creation of Savremenna Muzika Society. Founded on 24 January 1933, it united representatives of the so-called second generation of Bulgarian 131 Стоянов, Веселин. За българския музикален стил. // Златорог, 1937, кн. 3, с. 121–127 (Cited after: Българските музикални дейци и проблемът за националния музикален стил. / Съст. А. Баларева. – София: Институт за музика – БАН, 1968, с. 90). 170 composers. Among the founders were well-known names with proven creator’s authority in the field of the new professional music: Pancho Vladigerov, Petko Staynov, Dimitar Nenov, Vesselin Stoyanov, Andrey Stoyanov, Lyubomir Pipkov, Assen Dimitrov, Tsanko Tsankov. Later, the society included the composers Filip Kutev, Svetoslav Obretenov, Marin Goleminov, Assen Karastoyanov, Parashkev Hadzhiev, Georgi Dimitrov, Georgi Zlatev-Cherkin, and others. According to the main clauses in the Articles of Association, the Society aimed to “work to create greater interest in the Bulgarian art music in the country and abroad, watch for the proper development of the Bulgarian musical life and fight for a higher musical culture in our country; encourage composers to use folk music by reproducing it in artistic forms; work for greater convergence between composers; work to create favourable conditions for composer’s work; support poor and needy composers; work to immortalize the memory of deserving composers.” Through its activities, the Society stimulated the development of the Bulgarian musical culture in a number of perspective directions. It was not without significance that, apart from music authors, its members were teachers, performers, public figures. Conditions were created for the promotion of new works commensurate with the achievements and novelties in modern Europe. The Bulgarian music permanently fit in the repertoire of leading performing formations such as the Sofia National Opera, the Academic Symphony Orchestra, and the Tsar’s Military Symphony Orchestra, which – along with the concerts in Sofia and other cities of the country – had concert tours in some countries in Europe. The active cultural policy of the society was also connected with the systematically conducted thematic cycle Edin Chas Bulgarska Muzika (One hour of Bulgarian Music) dedicated to the presentation of new works. The prestigious status of the new Bulgarian music of that time could be judged even by the fact that the concert programme on the occasion of the solemn opening of Bulgaria Hall (1937) included the premiere performances of Concert for Piano and Orchestra № 3 by P. Vladigerov and the overture Balkan by P. Staynov. Organically related to the general guidelines in the context of cultural life in the country, Savremenna Muzika Society did not stand aside from a number of topical problems of the artists in the field of literature and visual arts, especially as regards the aesthetic reflections on the national idea and the modernist ideas of creation of original artistic expression. 171 National Idea and the Creative Personality: Aesthetic Trends in New Music The idea of national art gained exceptional momentum in the 1920s and 1930s, a time when, on the other hand, bright creative individualities stood out with a taste for some aesthetic aspects of the European modernism. The Bulgarian composer was no exception in that respect. His searches in the direction of original contemporary expression were also the result of the increased degree of self-observation that had recognized the aesthetic nature of a world reflecting on its own, for example in the colourful language of Pancho Vladigerov, whose musical scores – fundamental for the Bulgarian symphonism – bore the whiff of the late romanticism but also of the innovative spirit of the European symbolism and impressionism. A new way in the contemporary Bulgarian music was also paved by the esthetical lyrico-psychological suggestions as well as the current socio-political summaries recognized in the sound messages of authors like Lyubomir Pipkov, Marin Goleminov, Petko Staynov. The maturing of creative individualities was also a projection of the internal logic in the movement of the Bulgarian culture. Fifty years after the Liberation, that became possible against the background of the growing musical life in the country that had created a favourable climate for new composer’s work and of lively discussions on the route of the Bulgarian art. Creating a national but contemporary, by its spirit, art; resisting the anachronistic naivety; fighting speculation with folklore but also seeking original opportunities for its artistic transformation: those were the dominant themes that were widely discussed on the pages of the periodicals in the years after World War I. The idea of the Bulgarian gripped the thinking of the artists and united in many ways the creators in all fields of art. Another question was to what extent that idea corresponded to the somewhat supranational avant-garde concepts in the context of the European modernism, which ruined widely established aesthetic conventions and created completely new spaces of expression, embodied, for example, in the impressionism of Debussy and Ravel, the neo-classicism of Stravinsky or the dodecaphony of Schoenberg. The idea of the Bulgarian was also the focus of attention of the representatives of Savremenna Muzika Society. In 1933 the society appealed for the formation of a Bulgarian national musical style. In a number of ar172 ticles published on the pages of newspapers and journals, the composers expressed their ideas about the development of the Bulgarian music art as well as the lawfulness of the use of the term Bulgarian national style. M. Goleminov, for example, viewed the process as a normal pathway in the movement from the collective to the individual132. On his part L. Pipkov stressed the importance of three key elements in his opinion: “the great world music with its continuous development, our folk song wealth, and the sensibility of the modern man.”133 A supporter of the belief that music could not stay away from the acute social tensions of the time, the composer summarized: “Should not the Bulgarian music have its own ideology? [...] Chintulov and Botev chose the rebellion and the fighting beginning as a basic element of the Bulgarian spirit in poetry. Should not the Bulgarian musical style follow the path of the Bulgarian poetry?“134. At the same time, the artist Aleksandar Obretenov saw the procedural aspect of the problem. He viewed style in the sense of a historically determined category: “Style as a frozen concept does not exist. There is a life that changes and develops, there is an art that establishes the content of this life in an artistic way and, thus, creates the different styles of different ages. “135 As a matter of fact, the musical pedagogue and publicist A. Bersenev wrote about those problems as early as in 1928. In his article Bulgarian Creativity and Western Modernism, the author emphasized that the national artistic tradition was the basis but also the essence of the national style. He pointed out that only vivid personalities, who laid the foundation of the artistic musical art, could fit into that process. On the other hand, Bersenev stated, “... for us, the Bulgarians, the trouble is that we have no tradition at all. We are today in the position of Russia before Glinka and of the Czech Republic before Smetana, that is, our creativity is still in the period of wandering and searching. It has to do, first and foremost, with the basic and inevitable task of creating a style. Our literature has resolved – and 132 Големинов, Марин. За българския художествено-музикален стил. // А.С.О., I, бр. 6, 20.11.1935 г. (Cited after: Българските музикални дейци и проблемът за националния музикален стил. / Съст. А. Баларева. – София: Институт за музика – БАН, 1968, с. 86). 133 Пипков, Любомир. За българския музикален стил. // А.С.О., I, бр. 2, 28.10.1934 г. (Cited after: Българските музикални дейци и проблемът за националния музикален стил. / Съст. А. Баларева. – София: Институт за музика – БАН, 1968, с. 64). 134 Ibid. 135 Обретенов, Александър. За българския стил. // А.С.О., I, бр. 4, 28. 01. 1935 г. (Cited after: Българските музикални дейци и проблемът за националния музикален стил. / Съст. А. Баларева. – София: Институт за музика – БАН, 1968, с. 68). 173 even quite successfully – this task thanks to the creative efforts of figures such as Vazov, Pencho Slaveykov, Yavorov. They created an artistic style of Bulgarian prose and poetry.“136 Bersenev’s sceptical tone on the modernist-oriented aesthetic trends in the Bulgarian music was also dictated by the misunderstood democratism that viewed society as a homogeneous undifferentiated whole with unique artistic attitudes. “Modern music”, he said, “is so strange and incomprehensible to our musical soul as the modern Western civilization to the natives of Afghanistan and Bukhara. We do not have [...] the elementary musical culture to fully understand the creative work of Rossini or Meyerber, let alone to dream of those of Debussy and Stravinsky. “137 A far more extreme scepticism appeared in the provocative article by Yordan Badev, Mercy for the Folk Song. Aside from Modern Times Mania, published on the pages of newspaper Zora138, which sharply criticized the orientation towards modernist musical solutions in the operas Yaninite Devet Bratya by Lyubomir Pipkov and Salambo by Vesselin Stoyanov. The article provoked a heated discussion and motivated counter-opinions by a number of musicians, including Stoyan Brashovanov, Mihail Hadzhimishev, Venelin Krastev, Tamara Yankova, and others. Such reflections undoubtedly spoke of the advanced process of intellectual disintegration in terms of artistic interests and criteria. As for the folklore tradition as a stable foothold in the understanding of the national identity, the new generation of composers insisted on original solutions in its transformation and openly distanced itself from the previous experience associated with the idea of the primitive use of folk intonation motifs. On that issue, L. Pipkov wrote: “Our musical style is in the very reality, in the way of thinking and feeling of our people unmistakably reflected in the folk song. However, we have to overcome this stage in our creativity when an inserted folk song is the most Bulgarian part in a given composition [...] Bulgarian music does not mean [...] a skilful play of scarecrows clothed in mantels and breeches. Let’s leave the ethnography to specialists.”139 In the same vein spoke V. Stoyanov, who stressed that “our musical literature is teeming with harmonized songs, “dressed up”, “arranged” or “in a people’s spirit “140, while Dragan Kardzhiev went further:” It is criminal to encourage every nonsense just because it is “native”.141 For some musicians, the issue of creating a national style was not limited to the possibilities of the original creative look at the folklore tradition. Even a music ethnographer such as Stoyan Dzhudzhev shared the view that “the style of the Bulgarian music is something more: it is the sum of all creative efforts and the spirit of the nation – that spirit that manifests itself not only in the folk songs but throughout the internal and the material life of the people”142. St. Dzhudzhev paid attention to something else. He fairly talked about the not-so-clarified meaning of the concept of style. According to him, the perceptions of the subject concerned rather the idea of a national school as a set of different individual styles. The concept of style, he stressed, meant “a way of writing”, i.e. a question of subjective choice143. That kind of problem somehow led to the idea of pluralism, of diversity of the creative points of view. Far-sighted in that sense were the words of L. Pipkov. “Europe has no single style. The great artists have created their own styles; the others drowned in wagnerism, debussyism, stravinskism or lost balance after the shadows of the past”.144 And the national specificity “... does not strike a blow at the whole European culture because it is a bridge between the artistic primitive and the modern times ...”145. Andrey Stoyanov spoke in the same spirit: “One could not, of course, think of a single national musical style. No nation has such a style ... The national culture must contain various musical styles.”146 In fact, such was the real situation in the Bulgarian artistic culture at a time when creative approaches coexisted in the literature, visual arts, and music as a way of building specific individual styles. That heterogeneous situation was also relevant to the treatment of the Bulgarian theme in the arts. 136 Берсенев, А. П. Българското творчество и западният модернизъм. // Музикален преглед, V, бр. 10–11, 5.09.1928 г. (Cited after: Българските музикални дейци..., с. 92). 137 Ibid. 138 Бадев, Йордан. Милост към народната песен. Настрана от модерноманията. // Зора, XXIV, бр. 7166, 21.05.1943 г. 139 Пипков, Любомир. За българския музикален..., с. 64. Стоянов, Веселин. За българския музикален стил. // Златорог, XVIII, 1937, кн. 3, 121–127 (Cited after: Българските музикални дейци..., с. 93). 141 Кърджиев, Драган. Народната опера и българското оперно творчество. // Родна песен, V, 1932, кн. 3 (Cited after: Българските музикални дейци..., с. 59 ). 142 Джуджев, Стоян. За стила в музиката и за българския стил. // А.С.О., I, бр. 5, 20.11.1935 (Cited after: Българските музикални дейци..., с. 74 ). 143 Ibid. с. 73. 144 Пипков, Любомир. За българския музикален..., с. 64. 145 Ibid. 146 Стоянов, Андрей. Национална музика. // Златорог, XV, кн. 7, 1934, 314–318 (Cited after: Българските музикални дейци..., с. 123 ). 174 175 140 Among the more traditionally oriented attitudes, in the field of the instrumental music, for example, dominated the romantic attitude inspired by the Bulgarian epic and the natural colouring of the native. There were many such examples: Balkanska Syuita (Balkan Suite) (1926) by Dobri Hristov, the suite Trakiyski Tantsi (Thrace Dances) (1925, 1926) and the overture Balkan (1936) by Petko Staynov, Rodopska Syuita (Rodopi Suite) by Assen Karastoyanov, Bulgarska Rapsodia (Bulgarian Rhapsody) (1927) and Sakarska Syuita (Sakar Suite) (1931) by Philip Kutev, etc., all of which emblematic for the Bulgarian music orchestral works which, together with the new author’s attitude in the development of folklore motifs, cultivated a taste for unfolded musical dramaturgy through the application of means of expression similar, to some extent, to the predominant artistic methods characteristic of the music in Russia, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary. In the 1920s and 1930s the Bulgarian music discovered new aesthetic horizons. The creative individualities of composers such as Pancho Vladigerov, Lyubomir Pipkov, Marin Goleminov, Dimitar Nenov, Vesselin Stoyanov, and others were formed against the background of somehow intertwined artistic trends consistent with the contemporary artistic atmosphere in Bulgaria. Pancho Vladigerov (1899–1978) To a great extent, that related to the music of P. Vladigerov, the first Bulgarian composer (and a phenomenal pianist who had concerts in Bulgaria and Europe), who received wide international recognition. Having recognized his innovative creative talent, Geo Milev wrote, as early as in 1920, in Vezni Journal: “Vladigerov is the first one in Bulgaria trying to get the Bulgarian composition out of its traditional way and to direct it onto the new path of the modern European music “147. Pancho Vladigerov formed his compositional style in the complex environment of the European artistic trends of the early 20th century. His music reflected the influences of the late romanticism and the aesthetic ideas of the symbolism and impressionism refracted through the prism of his personal worldview. The colouring of his vibrant highly-communicative musical language was characterized by a taste for the broad melodic line, generous multi-layered texture and dynamic dramaturgy, improvisational treatment of the thematic material, bravura ornamentation, original harmonic and metro-rhythmic solutions that embodied a wide range of emotional nuances. The years spent in Berlin during his studies at the State Higher School and the Academy of Arts (1912–1918) as well as of his work as a composer and conductor in the theatre of the distinguished director Max Reinhardt (1920– 147 Милев, Гео. (Рубрика „Критичен преглед“, отзив за концерт на П. Владигеров в столицата). // Везни, 1919/1920, бр. 6, с. 183. Petko Staynov (1896–1977) 176 12. Bulgarian 20th Century... 177 1932) did not break the ties with his homeland. It was then when the composer created the first concerts in the Bulgarian musical literature (Concerto for Piano No. 1 and Violin Concerto), Ballad for Voice and Piano Lud Gidia (Impetuous Boy) after the eponymous Pencho Slaveykov’s poem, and the very popular Bulgarian rhapsody Vardar, after the song by Dobri Hristov Ednichak Chuy se Vik (A Single Cry is Heard). After his return to Bulgaria in 1932, Vladigerov wrote the opera Tsar Kaloyan after the historical novel Solunskiyat Chudotvorets by Fani Popova-Mutafova, the latter also author of the opera libretto together with the poet Nikolay Liliev (1936) – the first Bulgarian musical-stage work performed abroad followed by Symphony No. 1 (1939), Concerto for piano and orchestra No. 3 (1937), Improvisation and Toccata (1942), the ballet Legenda za Ezeroto (A Legend about the Lake) (1946), Concert Fantasy for Cello and Orchestra, Bulgarska Syuita (Bulgarian Suite), Evreyska Poema (Jewish Poem), Lyulinska Impressia (Lulin Impression), the miniatures Shumen and Akvareli (Watercolors) as well as many other symphonic and chamber works, which set new aesthetic perspectives for the Bulgarian music, commensurate with the artistic achievements of modern Europe. Quite other aspects of modern artistic expression were revealed by the personal creative personality of Lyubomir Pipkov. His interest in the aesthetical lyrico-psychological suggestions and the current socio-political summaries was reflected in works such as the ballad Konnitsi (Riders) (1929), the vocal-symphonic poem Svatba (Wedding) after the eponymous poem by Nikola Lyubomir Pipkov (1904–1974) 178 Marin Goleminov (1908–2000) Furnadzhiev (1934), the symphony Geroichna (1940) dedicated to Spanish Civil War. But, alongside those creative pursuits of his, L. Pipkov also had special interest in the ancient layers of non-Western cultures, which gripped a number of European artists at the beginning of the 20th century, including in Paris, where he was a student at École normale de musique (1926–1932). Being a representative of such a culture, the composer saw in that line not so much curiosity about some exotics as new opportunities in the treatment of the Bulgarian theme. His in-depth knowledge of the archaic layers of the Bulgarian folk music acquired back in the years when he studied at the Sofia Music School at Dobri Hristov, reflected in a number of works such as Bulgarian Piano Suite (1928), String Quartet (1928), Sonata for Violin and Piano (1929), Concert for Percussion, Wind Instruments and Piano (1931), Songs for Voice and Piano, folk song arrangements. At the same time, the idea of the opera Yaninite Devet Bratya (Yana’s Nine Brothers) arose. The opera (inspired by N. Vesselinov’s narrative based on folk song motifs and ancient traditions and published in Journal Zlatorog) was completed by Pipkov in 1937. The opera was more of a musical drama and revealed a special angle related to the line of expressionism in modern art. By pushing apart from the archaic layers of folk art, the composer built new aspects in the appearance of the modern Bulgarian music. Unlike Vladigerov’s somewhat idealized look at later layers of the folklore, 179 Pipkov sought the raw deep impulses in the folk culture. Yaninite Devet Bratya (Yana’s Nine Brothers) played a significant role in the composer’s work. The tragic motifs appearing in the opera were unfolded in his later musical-stage works, too: Momchil (1944) and Antigona (1964). Among the emblematic musical-stage works with a bias towards folklore expressionism, the dance drama Nestinarka (Fire Dancer) (1942) by Marin Goleminov stood out, whose original musical texture combined the whiff of ancient pagan beliefs embodied in unstoppable ritual rhythms and the later religious ideas of Christianity expressed in broad chanting melodies. Nestinarka (Fire Dancer) focused the attention on essential features in the style of the composer linked to his highly individualized view of the folklore heritage and artistic methods that related to Bartok’s compositional ideas to some extent but, also, to the philosophical dimensions of musical art as an emanation of the views and intuition of the creative personality. The influence of the European expressionism also reflected in the work of the composer Vesselin Stoyanov, especially in the opera Salambo (1940) created after the eponymous novel by Gustav Flober. By using a plot borrowed from the European literature, the composer created a bridge between the Bulgarian music and models of the world literary classics: a perspective line that undoubtedly expanded the notion of national art. On the other hand, V. Stoyanov was among the few authors with a consistent interest in humour in the field of music, embodied for example in the opera Zhensko Tsarstvo (Women’s Kingdom) (1935), after the eponymous comedy by Stefan Kostov, and the grotesque symphony suite Bay Ganyo (1941) after the work of the same name by Aleko Konstantinov. Dimitar Nenov (1901–1953) New sound solutions in the Bulgarian music were included in the work of the composer Dimitar Nenov. Having a steady orientation towards the aesthetic challenges of the musical modernism, D. Nenov looked for exquisiteness of musical expression that is alien to the conventional thinking. In a number of his compositions, he unfolded the potential of refreshing ideas related to the modal-harmonic and polytonic aspects of the musical language. Indicative in that sense were works such as Piano and Orchestra Concerto (1932–36), Rhapsody Fantasy for a Large Orchestra (1938–40), the piano plays Toccata (1939–40), Dance (1941), etc. The novelties in the creative work of the second generation of Bulgarian composers, who formed a national school in the professional music, were not exhausted by joining the European aesthetical orientations related to certain traits of the romanticism, symbolism and impressionism or folklore expressionism. The bias towards the Bulgarian theme, which significantly united the artists of the 1920s and 1930s, found far more dynamic expressions in the musical-stage genres as well as the genres of choral, chamber, and symphonic music. However, in all that stylistic diversity, the sense of communion and shared intellectual excitement probably indicated the most promising side of the artistic life at that time. K. L. Vesselin Stoyanov (1902–1969) 180 181 MODERNIZATION PROCESSES IN BULGARIAN THEATRE In the first half of the 20th century, in its quest to compensate for what was missed, the Bulgarian theatre travelled a dynamic path and underwent, in a compressed version, the West European movement’s evolution of the of the ideas of the Renaissance with its individualism and search for a strong personality. It passed through the drama of the individual in the French Classicism, through the romantic rebellion of the emerging new person, the major character of the French Revolution of 1789. It reached the personal resistance to the bourgeois society which deprived of individuality. It touched on the Russian collective determinism reflected in the Russian realistic dramaturgy and hampered the individualistically unleashed actor’s power. For a very short time, the Bulgarian artists had to go through the diversity of the relationship between personality and society that had been formed for centuries. On the stage, stylistic techniques co-existed that were typical of different strands of theatre in different epochs. In that sense, it is difficult to talk about realism of a modern psychological type in the stage art of the first half of the 20th century, which was too eclectic. Often the cast of the actors was pathetic-romantic, the tone was an elevated declamatory one. There were moments of inspiration and relative merging with the image alternating with moments of temporary entry into the image. The presence of the actor remained within the tradition of the classical realism with touches of romanticism in the acting, characteristic of the European theatre of the stars of the late 19th century. The stage art was largely dependent on the concepts of the theatre amplóa and the division to tragedians, comedians, episodic actors, ingénue, naives, etc. There was a gradual shift from the theatrical heroization of the positive and the caricaturing of the negative characters to the more complicated transmission of traits of character motivated by the social and psychological nature within a more modern thinking. Often, domesticity could be observed. Over time, as qualities of good acting, naturalness, truthfulness of feelings, and likelihood of physical behaviour became preferable. There was a striving to overcome the external illustrativity and the shallow type demonstration. Life authenticity was sought in accordance with the general public attitudes. In principle, in the first half of the 20th century, there were at least two dominant tendencies in the Bulgarian theatre related to the Russian influence (to a greater extent to that of Mali Theatre than to the one of Moscow Art Theatre) as well as the German influence. Conductors of Russian influence at the beginning of the century were mostly the actors who graduated from Russian schools. From the second half of the 1920s, decisive was the presence of Nikolay O. Massalitinov. In his work, he followed mainly the traditions of Maly Theatr and the principles of the early Moscow Art Theatre, where he was an actor from 1907 to 1919. As a matter of fact, the Bulgarian actors were trained at several Russian centres: Maly Theatr, St. Petersburg Imperial Theatre School, and Moscow Art Theatre. Most of 182 183 Mary Stuart by Fr. Schiller, dir. N. O. Massalinov, National Theatre, 1934 the artists only specialized at the Art Theatre for a short period of time by watching rehearsals and performances. They got acquainted with actors from the Moscow Art Theatre and attended performances, which in no way made the influence of the Moscow Art Theatre dominating in our theatre. Moreover, the Moscow Art Theatre School, with its basic principle being the search for stage truth and psychological realism, should not be put under the general denominator of the Russian psychological realism as regards the specifics of the School of Maly Theatr. The Moscow Art Theatre was perceived as a denial of the old and more theatrical school of Maly Theatr, which, although considered to be realistic and, more precisely, classical realistic, at the beginning of the 20th century no longer met the modern-day requirements of the director‘s theatre. Subjugation to the unity of the spectacle, achievement of ensemble, illusion of naturalness and credibility, etc. were the new underlying tendencies of the idea of Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko to establish their own school. The fact that part of the Bulgarian actors were interested and well acquainted with the quests of Stanislavsky and the Moscow Art Theatre’s actors did not mean that their experience was systematically applied on the Bulgarian stage. Undoubted, however, was the influence that not only the contact with the Moscow Art Theatre but also with the Russian theatre as a whole, affected the majority of our actors. What was characteristic of the method of work, especially in the performances by Nikolai O. Massalitinov, was: the attempt for more complete representation of the reality and of the socio-psychological processes; the search for greater complexity of human relationships; the cultivation of the sense of ensemble; the in-depth analysis of the psychology of the image and the revelation of both the individual and the typical features of the character; the insight into the spiritual life of the character through the pursuit of transformation; the achievement of likelihood in physical behaviour; naturalness in intonation, etc. Regarding dramaturgy, the Bulgarian actors felt most cosy in the domestic drama, which gave the performers the fullest opportunity to present images close to their nature. More generally, the Bulgarian drama during that period revealed a great deal of affinity mostly for domestic and petty-bourgeois motives. That did not prevent actors from building some of the most memorable images in Bulgarian plays. 184 Revizor (The Government Inspector) by N. Gogol, dir. Nikolay O. Massalitinov, National Theatre, 1928 Golemanov by St. L. Kostov, dir. Nikolay O. Massalitinov, National Theatre, 1928 185 One of the most prominent Bulgarian theatrical modernists, G. Milev, in his manifesto Teatralno Izkustvo of 1918, proclaimed that in the modern theatre “the director is the spirit that unites and guides the work of the individual actor and of all actors together (ensemble) to achieve the desired artistic result. The entire staging of a play is in the director’s hand so that theatrical art is actually art of the director. The director creates the actor, directs the play of the actor, creates the scenery, gives ideas to the decorative artist, creates the lighting and the music of the dialogue, etc.”149 In his directorial work, Geo Milev strived to achieve unity between the external and the internal forms of expression: scenery, costumes, lighting, music, acting, rhythm, etc. He was convinced that the performance should achieve maximum effect with minimal means. At the same time, he spoke about monumentality and spectacle, ideas close to M. Reinhardt’s quests, especially in the mass scenes; to A. Appia in the direction of his Opiyanenie (There are Crimes and Crimes) by A. Strindberg, dir. Hrissan Tsankov, National Theatre, 1925 Coriolanus by W. Shakespeare, dir. Isac Daniel, National Theatre, 1931 The Russian realistic drama was also a favourite of the actors. It responded largely to their attitude to forceful dramatic emotion, intonation characteristic, and sense of stage truth. The Bulgarian actors also experienced their peaks in the classical West European drama that required precision in terms of the text and observing of the logic of the verse, sometimes passing into declamation, and that implied precision of gesture, posture, mise-enscene, etc. In the modern plays by Ibsen, Strindberg, Sudermann, Hauptmann, Maeterlinck, and others, only individual acting successes were noted. In the period between the two world wars, public attitudes changed and further modernization processes took place. An important stage in the development of our theatre was related to the appearance of the director and to the increasing requirements for ensemble for the sake of the performance as a whole. The imposition of the ideas of modernism in the Bulgarian theatre was associated with the directors Geo Milev, Hrissan Tsankov, Isac Daniel, Boyan Danovski, Nikolay Fol, etc. Alumni mostly of German-language schools, they were the main promoters of the West European whiffs148. Милев, Гео. (Рубрика „Критичен преглед“, отзив за концерт на П. Владигеров в столицата). // Везни, 1919/1920, бр. 6, с. 183. 149 Милев, Гео. Театрално изкуство. Стара Загора. // Везни, 1918. Cited after: Милев, Гео. Съчинения в 3 т.:Т. 2 – София: Български писател, 1976, с. 89. http://www.znam.bg/com/ action/showBook?bookID=920&elementID=487&sectionID=5 (visited on 05.08.2018). 186 187 148 concepts of the role of the rhythm, music, and light in a performance; to G. Craig’s insights into the functional scenography, the stage effects, and the Über-Marionette actor as well as to the bio-mechanics and constructivism of Vs. Meyerhold. G. Milev tried to realize on stage some of those theoretical works and to adapt them to the Bulgarian cultural conditions in several performances of his such as Edip Tsar (Oedipus Rex) by Sophocles in Stara Zagora in 1915, in which amateurs played; Martveshki Tants (The Dance of Death) by A. Strindberg in the National Theatre in 1919; Masa Chovek (Masse Mensch) by E. Toller at Renaissance Theatre in 1923, and in his unfinished expressionist project Elektra by H. von Hofmannsthal, prepared for the National Theatre.150 Another major director after the World War I was Hrissan Tsankov. He was trying to push through his reformist production principles which he had mastered in Germany in the early 1920s. Earlier (1911–1912), Hr. Tsankov also had the opportunity to get acquainted with the methods of the Moscow Art Theatre. Tsankov studied at Dr. I. F. Schmidt at Max Reinhard’s theatrical studios and was heavily influenced by the ideas of the famous director who had received his education at Otto Brahm’s naturalistic school and played at Deutsches Theatre. As a producer, Reinhardt was known for his eclecticism, where each production had its own style. During his 40-year creative life, he had gone through various stages. Among the most important features of his productions were the monumentality, impressive mass scenes, the use of major expressionist gestures by the actors, especially in the 1920s. On the other hand, he made productions for small audiences, too. The general in his directorial quests was determined by the desire to immerse the spectator into a different world which was far from the routine of everyday life. Reinhard’s influence as a performer on Tsankov was strong. He was even blamed for imitation, especially in connection with the allegedly scandalous performance Blagorodnikat (Le Bourgeois gentilhomme) by J. Moliere (1929). That performance, however, remained in the history as one of the first attempts for a more eccentric and expressive acting, fitting in the general director’s idea of the conditional, innovative, experimental performance. The painter Aleksandar Bozhinov described Blagorodnikat (Le Bourgeois gentilhomme) by J.B. Moliere, dir. Hrissan Tsankov, National Theatre, 1929 Max Metzger’s stage and costume designs for the performance of Hr. Tsankov as “a solemn celebration of cubist and dadaist futurism at the National Theatre”151. Although in his productions he applied his experience gained in Germany and strived for a brighter spectacle, dash, a flight of fantasy as well as achievement of a common style in acting, the director H. Tsankov did not always succeed in realizing his creative intentions. The main reasons were the lack of traditions in that direction and, respectively, of actors prepared for a more modern type of theatre. Indicative in that sense were his two lengthy theoretical studies: Izkustvoto na Rezhisyora (The Mastery of Director) and Tvorchestvoto na Aktyora – Problemi i Psihologia (Actor’s Work – Problems and Psychology), in which he discussed the art of directors and the problems related to the psychology in actors’ work. In them, he expressed his vision of the specifics of the work of directors and of acting.152 150 Николова, Камелия. Експресионистичният театър и езикът на тялото. – София: Университетско издателство „Св. Кл. Охридски”, 2000. 151 Божинов, Александър. Тържествено чествуване на кубистичния и дадаистичен футуризъм в Народния театър. // Свободна реч, 1929, бр. 1721, с. 2. 152 Цанков, Хрисан. Наследство. Съст.: Искра Цанкова, Кристина Тошева, Иван Драгошинов. С., Валентин Траянов, 2003, 329–406. 188 189 Among the more interesting, modern, up-to-date, and conditionalexpressive productions after the West European classics of the students of German and Austrian schools, Daniel, Fol and Danovski, were: Coriolanus, W. Shakespeare, 1931; Mnimiyat Bolen (The Imaginary Invalid), J B Mollier, 1931 – directed by I. Daniel; Wilhelm Tell, Fr. Schiller, 1931 – directed by N. Fol; Kreditori (Creditors), O. de Balzac, 1935, Kakto vi se haresa (As You Like It), W. Shakespeare, 1936, Uchilishte za Spletni (The School for Scandal), R. Sheridan, 1938 – directed by B. Danovski.153 Despite the undisputed aspirations of the directors for application and adaptation of the knowledge gained abroad, it was hardly fair to speak of direct imitation of some well-defined Western models. Rather, some tendencies, the result of mixed influences, should be sought. Wilhelm Tell by Fr. Schiller, dir. Nikolay Fol, National Theatre, 1931 Kakto vi se haresa (As You Like It) by W. Shakespeare, dir. Boyan Danovski, National Theatre, 1936 153 Народен театър „Иван Вазов” / Летопис: януари 1904 – юли 2004; Вж. Йорданов, Николай, Попилиев, Ромео; Николова, Камелия; Дечева, Виолета; Спасова, Йоана. История на българския театър: Т. 4 – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, 2011. 190 An important aspect of the work of the directors on the way to modernizing the theatre became the visual aspects of the performances. It should be noted that with the appearance of the director, in the modern sense of the notion, the stage environment – as a bearer of certain conceptual ideas – began to play an increasing role in the theatre. Of great importance for the further modernization of the Bulgarian theatre were the changes that occurred in the field of scenography in the late 1920s and 1930s. One of the important events was the opening of the restored from the fire building of the National Theatre on 17 March 1929. The new stage conditions were a prerequisite for much more impressive and larger stage scenes compared to the previous six-year period. They had impact on the overall development of the theatre, especially for the expansion of the production possibilities of directing and the development of the acting in the period. 191 While more secession-decorative techniques or traditional naturalistic-daily life elements were used in the 1920s, the tendency for the for elaboration of more constructivist scenery emerged in the 1930s. In the 1930s and early 1940s, the introduction of light functional scenery gradually became a predominant direction in the scenographic quests of Evgeniy Vashchenko, Pencho Georgiev, Preslav Karshovski, Ivan Milev, Ivan Penkov, Assen Popov, and others. That was largely the consequence of the more modern technical possibilities of the new scene, which were combined with more general conceptual ideas in the spirit of the European directorial and scenographic views about the functionality of the stage space.154 The avant-garde that was looking for its place and was trying to penetrate Bulgaria immediately after the World War I, was quickly tamed. From the mid-1920s, unlike the period before and shortly after the wars, there was a tendency to reject Europeanization and to rely on uniqueness, which, in essence, represented an anti-modernization reflex and closure of the culture as a whole. Elenovo Tsarstvo (Deer’s Kingdom) by G. Raychev, dir. Yu. Yakovlev, scenographer: Assen Popov, National Theatre, 1934 Archive: National Theatre Museum (processed by Ivo Hadzhimishev) Nepoznatoto Momiche (The Unknown Girl) by Fr. Molnar, dir. N. O. Massalitinov, scenographer: Pencho Georgiev, National Theatre, 1935 In line with the public demands of the new, more “plebeian”, audience, predominantly including representatives of the middle and small-bourgeois class and intelligentsia, they often relied on the stage depiction of everyday situations in more accessible realistic everyday life forms. Over the years, the directing in the National repertory theatre became more conventional and, at the same time, restrained the actors. By the late 1930s and early 1940s, domestic comedies and urban drama with an inclination to sugary-sweet melodramatism became particularly popular. In the decade before the war, the writers’ orientation to historical stories and national liberation themes intensified155. Динова-Русева, Вера. Българска сценография. – София: Български художник, 1985, с. 180–210. 154 192 155 Йорданов, Николай; Попилиев, Ромео; Николова, Камелия; Дечева, Виолета; Спасова, Йоана. История на българския театър. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, 2011, с. 115–189. 13. Bulgarian 20th Century... 193 Han Tatar by N. Ikonomov, dir. Nikolay O. Massalitinov, National Theatre, 1940 Kalin Orelat (Kalin the Eagle) by N. Ikonomov, dir. N. O. Massalinov, National Theatre, 1941 Archive: Nation Otroche ot Mazhki Pol (An Infant of Male Gender) by G. Karaivanov, dir. N. O. Massalinov, National Theatre, 1942 Archive: National Theatre Museum (processed by Ivo Hadzhimishev) With the approach of the new war, more conservative and rightminded attitudes were imposed in the public and cultural life. Gradually, though channelled into a moderately conservative model for a repertory theatre, the art of the National Theatre continued to modernize by following the steps of the European theatre development from the end of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century. J. S. 194 195 CITY AND THE ENTERTAINMENT The emerging public institutions for social communication, which usually offered music for mood, set another important part of the Bulgarian way of joining the urban culture of the modern world. The process was particularly intense in the 1920s and 1930s in the capital. The Sofia saloons for worldly events, the palace balls, operetta stages, night bars, locals, amusement evenings, and the emergence of the cinema formed the outlines of a specific environment that projected new social behaviour, the latter being the result of the needs and customs of various communities with a taste for a bohemian way of life. Significant for the vivid image of that environment, subject to increasingly tangible influences related to the modern culture of the West, were a number of events in Sofia: for example, the evenings at Slavyanska Beseda Chitalishte, where young people practiced European dances, or the programmes of Beer House Nova Amerika (later transformed into Renaissance Theatre), featuring artists from European varieties and show-theatres. Music for mood (in other words, entertaining music) performed by small orchestras sounded at the locals Alcazar, Union Palace, Panah, Union Club, Moderen Teatar, Gloria Palace, Odeon. Although consistently associated with the eclecticism of the urban folklore, in the 1920s and, particularly, in the 1930s, that genre of music already spoke the learned conventional language used in the fashionable at that time in Europe and beyond the ocean dance rhythms of the Argentine tango, rumba, foxtrot, charleston. The Schlager songs and some early forms of jazz, which gained popularity in the modern world, formed the directions in the field of entertaining music in our country, too. And if in song lyrics the love theme dominated, interpreted with humour or in the spirit of melodrama, fashionable dance rhythms somehow cultivated the ideas in the direction of a vital worldview free of traditional norms and taboos. 196 In his memories of old Sofia, Dragan Tenev spoke about some of the aspects of the events in that area: “Even though I had heard the first recorded Argentinean tango at home, it soon happened to me to listen to live dancing music. It was in the garden of Slavyanska Beseda restaurant where my parents took me with them one night. The magnificent orchestra Zlatnoto Tsiganche was playing there [...] In the days of my childhood, except through notes, dance and pop music was delivered to Bulgaria mainly via gramophone disks. Of course, these disks were “foreign” [...] but regardless of their nationality the music recorded on them was invariably mostly melodic ...”156 The capital raised the first Schlager singers, too. Among them were Angel Sladkarov, Georgi Rafailov, Ekaterina Vankova, Alberto Pinkas. A particularly significant trace was left by Asparuh Leshnikov, whose glamorous professional career began in Berlin, where he studied music at the Conservatory in the 1920s. His phenomenal participation in the male vocal sextet Comedian Harmonists (1927–1934), which was popular throughout Europe before the World War II, brought him a wide international reputation. The European press called him the Knight of the Upper Fa because of 156 Тенев, Драган. Тристахилядна София и аз между двете войни. – София: Български писател, 1997, с. 220. 197 his velvety tenor timbre and remarkable bel canto technique. Recordings of the ensemble were published in a huge volume by the record companies Odeon, Electrola, Columbia, and His Masters Voice. Because of the Jewish origin of three of its members, the ensemble had to end its sweeping career in 1934, shortly after the Nazi rule came to power in Germany. A. Leshnikov returned to his homeland in 1941 where he released a number of records of Bulgarian solo. Among the most popular were Ne Chakay Me (Do Not Wait for Me), music by K. Georgiev, Tantsuvay, Tsiganko (Dance, Gypsy), music by J. Tsankov, Belokamenna Cheshma (White Stone Fountain), music by Poptoshev and others. Unlike the music of the Harmonists, which was an early example of the interaction between trends in popular music from Europe and America, with an emphasis on the traditional German lyrical song, the topical schlager and some expressive aspects of the African American a capella tradition, the Bulgarian repertoire of A. Leshnikov was placed in the field of a completely different style, marked mostly by the sentimentalism characteristics of the local singing in the spirit of the urban folklore. Cafe Tsar Osvoboditel. Caricature painting by Aleksandar Dobrinov (1935) depicting the Sofia Bohemians in the face of prominent Bulgarian poets, writers, critics, singers, actors, artists, architects, industrialists, politicians 198 Asparuh Leshnikov (1897–1978) In the years after the World War II, the name of A. Leshnikov was completely forgotten. The interest in his personality came back in 1968 when he was awarded the title of honorary member of the Berlin show-theatre Friedrichstadt-Palast and especially in the late 1990s, after the appearance of Josef Vilsmaier’s feature film The Harmonists (1997) dedicated to the legendary Berlin ensemble. In 1974, the Bulgarian recording company Balkanton issued an album with archive recordings of his performances and in 1977, A. Leshnikov received a Bulgarian state award – the medal Cyril and Methodius 1st degree – on the occasion of his 80th anniversary. Again the capital showed the first Bulgarian writers in the field of schlager songs and instrumental dance music. A pioneer and long-time leader in that direction was the composer Yosif Tsankov. A musician with a rich melodic talent, he was the author of many vocal and instrumental plays including tangos, foxtrots, rumbas, waltzes, and operettas for Odeon Theatre. Among his most popular songs of that time were Kervanat (The Caravan), Spi, Moya Malka Senyorita (Sleep, my Little Señorita), Oblatsi Bezdomni (Homeless Clouds). The Schlager genre was subjected to ideological speculation after the World War II. The Communist rule in Bulgaria perceived that kind of song to be a conduit of unhealthy bourgeois taste. It was not until the 1960s that the relatively liberalized political climate in the country stimulated the development of Schlager songs. J. Tsankov created a number of new songs 199 that modernized the idea of the genre in the spirit of the extended concert ballad. Having acquired popularity, some of them also received prestigious awards at the International Pop Music Festival Zlatniyat Orfey (The Golden Orpheus). In the colourful cultural space, under the otherwise quite conventional sign of entertainment, there were also processes that gradually differentiated the line related to the penetration and development of jazz in Bulgaria. Among the musicians with a fundamental role was Assen Ovcharov. Known for his masterful accordion performances at entertainment institutions in Sofia and for having a remarkable subtle ear, for being capable of “taking out” plays from gramophone disks and film shows and known as the leader of orchestras where many prominent musicians from the early time of fashionable dance music played, in 1933, together with Boris Leviev – another iconic name in that area, A. Ovcharov founded the first jazz club at the Alcazar confectionery. In 1938, his new band, very close to the notions of a true big band (both as tools and specific repertoire of plays in the style of swing), gave his first profiled jazz concert at the cinema theatre Royal (today Teatar na Armiyata (Army Theatre), which went live on the radio. At the end of 1944, Bozhidar Sakelarov, a leading musician of Jazz Ovcharov, founded his own orchestra Optimistite (The Optimists). There was a strong period in the history of the Bulgarian jazz which lasted until Poster of Ovcharov Jazz Orchestra 1949 when the events in the country went into a dramatic direction. Jazz turned to be inconvenient in the new political situation. Moreover, as a new autonomous phenomenon in the music of the 20th century, it brought, in many respects, “dangerous” messages, too, at least with regard to the cult of artistic provocation and free musical thinking: all those categories that were incompatible with the mentality of the totalitarian mind. Entertaining Music in the 1920s and 1930s was written by the composers Milyo Basan, Boris Leviev, Ivan Naumov, and others. Their own place in the formation of that kind of music had also some humoristssingers of satiric songs such as the popular at that time Stoyan Milenkov and Jib Jacob Goldstein but there were also other authors who were seemingly far from the creative interests in the area of the “light” genre. In the 1920s Pancho Vladigerov himself wrote the instrumental plays Fokstrot (Foxtrot), Orientalski Marsh (Oriental March), and Keikuok (Cakewalk) that were indicative of the composer’s wide-ranging insight and his ability to intertwine fashionable popular intonations in the field of “high” music. Like in the other musical genres, the novelties in the development of the Bulgarian entertaining music no longer supported the logic of anonymous folklore thinking but the principles of individual creative expression. On the other hand, the specifics of the processes in that field were significantly related to the modern way of life and the rhythm of the modern city as well as to the broad penetration of the gramophone disk and the radio in the everyday life of the Bulgarians. K. L. Yosif Tsankov (1911–1971) 200 201 FILMING OF LITERARY WORKS At the very dawn of the seventh art, screenings after literary works became extremely popular. That global trend also related to the Bulgarian cinematography and its pioneering period. The first Bulgarian screening after a literary work was made by the director Vassil Gendov, the founder of the Bulgarian cinema. In 1922, he made an eponymous film after the book Bay Ganyo by Aleko Konstantinov which, for two decades, had been a favourite read for the Bulgarians. Gendov had long had the idea of making a film after Bay Frame from the film Bay Ganyo, dir. Vassil Gendov, 1922 Archive of the Bulgarian National Film Library Hristo Konstantinov, operator Archive of the Bulgarian National Film Library Ganyo but had postponed it several times as “this is a great and difficult to shoot piece of work.157” The film was realized thanks to the newly formed, not without the participation of Gendov, co-operation Yantra Film; and he decided that Bay Ganyo would be the first film of the co-operation. Among the reasons for that, besides the popularity of the work, was that “the co-operation was going to shake only because of the fact that everyone was offering their own script and themselves as a character.”158 In order to calm the spirits of the co-operators, Gendov suggested the already popular Aleko’s work Bay Ganyo, which was unanimously accepted. The creation of Yantra Film was a sign that the need for greater effort and organization of the film process, beyond the solo efforts of Vassil Gendov and other single enthusiasts, began to be realized. All Gendov’s films were shot in the conditions of a difficult financial scarcity during the post-war economic crisis of the first half of the 1920’s in Bulgaria and managed to be realized only thanks to Gendov’s personal qualities of a director: tenacity, hard work, combinatoriness, resourcefulness, and energy. Hristo Konstantinov, the first professionally trained Bulgarian operator who had specialized in Leipzig, was hired for the film. He was subsequently dismissed for family reasons, and the operator, Yosif Raifler, took his place. 157 Гендова, Жана. Това, което се премълчава в историята на българския филм. – София: Фабер, Българска национална филмотека, 2016, с. 37. 158 Ibid. 202 203 Chicho Stoyan as Bay Ganyo, dir. Vassil Gendov, 1922 Archive of the Bulgarian National Film Library Later, Hristo Konstantinov still shot four films with Vassil Gendov. The role of Bay Ganyo was performed by the popular writer of children’s books Stoyan Popov, known as Chicho Stoyan. The premiere of the film was in the autumn of 1922 at Odeon. Gendov remembered: “The performance of the film Bay Ganyo in Sofia was a real event. Never before had the Bulgarian Cinema Theatre seen such a rush of audience that had accumulated and blocked Tsar Simeon Street in front of the Odeon Cinema159. Another significant screening from the time of the silent Bulgarian cinema was the one of 1928 after Elin Pelin’s novelette Zemya (Land). Two years later, the director and former director of the National Theatre Petar Stoychev turned it into a film and the first screening of a famous writer’s work. At the beginning of the new decade, in the process of its establishment as an art, the cinema in Bulgaria seemed to still be seeking support in already established authorities. Eloquent was the announcement in the newspaper Slovo of the upcoming premiere of the film Zemya (Land). “From Monday, 12th, the first Bulgarian artistic film (according to the Ministry of National Education, writers, and journalists). Zemya (Land), a kitchen-sink drama after Elin Pelin, directed by P K Stoychev, director of the National Theatre. Operator and photographer: Hr. Konstantinov. Ordinary prices: 10, 16, 21, 32 leva.160“ Stoychev, as well as the recognized – by most of the critics – artistic value of the Elin Pelin’s work. Here is what Vassil Gendov said about his colleague: “For me, 1929 is a stage in the development of the Bulgarian film. [...] And the most interesting thing is that against the background of the Bulgarian film appears a completely new person who has not given any signs of interest in the Bulgarian film before. Petar Stoychev, who really makes a big leap in the Bulgarian cinematography, appears.”161 One of the reasons for the success of the film and its artistic value – widely acknowledged by the critics – was the powerful work of Elin Pelin after which Petar Stoychev wrote the script. In Zemya (Land), actors from the group of the National Theatre took part including the director himself who, not long before that, had been actor and director of the theatre, as well as his wife – also an actress from the National Theatre – Teodorina Stoycheva. Petar Stoychev’s interests in the cinema proved to be lasting. A few years later, the second Bulgarian sound film Pesenta na Balkana (The Song of the Balkan) (1934), which was considered to be one of the best in the early Bulgarian cinema, was released. Zemya (Land) was very interesting for the history of the Bulgarian cinema also because it was the first film made by Tempofilm, “the first Bulgarian Frame from the film Zemya (Land), dir. Petar Stoychev, 1930 Archive of the Bulgarian National Film Library 159 Гендов, Васил. Трънливият път на българския филм. – София: Фабер, 2016, Българска национална филмотека, с. 151–152. 160 Обява. // Слово, бр. 2370, с. 3. 161 Гендов, Васил. Трънливият път на българския филм. – София: Фабер, 2016, Българска национална филмотека, с. 235 204 205 Aleksandar Vazov Archive of the Bulgarian National Film Library cinema studio in Sofia”162. Hidden in the “heart” of Sofia, on Dondukov Blvd. and Vassil Levski Blvd., the studio, according to the stories of the contemporaries, was the first film studio with all necessary technical facilities and large enough to shoot two scenes simultaneously, which was really progressive for that time. In those dynamic for the Bulgarian cinema as well as for the Bulgarian culture years, many “first” events happened. To the important ones, we have to add the fact that Zemya was the first Bulgarian feature film to be exempt from excise duty. In April 1930, the Cinematography Act was passed, which “gave real preferences to the native film production.”163 The premiere of Zemya was in May 1930 and Petar Stoychev was the first to take advantage of the tax relief. And that was a proof that the state was already thinking in favour of the development of the Bulgarian cinema. Screened was also the film with which the Bulgarian cinema went out of the so-called pioneering period and “entered” Europe. That was Aleksandar Vazov’s Gramada in 1936, after the eponymous poem of the patriarch of the Bulgarian literature Ivan Vazov, the work that was close to the good European models of the period until 1944. The film Gramada was the first screening after Ivan Vazov. Later on, other screenings were made after his works including the novel Pod Igoto (Under the Yoke). The screening of Gramada was highly assessed by the then critics in Bulgaria, which was extremely rare at the time. Comments appeared, like, 162 Гендова, Жана. Това, което се премълчава в историята на българския филм. – София: Фабер, Българска национална филмотека, 2016, с. 95. 163 Янакиев, Александър. Синема.bg. – София: Титра, 2003, с. 152. 206 “I’m not a great lover of cinema and feel especially bored when I watch various artists’ fabrications. I went last night to watch Gramada [...] I was delighted and proud to be Bulgarian when I left the theatre.”164 As well as: “Mr. Aleksandar Vazov is a true creator of Bulgarian cinema art. Before him, there were just successful or unsuccessful attempts.”165 Perhaps behind that success stayed the fact that in the realization of the film Gramada a huge part of the elite of the Bulgarian intelligentsia took part. In the words of Aleksandar Yanakiev, the recording of Gramada became an “event in the cultural life”.166 First to work on the script of the film was the famous literary expert, translator, and lecturer Prof. Aleksandar Balabanov. It was a great deal of work but, until the film was realized, Balabanov’s script got old and the Frame from the film Gramada, dir. Aleksandar Vazov, 1936 Archive of the Bulgarian National Film Library Власаков, Стоян. // Слово, 07.05.1936, бр. 4152, с. 1. Янакиев, Александър. Синема.bg. – София: Титра, 2003, с. 106. 166 Янакиев, Александър. Синема.bg. – София: Титра, 2003, с. 130. 164 165 207 director wrote a new one, on which the film was shot. Though Aleksandar Vazov followed the subject line of the poem, the adaptation of the literary work for the screen required the building of the narrative almost from the very beginning and by using other means of expression. In his memoirs he said, “In developing the poem and turning it into a script, I came across several gaps and weaknesses.” For the purposes of the narrative, the director also changed some of the actions. “I could not agree for my film hero to leave his beloved and I did not have any technical gadgets to track his escape (like in the westerns) in order to reproduce Vazov’s work in an accurate way.”167 But, in the end, he managed to do it quite well. Balabanov himself recognized it with the words: “There are no poems for declamation but only action in marvellous and beautiful pictures – for watching, exactly for watching.”168 Besides the participation of part of the Bulgarian intellectual elite in Gramada, what contributed for its success was, of course, the talent of its creator, Aleksandar Vazov, a nephew of Ivan Vazov. From his early years, he lived and studied in Western Europe where he decided, instead of the desired by his father – the General Georgi Vazov – military training to study at the photo school, which he graduated. His long stay in Germany, Austria, and Italy gave him the opportunity to see high works of art which he was extremely enthusiastic about. Influential on his formation as a director was the acquaintance and communication with the legend of the silent German cinema Fritz Lang. Thus, behind the success of the film Gramada, there was a combination of facts: a powerful work of a famous and beloved writer; support by the intelligentsia; a director who had been educated and professionally trained in Europe. By the way, before starting the work on the feature film, Al. Vazov made a successful documentary V Tsarstvoto na Rozite (In the Kingdom of the Roses) (1928), which was a valuable testimony of the everyday life, culture, and nature of Bulgaria at that time. The film has been entirely saved. The premiere of the film was on 27 April 1936. During the first screenings in 1936, over 65,000 spectators watched it. That was very much in view of the fact that, at that time, Sofia citizens numbered only 300,000. 167 168 Poster of the film Gramada, dir. Aleksandar Vazov, 1936 Archive of the Bulgarian National Film Library Testimony of the unprecedented interest in the film was the complaints in the then press by people who could not get tickets for the film shown at Pachev cinema. At the other Sofia cinemas such as Slavyanska Beseda, Excelsior, Royal, Slaveykov, Hemus, and Moderen Teatar, they were showing competing American, European, and Soviet films. There was a triumphant march of Gramada in the big cities of the country. In the 1940s, Gramada was back on screen and again enjoyed great success. The fates of those three screenings of the pioneering period of the Bulgarian cinema were quite similar. The biographies of their authors were similar, too: none of them was allowed to shoot feature films after 9 September 1944. Unfortunately, all the three screenings were not saved. Today, we have only single frames from Gramada, photos from the three films as well as numerous reviews and opinions in the then press that give some sense of their artistic merits. The three screenings created after high literary models of the Bulgarian classics: Bay Ganyo, Zemya, and Gramada were the most powerful and appreciated films in the Bulgarian earliest cinema history. T. D. Вазов, Александър. Спомени. Архив на Българска национална филмотека. Балабанов, Александър. За българските филми. // Мир, 10.10.1935, с. 1. 208 14. Bulgarian 20th Century... 209 CRITICAL REFLECTIONS IN ART Bulgarian Engineering and Architecture Society. Architectural Discussions To help develop their professions, in 1893, the graduate designers (architects and engineers) organized themselves in the Bulgarian Engineering and Architecture Society (BEAS). In the year of founding the society, there were a total of 44 members of whom 11 were architects169. Gradually, the number of architects in the country increased as well as their opportunities for professional appearance. Over time, the professional society was gaining more and more importance for the life of the designers. Besides the informal contact between the members, it connected them with institutions, traced norms and competitions, and informed on international architectural and construction events and meetings. A modest building for BEAS was purchased as early as in 1907. In the following decades, competitions and negotiations for donations took place as well as fundraising and taking loans for the construction of a new representative building, the Home of the Engineering and Architecture Society. Its construction was completed only in 1930. In 1894, BEAS began publishing the Spisanie na BIAD (BEAS Journal). The publication was the first “arena” for architectural – both scientific and professional – publications in the country but also covered all other engineering fields: construction, transport, water supply, mining and geology, electricity and technology. It focused on the public presentation of sites, authors, and institutions, the stages of their development were reported, and the current problems and concepts were discussed. The building of the Bulgarian Engineering and Architecture Society (BEAS), 1930170 Designed by Arch. Todor Goranov and Boris Russev As early as at the end of the 19th century, BEAS Journal focused on the search for and studies of authentic Bulgarian architecture as well as on the presentation, analysis, and documentation of cultural monuments. One of the first articles on an architectural theme was, for example, the historical text “The oldest Bulgarian architectural competition”171, which studied the design of the ceilings in Daskalovata Kashta (Daskalov’s house) in Koprivshtitsa. In that period, ancient heritage sites included ancient and medieval excavations, selected historic sites, and traditional crafts and personalities associated with construction and applied arts. The discussion about the national spirit and the creation of a possible Bulgarian architectural style was present in the professional periodicals almost constantly in the first half of the 20th century. Both the positions and the participants in that discussion changed but the topic remained active. “With great joy we met the condition under the programme that the Museum of the Bulgarian Revival shall be designed in a Bulgarian style. Many people will be surprised to see this decision of the committee, especially since it is known that a Bulgarian architectural style does not exist. Yes, we will answer, there is no such but there is a basis to create this style on; we have the elements from which the style can be created” – 170 169 Според списъците публикувани от редакцията в: Членове на Българското инженерноархитектно дружество в София. // Списание на БИАД в София, 6–8, 1914, с. 62–69. 210 с. 84. Гадев, Апостол. Откриването на дружествения дом. // Списание на БИАД, 3–5, 1930, 171 Козаров, Георги. Най-стария български архитектурен конкурс. // Списание на БИАД в София, 1–2, 1901, с. 27–29. 211 wrote Anton Tornyov in 1900172. A number of sites from the pre-war years were implemented in the search for such a national vision. In the first half of the 20th century in Bulgaria, there was an increasing profiling of the engineering specialties as well as activation of the construction branch. There were attempts for additional specialized periodicals such as the journal Stroitel: Spisanie za Arhitektura, Inzhenerstvo I Predpriemachestvo (Builder: Journal for Architecture, Engineering, and Entrepreneurship), published by Trendafil Trendafilov in the period from 1924 to 1925. And in 1927, the Bulgarian Architects Society was founded (and, to some extent, “separated” from the organization of BEAS). The period of development was turbulent, accompanied by discussions and transformations; nevertheless, the new society issued Architect (1927–1936) and Izvestia na BAS (1936–1937) respectively. At the same time, modernist views and styles (which were gradually conquering the spaces of the European cities) timidly entered the Bulgarian territory through translations by Peter Meyer, Peter Berens, and Le Corbusier. In the first half of the 20th century, however, their application was limited to single residential, industrial, healthcare, and school buildings. Perhaps the brightest influence of the concepts of modernism (significant even today) could be found in Sofia’s town-planning solution in the spirit of the concept of “garden city” proposed by architect Mussman in the 1930s173. Its features and solutions were also widely discussed within and outside the architectural college. At the end of the interwar period, the national quests in the theory discussed by the architectural college resisted the ideas of modernism. “The question of the Bulgarian national architecture is viewed today only by laics, decorators or archaeologists but not by architects.” About the third international architectural congress in 1935, Dimitar Fingov174 wrote, “…Today, however, when concrete, iron, and glass are the building materials of all civilized nations, the question of “national architecture” is either a fashion event or an attempt at speculation but not a question that can be considered from the point of view of the art. In Izvestia na BAS, we could also find the disappointment from a similar point of view shared by Trendafil Trendafilov176: “Today we speak Esperanto and not Bulgarian in the architectural buildings in Bulgaria,” and a recommendation: “Our architects should warm themselves up by the fire of our current national renewal which revives and awakens the spirit of the past ...” The main themes of discussion by the architectural society were also: • Normative and administrative regulations; • Presentation of new authors, trends, and constructions; • Global architectural and construction exhibitions. Of particular importance was the contribution of the periodicals which published projects that had participated in public competitions as well as the protocols and assessments of their juries. The decisions from the huge international architectural competitions for the Royal Palace, the Court Palace, and the Library Museum in the capital in 1914177, published 172 Торньов, Антон. Инвалиден дом в столицата. // Списание на БИАД в София, 1, 1900, с. 24–25. 173 Желева-Мартинс, Добрина. Биография на София. Исторически студии. Пространство и форма. – 2006. 174 Фингов, Димитър. Рапорт от архитект Димитър Фингов изпратен за третия интернационален архитектурен конгрес. // Архитект, 4–5, 1935, с. 8. Списание на БИАД, 1914, бр. 30–36, с. 277. Трендафилов, К. Тр. Реализмът и нудизмът в архитектурата. // Известия на ДБА, 7, 1936, с. 7. 177 Трендафилов, К. Тр. Международните архитектурни конкурси за царския дворец, съдебната палата и музея с библиотека в столицата. // Списание на БИАД в София, серия публикации в тройните броеве 33–36, 37–39, 40–42, 47–50, 1914. 212 213 Project for the Royal Palace in Sofia by a team from Milan, 1914175 175 176 Photograph of the members of the Bulgarian Engineering and Architecture Society (BEAS), 1930178 Bombings of Sofia in 1944: National Assembly179 in the journal Spisanie na BEAS, were often quoted in the analysis of the pre-war architecture, the tendencies in the aesthetics of the public and representative buildings of the country. Despite the dynamic changes in the period and the variety of tribunes, the BEAS structure (periodically renamed) remained the main form of professional association. An honorary member of the Engineering and Architecture Society in 1930 was the Bulgarian Tsar Boris III. To BEAS and its initiatives, we owe the design regulations of that period as well as the concepts and the creation of the Bulgarian Higher Technical School – VTU in 1942. In 1949, the Engineering and Architecture Society and six other technical organizations joined in the structure of the Scientific and Technical Unions. At the end of its existence, there were over 2,000 members of the society. Although related to the designers’ theoretical demands, the established social and political needs of the environment, and the emerging opportunities of technology in the first half of the century, the construction and architecture in Bulgaria were largely developing on a market principle. Their evolution was gradual and uneven as a whole and followed the dynamics of the historical events influenced by years of rise or of military conflicts and economic constraints. But the processes in the branch were in a constructive direction: the territories of the country were urbanized and densified, the cities were expanding and developing, and the construction activities and the treatment of the legacy were regulated. The World War II, however, depleted the resources in the region and caused serious destruction. In the second half of the 20th century, the changes in the political regime of the country and the work of the Higher Technical School imposed a new perception of the architectural profession and its production. S. T. 178 179 Михайлов, Радослав. Историческият конгрес. // Списание на БИАД, 5, 1930, с. 90 Централен държавен архив – 12,18 45К, 1 Wikimedia Commons 214 215 Expressionism in Chavdar Mutafov’s Critical Reflections The modernist tendencies of the 20th century in Bulgaria could not be adequately described with the terminology and classifications of the Western European art. Therefore, the use of terms such as Cubism, Fauvism, Expressionism, Constructivism, etc. always required further clarification. This does not mean that those movements did not manifest in our country. The experience of Bulgarian artists at influential Western European cultural centres led to the transfer of artistic ideas and their transformation into a local, Bulgarian context, often with different meanings. In the critical reflections in Bulgaria in the years around the World War I, leading figures were interested in modern art and European avant-garde movements, especially in expressionism. One of the protagonists of the German avant-garde was Chavdar Mutafov, who was particularly interested in the circle around Wassily Kandinsky. Chavdar Mutafov (1889–1954) – writer, art critic, and architect – was a major figure of modernism in Bulgaria. His critical articles from 1927 to 1928 impressed with their relevance to the artistic visions and debates of the European avant-garde. Initially, Ch. Mutafov resided in Munich in 1908– 1912 and 1913–1914. He studied mechanical engineering at the Technical University. The World War I interrupted his study. He returned to Germany in 1922 and in 1923 began studying architecture. In the years 1908–1914 – the first period of Mutafov in the Bavarian capital – Kandinsky was at the centre of the artistic events. The exhibitions of Neue Kunstler vereinigung / the New Art Association (1909) and the Blaue Reiter / Blue Rider (1911) were organized; catalogues, almanacs, books on the new art were published. Stormy polemics were taking place. In 1911, Kandinsky published Über das Geistige in der Kunst (About the Spiritual in Art), his first influential book. Shortly thereafter, in 1914, it also appeared in London, translated into English. At the end of 1912, the Almanac Siniya Konnik (The Blue Rider) was issued. In the same 1912, in October, the Berlin journal Der Sturm (a storm, but also an attack) published a whole block of Kadinsky’s graphics and texts; his big article On Understanding the Art started from the first page. Kandinsky often appeared with texts and graphics in the next issues. The first Blue Rider exhibition took place at the Thannhäuser Gallery (Moderne galerie von Heinrich Thannhauser), from 19 December 1911 to 30 January 1912. It raised a series of negative reviews. At that time, Chavdar Mutafov was in Munich. Later, Mutafov’s articles, published in 1920–1922, convinced us that he visited both the Thannhäuser Gallery and the Hans Goltz Gallery. Among those texts, the most significant in terms of the Blue Rider, the expressionism, and the aesthetic ideas before the war were: The Line in Visual Arts180; Problems in Visual Arts181, The Landscape and Our Artists182, The Drawings of Sirak Skitnik in the book “Poems by Edgar Allan Poe”183.. In them Ch. Mutafov wrote about the experience of Expressionism, Kandinsky, Franz Marc, Picasso and Robert Delaunay. In a critical text about the film Dr. Kaligari’s Cabinet184, Ch. Mutafov formulated his own definition of expressionism: “What is Expressionism? – For many, this concept is still an occasion for joke or ignorance; others believe it to be a deceit; it’s actually a worldview. Expressionism is the struggle of the soul with the world: against the real forms of things it opposes their reflections in us, their symbols: then life turns into a sort of regularity of images, in a basic combination of marks, signs: it gets stylized. The studies of modern aesthetics (Wörringer, Curtius) discover the style of art as primary in art: the primitive person begins to Мутафов, Чавдар. Линията в изобразителното изкуство. // Златорог, № 4, 1920. Published as archive in: Кузмова-Зографова, Катя. Чавдар Мутафов. Възкресението на Дилетанта. – София: Изд. къща „Ваньо Недков“, 2001, с. 372–406. 182 Мутафов, Чавдар. Пейзажът и нашите художници. // Златорог, № 2, 1920, год. І. 183 Мутафов, Чавдар. Рисунките на Сирак Скитник в книгата „Поеми от Едгар По“. // Везни, № 2, 1920–1921, с. 88–90. 184 Кузмова-Зографова, Катя. Чавдар Мутафов. Възкресението на Дилетанта. – София: Изд. къща „Ваньо Недков“, 2001, с. 427–429. 180 181 Ivan Milev (1897–1927) Portrait of Chavdar Mutafov. Posted in Almanac Vezni, 1923 216 217 learn the things not in their visible form but through their abstract marks that stylized them; the first art is ideoplastic one, that is, art of the spiritual form.” That understanding revealed the adequate artistic reaction of Ch. Mutafov based on his information, his knowledge of the history of art and aesthetics, and his artistic intuition. In the published article on the drawings of Sirak Skitnik, Ch. Mutafov still commented on the autonomy of the image and its elements: “[...] in The Souls of the Dead, Sirak Skitnik shows clearly and surely the possibility of a new art that uses the pictorial elements out of what they portray – in their abstract relatedness of equal objective values and their irreal law.”185 His assertion that “Kadinsky’s formal, compositional quests are artistic revelations,” was evidenced by a letter of Vassil Pundev, probably from 1923186. In the critical articles that Ch. Mutafov began publishing after the World War I – those from his most prolific period to 1927 – his experience of the art of modernism during his first stay in Munich turned out to be decisive for his artistic criteria. Before leaving Munich after his graduation, in a letter of 20 July 1924, he wrote to his wife Fani Popova-Mutafova: “At parting, I will once again visit Glaspalast and Neuesezession as well as 50 Jahre Deutsche Kunst (50 Years of German Art)187, a magnificent retrospective exhibition at Staatsgalerie.” After returning to Sofia, Ch. Mutafov published the article Myunhensko Izkustvo (Munich Art) in Slovo Newspaper, where he discussed how everything seemed to be repeated and even Expressionism was no longer new: “trams have long been full of expressionist posters [...] even the great concert hall of the aristocratic hotel Chetirite Godishni Vremena (Four Seasons Hotel) has turned into a futuristic cabaret.”188 It was interesting to find out that in 1924 expressionists were part of a panoramic retrospective at the Munich State Gallery and Expressionism was absorbed at the level of everyday life, in other words, there was no sense of “the battle” against “the degenerate art.” In 1925 Hitler declared that Munich was the city closest to his heart, and in May 1933 a spectacular stake of books and ideas was already organized at Königsplatz. During that second period, the artistic scene was different, the atmosphere was very different, and Ch. Mutafov dreamt of the early days before the trauma from the world war: “This city, this city – it lies heavy on my heart and could always be Munich if the years would begin from 1914 backwards” read a letter of 29 July 1923189 to the literary critic Vladimir Vassilev. That was not only nostalgia for the youth but also for the impossible, after the big war, feeling of inviolability of the art. Unlike many Bulgarian artists and writers who went to Munich for the first time after the war, Ch. Mutafov lived there for almost six years before the dramatic events in Europe. After the war, Kandinsky was elsewhere. Exhibitions were not lacking but the creative energy was no longer there. His view of the art Ch. Mutafov presented in his earliest critical texts in pairs of oppositions: style and symbol – in The Landscape and our Artists and in Problems of Visual Arts; the right and the bent line – in The Line in Visual Arts; the pictorial elements themselves and the picture – in The Drawings of Sirak Skitnik in the Poem by Edgar Allan Poe. This peculiarity directed us to another important “meeting” – with the publications by Wilhelm Worringer. Wörringer’s book Abstraction and Compassion. Contribution to Psychology of Style was issued in 1908 in Munich and brought him instant success and longlasting glory. The text was controversial, expressed the author’s sensitivity to the new contradictions in art. Ch. Mutafov mentioned the contribution of Worringer in his unpublished text Vechnoto v Izkustvoto (The Eternal in Art) – a critical article on the multi-volume Istoriya na Izkustvoto (History of Art) by Nikolay Raynov.190 The position stated in Abstraction and Compassion did not prescribe a direction to be taken by the contemporary artists. Vörringer criticized the idea of unified aesthetics but did not offer programmatic statements about the future development. He developed a theory of opposing trends, drawing examples that went beyond the classical artistic canon. As an alternative, he offered a description of artistic phenomena between two active poles: abstraction and compassion. Abstraction and Compassion affirmed the structure of critical oppositions. It is believed that Vörringer and Kandinsky knew about each other and about their inclination to the abstract image in the period around 1911. The influence of Vörringer and his work was largely due to the central place of the term abstraction in his reflections on art. Important was his assertion that the abstract necessity was decisive for every work of art. In that case, the term abstraction was not opposed to figurative painting. That debate and the anxiety about contemporary creativity were an energy environment for the formation of Mutafov. Мутафов, Чавдар. Рисунките на Сирак Скитник... // Везни, № 2, 1920–1921, с. 90. Кузмова-Зографова, Катя. Чавдар Мутафов. Възкресението на Дилетанта. – София: Изд. къща „Ваньо Недков“, 2001, с. 301. 187 The exact title of the exhibition is: Deutsche malerei den letzten 50 jahre, 1924. 188 Мутафов, Чавдар. Мюнхенско изкуство. // Слово, № 668, 1924. 189 Кузмова-Зографова, Катя. Чавдар Мутафов. Възкресението на Дилетанта. – София: Изд. къща „Ваньо Недков“, 2001, с. 294. 190 Кузмова-Зографова, Катя. Чавдар Мутафов. Възкресението на Дилетанта. – София: Изд. къща „Ваньо Недков“, 2001, с. 417–423. 218 219 185 186 I will mention another important meeting for Ch. Mutafov – the one with Heinrich Wölfflin. In 1912, he went from Berlin to Munich to take up the teaching of art history at the invitation of Ludwig Maximilian University. It was in Munich in 1915 when he published his fundamental work Basic Concepts of Art History. Wölflin did not view the contemporary artistic events in his surroundings. What mattered to him was the architecture of the city. In 1913– 1914, Wölfflin delivered a series of public lectures devoted to the subject of the city and the architecture of Munich. After his journey to Italy in the winter of 1913–1914, Wölflin presented Italian art in lectures at the Thannhäuser Gallery. Those public appearances were of particular interest to the students of archaeology. Perhaps Ch. Mutafov was transferred and graduated in Architecture during his second period in Munich not without the impact of Wölfflin’s lectures. Ch. Mutafov mentioned in his article the name of another researcher: that of Fritz Burger (1877–1916), a critic and art historian who was little known because of his early death in the World War I. In his publication Ferdinand Hodler191 Mutafov referred to Burger and his book Cézanne and Hodler published in 1913 in Munich. Mutafov also cited Burger’s book Introduction to Modern Art of 1917, which raised interest by the unusual combination of research in the sphere of Art History and partiality for Expressionism and Kandinsky. In his article Ferdinand Hodler, Mutafov mentioned another name: that of Wilhelm Hausenstein (1882–1957), an art critic and historian with a broad humanitarian education. After 1903 Hausenstein settled in Munich and published a book on Baroque art and numerous contemporary art studies, including The Art of Contemporary Art (1914), Expressionism in Painting (1919), Monograph for Max Beckman (1924), etc. His was the extensive preface to the catalogue of the exhibition New Art at the Hans Goltz Gallery in 1913. The references by Ch. Mutafov were never accidental – he did not simply cite or reproduce what he read but developed certain statements or expressed a different opinion. From everything written about the artistic events of that time, he critically mastered texts that we should know professionally today. But the critical articles that Ch. Mutafov wrote in 1920–1922 were shared in a very limited circle. As regards the opinion of Ch. Mutafov on expressionism, we can summarize that for him the time of expressionism as a historically determined artistic trend after the war was already over. I . G. 191 Мутафов, Чавдар. Фердинанд Ходлер. // Изток, № 38, 1926, с. 1. 220 Sirak Skitnik about Art in Everyday Life The subject of art in the context of everyday life, of “high” and “low” art/ culture was central for the modern art in Europe. With the development of industrial production, several circles of questions were outlined. What was the impact of mass culture on the manifestations of modernism? To what extent were the effects of modernism and avant-garde determined by the changes in the big city during the industrial age? And, finally, in what way and in what environments did artistic modernism and avant-garde become part of the mass culture of consumption? In the works by Sirak Skitnik we could conditionally distinguish two emphases in his interest in the impact of arts in everyday life: in the 1920 years, his articles mainly discussed the role of the artist with regard to subject environment and polygraphic products: the layout of a book and children’s books, postage stamps, etc., decorative arts, and design. In the 1930s the critic’s interest was directed at mass media: the media for collective impact / perception such as cinema and radio, the streets of the big city becoming themselves space and media for information and advertising, and propaganda. Sriak Skitnik’s critical articles were a convincing example of the modern thinking of the role of artists in the era of the emerging industry. The article International Decorative Exhibitions read: “Many people who have the misfortune for life to measure things by a school yardstick, divide arts into higher and lower, and to the latter, they refer the decorative art.” The author noted that in our country we did not have “our own contemporary decorative style?”, “established modernized Bulgarian interior and exterior architecture” or designs of everyday objects. In view of that task, Sirak Skitnik called for a reorientation of the education system of the Art Academy.“192 In the panoramic presentation of art in Bulgaria by the English journal Studio in 1938, under the title Bulgarian Art Today193, Sirak Skitnik wrote, though only a few lines, about the so-called applied arts distinguishing the craftsman modern from the industrial. He further stated: “Machine production is limited; in fact, it does not exist in Bulgaria and most of the fac192 Сирак Скитник. Интернационални декоративни изложби. // Слово, 1924, Централен държавен архив, фонд 44. 193 Sirak Skitnik. Bulgarian Art Today. The Studio, London – New York, 1938, vol. 115, № 540, March, 115–139. 221 tory products are imported.”194 The concept of design cannot exist where there is no developed industry. Still, Sirak Skitnik presented a contemporary vision, to a great degree beyond the local context, of the roles of artists in modern times. Among the objects of everyday life, children’s toys were particularly important in his critical reviews. In the article About Children’s Toys, the new toy was presented as a new world for the child: a promise for “new surprises and puzzles.” From the text, we learned that the author had the opportunity to see, at the first exhibition of decorative arts in Paris, a whole children’s village with “the surprising variety of shapes that the toy has adopted.” Sirak Skitnik urged manufacturers to attract artists to that important activity due to the “tremendous role of toys in the children’s life”.195 The interest in and attitude towards the artistic aspect of books and polygraphic products as a whole were indicative of the belonging to the modern culture. Here, I would not focus on the subject of Sirak Skitnik and the books: it was dealt with in many publications. I will only mention the discussion of the specifics of postage stamps in the article Postage Stamp Competition196. At the end of the text Sirak Skitnik advised that the particular requirements of that kind of graphics should be taken into account. *** From the early 1930s mass arts and media were the centre of Sirak Skitnik’s interest. In the article Art for Everybody197, he turned his attention to circus. The arrival of circus in Sofia “stirred up the Sofia citizens from all circles” to such an extent that even competed with the cinema and “the cinematographs became deserted” and “the miracle of the sound film faded” compared to the circus primitive. Entertainment began to appear as a variety of social behaviour, which was noted by Walter Benjamin in the famous 1935–36 study Artwork in the Age of its Technical Reproducibility. Radio as a mass media, though not visual, was part of the critical interest in the media for public impact. For Sirak Skitnik it was also part of his professional career (1935–1943) of first director of the national radio Ibid. Сирак Скитник. За детските играчки. // Слово, 11.11.1926. 196 Сирак Скитник. Конкурс за марки. // Слово, № 1587, 1927. 197 Сирак Скитник. Изкуство за всички. // Слово, № 2693, 1931. 194 195 222 in Bulgaria. Here we will mention his article Stage and Radio-Stage198 that discussed the special means of expression of radio plays. Sirack Sitnik’s articles on cinema, the comparisons between cinema and theatre take me again back to V. Benjamin. But Sirak Skitnik had no sinister preconceptions about the manipulative use of the possibilities for mass influence and was rather excited by the means of cinema. In the text Stage and Screen, insisting on the autonomous significance of the theatre, Sirak Skitnik noted that “The methods and means of film production cannot be the same as those of stage art.” and “The theatre will never catch up with the mechanic and trickery ingenuity or the pictorial dynamics of the cinema.”199 Sirak Skitnik emphasized the specifics of cinema images; spoke about film frames and the complexity of montage: “Film pictures are composed of thousands of fragments shown from different angles of vision (...)” In journal Nova Bulgaria (1934, issue No. 2), Sirak Skitnik once again compared theatre and cinema in an article titled “What Can Theatre Do”. In fact, the text evenly presented the possibilities of cinema as a mass art / art for the mass audience: “In the darkness of the narrow cinema, such gusts and feelings awaken in these people that they themselves are surprised and with such intensity that they are even embarrassed by their intemperance. What is going on with them?”200 Sirak Skitnik also insisted on the propaganda possibilities of the theatre and its uses: “In its new construction Soviet Russia understood very well the power of the stage and used it well as a means of activating the spirit, despite the extremes it reached in that direction.” “It was no accident that the theatre got out on the street, in the square. Today, all these parade gatherings and manifestations of the masses in Russia, Italy, and Germany are nothing more than an organized square theatre (...) In these countries, organized theatricality (to the widest extent) is entirely aimed at creating a collective will...) – a national pathos so necessary for national construction.”201 In 1934 in Bulgaria Sirak Skitnik still saw no danger in using this potential for mass influence. *** Сирак Скитник. Сцена и радио-сцена. // Златорог, № 1, 1937. Сирак Скитник. Сцена и екран. // Златорог, № 2, 1934. 200 Сирак Скитник. Какво може театърът? // Нова България, № 2, 1934. 201 Ibid. 198 199 223 The city, the great modern city, was a constant object of interest for Sirak Skitnik. In the article “Painting. Sofia and Artists” in newspaper Mir of 26 November 1940 he discussed the attitude of our artists towards Sofia as a landscape object and called for the presentation of the modern city in their paintings. Sirak Skitnik shared his observation that “the city of Sofia is a casual, quite random object in the art of the Bulgarian artists” and, when the capital appeared in their paintings, that was the image of Sofia before it became a modern city – “the provincial Sofia of the past”. And added “Even to this day, almost all our artists who paint Sofia are looking for the provincial in the capital and not its current face, its current rhythm.” As examples, the author pointed Atanas Mihov, Konstantin Shtarkelov, Boris Denev, and Vassil Zahariev. For him, only Nikola Petrov left landscapes of the modern city. “The city with its architectural heaps, streets, movement is strange to them”, found the critic with frustration.202 Contemporary artists, according to Sirak Skitnik, must look for and emphasize the “harshness, dynamics, and linear rigidity of the urban Sirak Skitnik (1883–1943) Article Sofia and Artists in newspaper Mir, issue No. 12095 of 26 November 1940 landscape”, feel the “new rhythm”, the “new spirit of the city”. They must be “artists of the modern life,” if we use the famous title and, continuing after Bodler, the artists in our country, as everywhere else, must present “the modernity.” “The inhabitants of Sofia already try hard to feel the rhythm of the big city,” wrote Sirak Skitnik, “and quickly adapt to its demands on the street and at home. In clothing, in furniture, in the way of living, in their pastime...”203 Sirak Skitnik did not specifically write about photography and the changes in the sphere of visual images after its appearance but about aerial photography, i.e. photographs taken from an airplane.204 “The airplane brought a new perspective, a new vision,” said Sirak Skitnik enthusiastically. His enthusiasm for machinery and the expanded by it perception abilities preceded the aeropainting of the Italian futurists. Along with the artistic mastering of the big city Sirak Skitnik discussed architecture, too. In an article titled “Hopes” in newspaper Slovo of December 1936 he vigorously defended his position on the responsibility of architects due to the great public importance of architecture. Architecture should be discussed competently and publicly. “In our country – even abroad – it is more acceptable to write and speak in great detail about a public painting exhibition, about a talentless book than about a successful architectural work. And it should be the opposite. Because a bad book, a bad painting can easily be destroyed but architectural structures remain for a long time – lasting, always exposed to the eyes of the audience, creating bad or good taste. It was precisely this unpretentiousness to the architectural work that has helped a lot to fill Sofia with architectural nonsense. [...]“205 The figure of Sirak Skitnik is associated with the consciousness of cultural mission and responsibility. Contemporary art in all its forms, especially in those having means of mass influence, must not allow to be used for ideological, political or other purposes beyond itself. In “Art and the Street” in Zlatarog journal in 1937 Sirak Skitnik polemically discussed the role of mass art, mass expectations, and mass taste in the modern cultural situation. At the end of the article, there was Ibid. Сирак Скитник. Слово, 1927, Централен държавен архив, фонд 44. 205 Сирак Скитник. Надежди. // Слово, № 1350, 12.1936. 203 202 1940. Сирак Скитник. Живопис. София и художниците. // Мир, № 12095, 26 ноември 224 204 15. Българският XX век в изкуствата... 225 his call: modern art must “outline the boundaries of its possessions and assert its self-worth. It must defend its rights just like the street bravely defends its own. It must become a master with a heavy word and a heavy crown; remember that the street is irresponsible but art will be held responsible for thousands of years ahead.”206 Thus, in critical articles, Sirak Skitnik clearly outlined the growing tension and interpenetration between the art that was becoming conscious of its autonomy and the forms of mass culture. Those new, significant cultural and artistic problems of the industrial age would penetrate much later, with the contextual approaches of the late 1970s and the early 1980s, in the historization of modern art. PERIODIC PRESS AS CULTURAL INSTITUTION Journal Misal I. G. 206 Сирак Скитник. Изкуството и улицата. // Златорог, № 7, 1937. 226 Journal Misal (1892–1907) appeared on the border of two centuries when the Bulgarian intelligentsia, though in a slow and quite painful manner, realized its belonging to the European traditions and opened its senses for modern searches. It shaped its new identity not only through the native as a preserved and self-sustained identity but also through the creative absorption of foreign artistic and philosophical models. The creation of the journal marked, gave significance to, and realized the dramatic transition from the collectivist patriarchal idealism of the Revival and the first years after the Liberation to the existing at that time, 227 rather as a spiritual premonition or personal gestures, individualism and intellectual scepticism of the still scanty Bulgarian intelligentsia. That was the ambition Dr. Krastyo Krastev put in the new journal. To overcome our national identity and isolation by Europeanizing the Bulgarian literature and culture, offering an aesthetic alternative to realism. The attempt of Misal to build a modern anti-traditional micro model based on the theoretical formulations and philosophical views of Dr. Krastyo Krastev and Pencho Slaveykov, the creative work of Peyo Yavorov and Petko Todorov, and the precisely selected works of the collaborators as well as on the translated materials published drastically wedged into a closed and static artistic field. The journal was provocative and challenging with its freedom from publicistic co-experience of the past as a moral ideal and a constant plot theme as well as with its desire to impose a dominant model in the literary life that was not directed at the social and political but the metaphysical problems of the human spirit. And that caused the inevitable entanglement of the “young”-versus-”old” conflict node as well as the polemic opposition of Misal against the rest of the publications. Conflicts that were predetermined by the analytical deconstruction of tradition and the pushing apart from its problems, language, style, and artistic method. The created as a result of the painful clashes of Misal with the doomed to realism literary model was incompatible with the footstall attitude towards the European influences. It already forcefully imposed not the vertical, in the sense of catching up and imitation, but the linear, i.e. equal and timely communication with the modern inventions. Misal tolerated the movement of cultural signs from the outside to the inside. Its theoretical platform, implemented in the work of the quartet and imposed on the contributors to the journal, implied the expansion of the philosophical, moral, and aesthetic spaces of the native literature by burdening the folklore archetypes with the mental collisions of the contemporary man, by exposing the moral and psychological problems of the person in the sacred space of the folk art. Thus, having denied the tradition in its trivial outlines, they created one of the most fruitful tendencies in the Bulgarian literature. The ambition of the journal to be not only a stimulator but also a mediator in the strained efforts of our literature to situate itself in the European context was not denied even by its most active opponents. And not only by retrospective making up for what was missed but also by synthesizing the actual artistic and scientific-philosophical information. Therefore, the requirements of Dr. Krastev and his associates regarding the translated materials were too high. What happened to the journal that had been the reason for the physical gathering but also for the aesthetic and creative construction of the Misal circle? In it, of course, the works of P. P. Slaveykov, P. K. Yavorov, and P. Todorov were published for the first time, creating in each book interesting thematic genre and contextual dialogues. It would be exaggerated if we joined (without reservation) the opinion repeatedly expressed in the periodic press at that time and later that the publication only announced the aesthetic and socio-cultural positions of the circle. Indeed, it became the reason not only for the creation but also for the establishment of the quartet as a sustainable, elitist, closed creative society, so the spiritual identification between them was inevitable. From the distance of time, we could say that it did not happen abruptly and suddenly. The tendency was gradually but, on the other hand, steadily imposed. Until 1905 the journal was still more liberated, more tolerant and responsive to theaesthetic, social, and even political realities. However, a careful reading shows an even more explicit reduction of the external collaborators, fewer works by other poets and writers, no literary criticism of contemporary works and artistic tendencies. The journal was also closed in the circle but this does not diminish the fundamental role of Misal in the Bulgarian cultural history. 228 229 Е. Т. The Misal Circle The first issue of journal Misal from 1900 was opened with Kaliopa, an unknown author with a strange and unusual name, and in every subsequent issue poems of the same poet were published. His name, already altered, was quickly established and from 1901 onwards Peyo Yavorov’s name was on the cover as a permanent collaborator of the journal. That was a well-known and repeatedly used literaryhistorical storyline. What actually happened except, of course, the most important thing: the appearance of one of the greatest poets in our literature. Yavorov closed the circle. He was the one missing until then, though a founding creator, necessary for the constitution of the Misal Circle. A strictly guarded creative and existential perimeter. That was the elitist circle of the supreme and the chosen. Certainly, it was not a random coincidence game but the strong, almost magical, providence of Dr. Krastyo Krastev, who was trying to draw that ideal but, alas, fictional model of construction of the Bulgarian literature as a perfect space of spirit, as a wished but unachieved Island of the Blessed. Just as the closest to his philosophy – also a utopian missionary and tragic prophet Pencho Slaveykov – saw it. What happened to the journal that had been the reason for the creation of the circle and in which their works were published for the first time, creating in each book interesting thematic genre and contextual dialogues. It would be exaggerated if we joined (without reservation) the opinion actively commented on in the periodic press at that time and later that the publication only announced the aesthetic and socio-cultural positions of the circle. Indeed, it became the reason not only for the creation but also for the establishment of the quartet as a sustainable, elitist, closed creative society, so the spiritual identification between them was inevitable. In the memory of the generations, that was marked in the famous photo of the quartet. Outside the literary-historical stories about the intersection of their personal stories, very interesting and little-known was the unwritten but strictly observed creative ethics in the circle. It was expressed in the mutual apologization of each of their books. Those strong personalities with fine emotional sensitivity, those intellectuals with over-ego and dramatic fates, turned the evaluation of their works into a kind of “priestly 230 ritual”207. Those were moving analytical texts or some kind of lyrical fragments that built beautiful, memorable images, made filigree analyzes, shared pathetic admiration. They were written to be remembered. As an illustration, I will quote only one of those inspired friendly and creative messages. In 1910 Yavorov, who was in Paris, wrote to Pencho Slaveykov about his recently published book: “I look at The Island ... and I can feel a sense of something done, despite the time and place. I open it and it seems to me that our literature is starting today. A crazy desire is driving me to get to the top of Eiffel and, from there, to show it to all of Europe.”208 The text of that postcard was popular. It was written to be seen and commented by many and to be remembered just as a ritual gesture of a community. The life path of everyone in the Misal circle was hard. The fate had ordered the critic to be the last. Dr. Krastev, who initiated that complex, dramatic, contradictory, fundamental storyline in the Bulgarian literary history, hardly accepted the death of Petko Todorov (1916); lamented was his separation (1912) – in both spiritual and friend aspect – with Slaveykov; he co-experienced the last tragic year of Yavorov and accused himself of not having foreseen his suicide (1914). He was intellectually lonely and more and more alone in life. The creator knew that the circle had to be closed again – but already by death and in the eternity – to be a bridge in time and between generations. Here is how Dr. Krastev said goodbye to his friends and followers in his last book: “Inseparable in their path, their martyrs’ faces will live in our souls, united in death as well, in the life of immortality. Pencho Slaveykov – with the bottomless depth and richness of his spirit, Peyo Yavorov – with the demonic power of his songs, Petko Todorov – with the inexpressible touchingness of the images and souls created by him.”209 Е. Т. 207 Неделчев, М. Кръгът „Мисъл“ в годината на големите литературни юбилеи,. – София, 2016, с. 24. 208 Яворов, Пейо К. Събрани съчинения в 5 т.: Т. V. – София: Български писател, 1979, с. 110. 209 Миролюбов, В. (Кръстьо Кръстев). Христо Ботйов – П. П. Славейков – П. Тодоров – П. К. Яворов. – София: Александъръ Паскалевъ и с-ие, 1917, с. 38. 231 Balgaran Newspaper The newspaper Balgaran (1904–1909) and the circle around it imposed the idea of literary work not as a higher, superhuman occupation, not even as a vocation, but as a natural need of the spirit and the body. They rejected all established norms, recognized no established values, and were ready to laugh at everything and deny everything. The collaborators of Balgaran spoke ironically of the social environment, the political leaders, the princely yard, and the monarch himself; discussed with mockery the city gossip; created erotic intrigue of occasional and deliberate meetings in emblematic city topos: the Casino, café Bulgaria, the National Theatre, the city garden. They were condescending and compassionate to the unfortunate people, drinkers, and writers. That perception of art as “joyful freedom” of the thought and imagination was not only a bohemian whim or a nihilist gesture; it was a life, cultural, and conceptual response to the strict aesthetic and philosophical positions of Misal. The writers of Balgaran were a sustainable but, at the same time, a dynamically changing circle of literary men, artists, architects, journalists, actors. They were a noisy and very popular metropolitan group of friends who were commented for their regular meetings at Bay Georgi’s pub Sredna Gora and known for 232 their rituals of dedication in the circle, noisy entertainments but also original humorous texts, talented parodies, topical cartoons and caricatures. Those were: Aleksandar Bozhinov, Hristo Silyanov, Aleksandar Kiprov – creators and editors of the newspaper. Elin Pelin, Aleksandar Balabanov, Dimitar Boyadzhiev, Petar Neykov, Dimitar Podvarzachov, Trifon Kunev, Tsanko Tserkovski, and others – the permanent core of the circle. Attracted as collaborators, with sporadic or more frequent publications during the five years’ existence of the newspaper, were almost all artists that left a lasting trace in the Bulgarian literary history. The authorship in the newspaper was often a collective work so the creative personification was sometimes controversial. Indeed, Balgaran’s creators did not create literature to be fit by the history into the narrow framework of the canon. Their strength was the witty, ingenious, and original humorous verses; the evenings organized in Slavyanska Beseda, which were a huge success; the parody jubilee holidays; the periodically issued calendars. Accepted enthusiastically, read, and recited as urban folklore, the best poems published during the first three anniversaries of the newspaper were included in Literaturen Sbornik na Balgaranovtsite (1906). In it, every author was presented with a portrait caricature by A. Bozhinov and a fun autobiography. The Bohemian way of life, the noisy sprees, the inspiration from the wine drunk at the regular Friday meetings fed the city gossip and the condescending attitude of the orderly society and the serious critics to the work of Balgaranovtsi. Paradoxical was the fact that the literature created in Balgaran was belittled as entertaining, spicy and lacking in artistic qualities by A. Protich, one of the most active contributors of the publication and a regular participant in the meetings. In the article “Balgaran” he developed the thesis that the authors would not publish those satirical and humorous works in other editions because: “Balgaran, though giving some good things, turned into a fun sheet full of trifles, superficial teases, and jokes that kill good works and are able to entertain only schoolgirls, old women, and grannies ... “210 For Boyan Penev, however, what was happening in the newspaper and in the circle of Balgaranovtsi was not so innocent and frivolous as there was “unscrupulous vitality, vehement passion, and bacchanalia”. And that, according to the critic, changed the artistic mission of the satire to be a corrective of public vices, to expose the moral and eth210 Протич, Андрей. Българан. // Мисъл, 1905, № 2, с. 127–136. 233 ical degradation of the time. Instead of that: “Balgaran, transformed into Balgarancho, is off with a goose quill under its arm, in a frayed fur cap, barefoot, unwashed, and uncombed to spread the gossip of the people in the squares, to listen to what the gallivanters in the cafes whisper, to mock the petty in our lives that does not deserve any attention”211. In its time “Balgaran” was an institution that provoked and influenced the public opinion, enjoyed huge popularity and, most importantly, created unique caricatures; humorous, satirical, parodial works of art that not only gave colour to the Bulgarian literature but also fit it in the context of the world amusing culture. Е. Т. Hudozhnik Journal The periodicals helped spread new trends and shape one or another attitude in the audience. With its mobility and fast-distribution capabilities, periodicals turned Secession / Art Nouveau as well as, a little bit later, Expressionism, Futurism, and Constructivism into European phenomena. Hudozhnik Journal (1905–1909) was an influential early periodical literary and artistic edition in Bulgaria published by Pavel Genadiev. On its pages, side by side, appeared realists, romanticists, symbolists, impressionists – in poetry and image. Nietzsche and Baudelaire were translated. Ornamental and representational motifs, vignettes, illustrations, and tail-peaces for the journal were made by Alexandar Bozhinov, Sirak Skitnik, Nikola Petrov, Christo Stanchev, etc. Unfolded title figural composition in an ornamental frame by Chr. Stanchev was published on the first page of issue No. II, year II – 1906– 1907. The stage-organized space led to the rhetoric of Neoclassicism. The artist was portrayed as a young man in monastic-cassock-like clothes, holding an ornamented handwritten book on his knees. In the spacious room, there were a tripod and palette. In the window frames, there was a fragment of a natural landscape with a picture-in-the picture effect. In that variant, the secession decorative elements of the figural composition were dominated by the taste of Neoclassicism. Christo Stanchev (1870–1850). Composition on the title page of Hudozhnik journal. Year II – 1906–1907, issue no. II, October 211 Пенев, Боян. Литературата около „Българан“. // Мисъл, № 1, 1907, с. 58–71. 234 235 *** Nikola Petrov (1881–1916). Cover of Hudozhnik Journal, 1909, issue No. 4 The cover for year III – 1909 by N. Petrov was with plant ornaments, a decorative frame, a handwritten font, and the image of a young woman with a lyre presented in the central field of the picture. The symbolic and the decorative aspects of the cover were in sync. On the title page of the issue, there was a landscape drawing with the recognizable silhouette of Sv. Sofia church in the foreground. On the pages of Hudozhnik Journal, they published articles about exhibitions and artistic problems in Bulgaria as well as about foreign artists and works. Among the authors of those early critical attempts were Simeon Radev, Andrey Protich, Konstantin Velichkov, P. Genadiev, and Elisaveta Konsulova-Vazova. Texts were translated from French, English, Russian, German, and other languages. Hudozhnik also published its own library: small-volume books, often with reproductions, which were distributed as supplements to the journal. Thus, in 1907, Part I of History of Painting by the prestigious German author Richard Muther was published, after being translated by El. Konsulova-Vazova. The creators and collaborators of journal Hudozhnik had no ambition to create a new aesthetic concept. They did not accept the limitations of a certain aesthetic school; they did not fit into the canons of an artistic method. The journal published both the works of writers who had become iconic representatives of the realistic aesthetics and of poets tempted by the modern aesthetic trends. On the first pages of the first issue of that aesthetically-styled edition, printed on luxury paper, in a non-typical for the time large format, with many supplements and colourful illustrations, there were poems by Ivan Vazov. That was a categorically highlighted sign of setting a high artistic measure, of searching for the valuable talented phenomena in the Bulgarian literature both as well-known names – Elin Pelin, Kiril Hristov, Peyo Yavorov – and as debutants with poetic works imposing the symbolist poetics in the Bulgarian literature – Lyudmil Stoyanov, Emanuil Popdimitrov, Trifon Kunev, Sirak Skitnik. Although the symbolist poets were the most active contributors of the journal, that did not imply its turning into a tribune of the strengthening its positions aesthetic direction. The mission of Hudozhnik was to be a dialogically-opened cultural space in which the synthesis of different arts to take place. It was a little known fact that in each book they published note recordings of songs, I. G. Aleksandar Dobrinov (1898–1958) Dobri Nemirov, Yordan Yovkov, and Sirak Skitnik, 1935 Watercolour, coloured pencils, India ink 48 х 34 cm. Sofia City Art Gallery 236 237 excerpts from operas or other musical works. The intelligentsia perceived Hudozhnik as a free zone to meet different artistic paradigms, in it, the free thought was tolerated and critical and essayist texts, created under the sign of inspiration and unlimited imagination, were favoured. With many and precisely selected translations, the journal offered up-to-date information to the thirsty for knowledge Bulgarian intelligentsia, tried to develop its sense of the beautiful and modern and to educate a sophisticated artistic taste. There, Simeon Radev published his article Dr. Krastev as a Literary Critic212; his audacity of analysing, evaluating, and denying the most authoritative critic creating the aesthetic standard of his time provoked a wide public response. In the critical style of the editor of Misal, S. Radev saw subjective biases, preconceived analyses, and dogmatic followup of theoretical and philosophical models that were not applicable to the Bulgarian literature, the latter still seeking its national identity. In its categorical and uncompromising denial, the article was one of those radical polemic gestures characteristic of the permanently updated opposition young versus old created by Dr. Krastev himself. From the distance of time, with the wisdom of the existential balance and with an objective view of the literary and historical process, in his memoirs S. Radev made a kind of repentance: “Personally, today I regret for coming down upon Dr. Krastev with such cruelty ... Whether a good or bad critic, Dr Krastev devoted such a long-time activity to the literary criticism and helped to make it an important part of the Bulgarian literature.”213 Hudozhnik Journal remained in the history of the Bulgarian culture as a reference for sophisticated artistic layout and high aesthetic criteria when selecting the works published in it. Vezni Journal Vezni Journal (1919–1922) was the personal creative project of Geo Milev, his attempt to realize his cultural mission to radically change the Bulgarian culture by imposing an avant-garde vision of the literature and the arts. An intellectual with modern thinking, he knew the power of advertising so the formal occasion for the creation of the journal was to promote, through an elitist aesthetically-styled periodical, the books of Vezni Publishing House. They also presented the modern, high, mostly translated literature that obviously did not arouse much interest in the Bulgarian readers. The creative enthusiasm of the talented 24-year-old editor was to create a productive synthesis between the most valuable – as traditions of the Bulgarian periodical press – and the avant-garde European journals. For G. Milev such were the intellectual artistic level of Misal and the aesthetic layout of Hudozhnik, on the one hand, and the editions of the German expressionism Der Aktion and Der Sturm. Here is what he wrote in a letter to his father: “I want a journal that is not present in Bulgaria today; something in between Misal and Hudozhnik but, most of all, similar to some modern European journals; meaningful and deep on Е. Т. 212 Радев, Симеон. Д-р Кръстев като литературен критик. // Художник, 1906/1907, № 4–5, 19–42. 213 Радев, Симеон. Погледи върху литературата, изкуството и лични спомени. – София: Български писател, 1965, с. 310. 238 239 first issue of Vezni provoked not just furore but “shock, stress, a turn in our aesthetic thinking,” recaled Kiril Krastev214. The journal was a phenomenon in the then cultural life with its sophisticated or even luxurious layout, precisely selected authors’ and translated materials that presented the most up-to-date trends in the modern art. Unfortunately, however, with its elitism, Vezni could not sustain the interest of the broad reader audience that was permanently attracted by the massive, trivial, spicy, by the literary scandal and intrigue. And the sponsorship abilities of the father (Milyo Kasabov), who was fully supporting his son’s extravagant and ambitious publishing ideas, were increasingly limited. That was why, somehow logically, Vezni ended up like its spiritual forerunner Misal, more and more closed in itself, with increasingly worse print and artistic layout. In his article Music and Other Arts” (Vezni Almanac, 1923), the editor stated, convincingly and pathetically as he had repeatedly done in the manifesto texts published during the three anniversaries of the journal, his devotion to the avant-garde art by marking the aesthetic programme of Plamak (1924–1925), the last ingenious but also tragic creative act of G. Milev. From the poetic works and analytical articles published in Vezni and selected by high artistic criteria, the readers received not only information but also knowledge about the modern artistic trends in the European literatures. In the brilliant translations by G. Milev, Nikolay Liliev, Georgi Mihaylov, Lyudmil Stoyanov sounded the poetic works of the prominent representatives of the French and Russian symbolism and the German expressionism: Paul Verlaine, Charles Baudelaire, Edgar Poe, Emile Verhaeren, Alexander Blok, Stephane Mallarme, etc. Presented were the theoretical conceptions of intellectuals who were fundamental not only for the modern aesthetic thought, they bore the sign of classic intransitiveness and not only of the 20th century. In Vezni the Bulgarian intelligentsia read published fragments of works by Friedrich Nietzsche, Arthur Schopenhauer, Søren Kierkegaard, Oscar Wilde, Friedrich Schlegel, and others; got acquainted with comments on articles and critical assessments of their aesthetic and philosophical systems. 214 Кръстев, Кирил. Спомени за културния живот между двете световни войни. – София: Български писател, 1988, с. 35. 240 The books of the journal offered a unique collection of reproductions that opened the senses of the Bulgarian readers to the world’s visual arts. They got to know the names of the most provocative experimenters and creators of the new trends: Paul Gauguin, Wassily Kandinsky, Vincent Van Gogh, Marc Chagall, Auguste Rodin, Oskar Kokoschka, Gustav Klimt, Edvard Munch, and others. In that context, the Bulgarian modernist artists – Ivan Milev, Sirak Skitnik (the editor had a preference for the reproduction of his works in the journal), Vassil Zahariev, Ivan Boyadzhiev and others – were also duly represented. The selection of the Bulgarian writers was also precise and reflected the concept of G. Milev of the unrealistic elitist literature. Collaborators were the most talented representatives of the symbolism who were making and art out of its steady aesthetic paradigm because, according to the editor, the symbol, the symbolic – as an antipode of the traditional realism – brought together the notion of modernity, of style and synthesis, beyond certain historical realities or terminological specificity. Collaborators for Vezni were Teodor Trayanov, Emanuil Popdimitrov, L. Stoyanov, Hristo Yassenov, N. Liliev; poems by Dimcho Debelyanov were published posthumously. The inexorable transition from symbolism to expressionism and avant-garde, motivated in a series of manifesto texts by G. Milev, was illustrated with works by Chavdar Mutafov, Ivan Mirchev, Yordan Stubel, Lamar, Assen Zlatarov, and others. But, as a whole, Vezni’s aesthetic concept was not as radically expressionistic as that of Plamak, it was rather polemically directed against realism, denying its traditional socially-constrained aesthetics. In the programme texts by G. Milev Nebeto (The Heaven), Fragmenti (Fragments), Posoki i Tseli (Directions and Goals), Rodno Izkustvo (Native Art); in the efficient polemical text by Ch. Mutafov Zeleniyat kon (The Green Horse); in the articles of manifesto nature by L. Stoyanov Dve Osnovni Techenia v Bulgarskata Literatura (Two Main Trends in the Bulgarian Literature) and by Nikolay Raynov Simvol i Stil (Simbol and Style); in texts by Sirak Skitnik and others215, a number of conflicting oppositions were theoretically grounded and 215 Милев, Гео. Небето. // Везни, № 10, 1919, с. 299; Фрагментът. // Везни, № 4, 1919, с. 95; Посоки и цели. // Везни, № 2, 1919, с. 17; Родно изкуство. // Везни, № 1, 1920, с. 40. Мутафов, Чавдар. Зеленият кон. // Везни, № 3, 1920, с. 129. Стоянов, Людмил. Две основни течения в българската литература. // Везни, № 1, 1920, с. 31. Райнов, Николай. Симбол и стил. // Везни, № 1, 1920, с. 15. 16. Bulgarian 20th Century... 241 specifically denoted in the contemporary cultural space. In that, another in our literary history, theoretical and polemical opposition to the realism, the model of polar oppositions between the social-household and the ideal art of the spirit created by Dr. Krastev and journal Misal was updated as well as the oppositions between realism, symbolism, and avant-garde; between young and old; native and foreign. But Vezni’s founding place in the cultural history of the 20th century was due to the fact that the Bulgarian literature, for the first time, had completely overcome its national complex of backwardness and, without the humiliating sense of isolation and imitation, was creating talentedly and provocatively, in an absolute aesthetic and time synergy with the European artistic trends. Zlatorog Journal Е. Т. In the 1920s, when Vladimir Vassilev created journal Zlatarog (1920– 1943), the Bulgarian literature had already emerged from the period of national self-sufficiency and entered into years of spiritual growth. The modernist discourse offered – no longer as an experiment but as a reality – a new type of expression, with enhanced artistic fictionality and activation of the processes of aesthetic and philosophical polysemy. The “old” literature model created as a result of painful collisions of Misal and those devoted to realism is no longer compatible with the pedestal attitude towards European influences. It imperatively imposed not the vertical – in the sense of catching up and imitation – but the linear, i.e. equal and timely communication with the modern inventions. And that implied not the highlighting of the polemic native-foreign accent but the finding of the most original synthesis between tradition and innovation. Thus, Zlatarog built another elitist cultural space that was much more classical and dialogue-opened one than that of Misal. And while in the 1990s the aesthetic programme of the first intellectual circle tolerated the movement of cultural signs from the 242 243 outside to the inside, the mission of their followers was to be a spiritual corrective through reference works from the inside. That was why in Zlatarog they did not respect the modern philosophical and literary directions but critically interpreted the foreign through the prism of the already established polysemantic native tradition. As a criterion of value, they did not assume the aesthetic rebellion against the cultural norm of the native but the creation of new semantic meanings to fit as distinctive and original signs in the context of the Bulgarian literature. It was not accidental that in Zlatarog almost all of what we could now classify as “classical works” created during the two decades of its existence was gathered. Particular attention in Zlatarog was paid to translation but not as an opportunity for retrospective catching up with the omission but as a constructive factor enriching and supporting the development of national literature. Instead of the rather popular until then collage of chaotic information and readings, thematic circles were formed whose projections were searched in depth. That changed attitude towards the mission of translation was predetermined by the changed communicative links with (already) the world literature. They were direct, dynamic, and natural. Therefore, over the long years of the journal’s existence, the translated texts were less than the commentary articles, parallel reviews, and receptive reviews. Those were readings for a dedicated audience. Enlightenment was displaced by interpretation and critical selection. Information was no longer just a motif for opposition, a model for implementation but, quite often, even in Misal, was used for literacy. During the time of Zlatarog, it was an equal fact in the cultural space and was accepted or denied without any particular drama. In that sense, the attitude of the contemporaries to the editors of the two editions was indicative. The publicly-spoken opinion formulated in Simeon Radev’s article Dr. Krastev as a Literary Critic was that his texts were burdened with paper formulas and, quite often, he referred to foreign authorities and used an overly scientific approach in his critical analyses as well as elitist European measures to assess native phenomena. While the opponents of Vl. Vassilev believed he lacked serious scientific knowledge, that his approach was old-fashioned because he did not apply the modern, critical at the time, inventions, did not speak foreign languages, and, therefore, his assessments were situated in a domestic context only. Some of those observations were not without reason but what was more important in that case was something else: the changed criteria for intellectual presence in the spiritual life. High erudition, modern style, free communication with the European tendencies and their reproduction in the present day were no longer regarded as an unforgivable sin but as a sine qua non for serious literary-critical interpretations. The collaborators of Zlatarog, just like their predecessors from the Misal circle, left a materialized idea of their belonging to the journal. Famous is the picture that engraved for the cultural history a large part of those Bulgarian writers, whose affiliation to the literary canon no one can dispute. But the dynamics of the new times, the aesthetic polysemy, and the lack of a common artistic platform broke the strict and static outlines of the homogeneous intellectual group. And, though the belonging to the journal was also a privilege, an act of recognition, a criterion of artistic significance and intransitiveness, the dissolution of the classical literary quartet to a variable (as a composition), also an elitist but numerous circle of writers, poets, critics, and art experts, in fact, was the most characteristic pushing of Zlatarog apart from the spiritual testaments of Misal. However, both those fundamental to the Bulgarian culture editions would not have been possible had the fates of their editors been not embedded in them. Zlatorog was the most suffered and most significant work of Vl. Vassilev, in which his personality as well as his literary-critical system was most clearly displayed. As an editor, he was the unifying figure of an elitist intellectual circle but, as a critic, he believed that the tendency to separate closed perimeters in the literary space encouraged “empty ambitions and obsessions.” Therefore, in the journal, the critic imposed the high artistic taste as a measure and never compromised in the name of the wooing of the mass reader by publishing sensational texts and commenting on burning topics and spicy issues. Putting the accent on the indisputable and precious, the sharp polemics with banality and mediocrity – those were not only the basic codes in the critical system of Vl. Vassilev but also the essential characteristics of Zlatorog. That was what made the journal to become the cultural institution that created the national literary canon of the 20th century. 244 245 Е. Т. Hyperion Journal In the 1920s the Bulgarian symbolism was still the most popular aesthetic direction. Despite the massive epigonic abuses of its poetics, its most talented representatives created brilliant poetic works. During the period 1921–23, books were published that occupied a stable place in the prestigious space of the literary canon: Lunni Petna by Nikolay Liliev, Bulgarski Baladi by Teodor Trayanov, Ritsarski Zamak by Hristo Yassenov. With the creation of journal Hyperion (1922–1931), the symbolism found its most tolerant and protected artistic field, its most dedicated and consistent, doomed to its aesthetics, critic – Ivan Radoslavov – and its poetic idol – Teodor Trayanov. Thus, Hyperion consolidated the forces of the elite artists, representatives of the Bulgarian symbolism, and provoked a wave of new spiritual growth in that aesthetic direction. The journal, sticking to the good tradition of Hudozhnik and Vezni, came with the ambition to be styled with an exquisite artistic taste (its cover was made by the talented artist, also a symbolist follower, Boris Georgiev); to create an elitist circle of contributors; not to compromise with the realistic or commercial art; to oppose eclectics and mediocrity; to serve the art of the Spirit. Despite the problems, the vicissitudes, the conflicts characteristic of the fate 246 of every Bulgarian literary edition, I. Radoslavov succeeded to create and impose a recognizable style in Hyperion – a high criterion for an aesthetic taste according to his ideological and aesthetic theses grounded in expanded critical texts published in the journal. What one could unmistakably say about the publication was that, during the years of its existence, it was monolithic as spiritual messages, as aesthetic criteria, as a consistently followed programme of discovery of new spiritual spaces in which the modern tendencies of the European culture fit naturally, without dramatic resistance in the Bulgarian spiritual life. Hyperion outlined paths and prospects and had a consistently implemented strategy: to provide up-to-date information and offer elitist humanitarian knowledge. Therefore, beyond its template definitions as a conservative bastion of the symbolism, it was a modernist journal, opened to the avant-garde quests of its time. It was certainly not a terminological negligence that in all of his critical texts, Radoslavov used symbolism and modernism as synonyms. That was set and sustained consistently in the aesthetic platform of the journal. That was why in the article Hyperion and Bulgarian Literature – a kind of farewell to his most painful but also most intransient work – I. Radoslavov made a fair, albeit too pathetic, evaluation: “Hyperion is not just a publication, a journal.. but, rather, a symbol and a banner, a tradition and an idea.”216 One of those ideas of the journal was to unite a broad intellectual-artistic circle whose members turned art into a religion; were carried away by esoteric teachings, ancient eastern practices, and spiritualist ideas; honoured Henri Bergson’s philosophy; declared themselves a brotherhood united by the personalities of Radoslavov and Trayanov. That society of poets, actors, artists, and musicians, known as the Hyperion Society, was ambiguously accepted by its contemporaries. In his famous article Between Sectarianism and Demagogy, Vladimir Vassilev wrote, not without irony: “I read Hyperion, the journal of the Bulgarian and (“international”) symbolism, and I see the people around it as increasingly closing in the circle of some philosophical and mystic sect”.217 Not typically for the national cultural context and the national psychology, I. Radoslavov invested tremendous intellectual and existential energy to impose a cult of the work of T. Trayanov, to build a fanatically 216 Радославов, Иван. „Хиперион“ и българската литература. // Хиперион, № 1–2, 1931, 217 Василев, Владимир. Между сектанство и демагогия. // Златорог, 1923, № 2–3. с. 25. 247 sustained strategy of over-exposure, glorification, and admiration for his personality. At the heart of Hyperion’s aesthetic ideology was the mythology of the poet: his poems were published in every issue, during all the anniversaries of its existence, a compulsory ritual gesture was the publication of articles about him that were close to the stylistics of church-service commendations. I. Radoslavov, Lyudmil Stoyanov, Petko Rosen, Botyo Savov, and others were struggling to create, in a superpathetic and absolutely biased way, his image of a theomachist but, also, of a Son of God, of the Bulgarian Prometheus, the originator of the symbolism in our country, who set the beginning of the desired spiritual and aesthetic revolution218 In the name of the apologization of T. Trayanov, the journal not only insistently marginalized but completely ignored the poetry of P. K. Yavorov, the creative and intellectual presence of P. P. Slaveykov (Radoslavov even allowed himself to put him the critical label of a sentimental romantic and realist and characterized the aesthetic positions of the Misal circle as neo-romantic ones thus devaluing its role in pushing apart from the closed self-sufficiency of the Bulgarian literature and in opening it to the modernism as early as at the beginning of the 20th century. At least during the first anniversaries of its existence, Hyperion managed to attract as collaborators emblematic names from different genres and fields of literature, art, humanities, who recognized the modern artistic, philosophical, and aesthetic paradigms as their creative creed. The journal published works by Em. Popdimitrov, Nikolay Hrelkov, Atanas Dalchev, Dimitar Panteleev, Ivan Mirchev, and Ivan Grozev. L. Stoyanov was one of the most active members of the society, even a co-editor, but, after dramatic personal conflicts and another change in his conceptual beliefs, (1924) he abruptly discontinued his relations with I. Radoslavov and the publications in the journal. Em. Popdimitrov was also author of brilliant literary theoretical and philosophical articles. Very interesting even today, full of many original ideas were the philosophical essays of Yanko Yanev. I. Radoslavov was perhaps one of the most productive authors in his own journal. What was impressive about him was his incredible productivity as an operational critic, a literary historian, and a theorist of the modern artistic tendencies. With critical and review articles on literature and arts Aleksandar Obretenov, Boyan Danovski, N. Raynov, L. Stoyanov, Svetoslav Kamburov, Isaac Daniel, and many others cooperated. Very interesting were the so-called artistic supplements of the journal, which presented to the reader audience both Bulgarian and foreign artists who, most closely, fit into the modernist tendencies of the time. It should be noted that the taste of the editors was indisputable. Presented were: Boris Georgiev, Ivan Milev, Sirak Skitnik, Vladimir Dimitrov – Maystora, Vasil Stoilov, Nikola Tanev, Andrey Nikolov, Nikolay Roerich, and many others. An interesting stroke in the cultural activity of Hyperion was the established Study Theatre directed by Isaac Daniel. The goals of that ambitious experiment of the Hyperion Society were to reject templates and routine, to seek and discover new ways to achieve true spiritual art. In the travelling group of the theatre formation which, unfortunately, did not last long for financial reasons, there were actors who left a bright trace in the history of the Bulgarian theatre such as Olga Kircheva, Zorka Yordanova, Dora Dyustabanova, Konstantin Kissimov, and others. The transformation of the Hyperion’s symbolistic platform from a broad aesthetic programme into an ideological dogma limited the creative freedom of the most prominent poets and, from 1925 onwards, the aesthetic level of the publications dropped considerably. The Hyperion circle changed its composition and was no longer that authoritative intellectual society which, with its creativity and critical assessments, influenced the spiritual life and the aesthetic taste of the time. But the significance of Hyperion for the literary history was not only that of a sovereign creative space of the symbolism for a decade that extended its aesthetic pathway, provoked talented, though late, creative realizations. Without tolerating the radical avant-garde gestures strictly fulfilling its mission to inform the Bulgarian intelligentsia about the modern European tendencies in literature and arts, it was, in fact, the necessary mediator that facilitated their full integration into the national cultural context. Е. Т. 218 Радославов, Иван. Българският символизъм (Основи – същност – възгледи). // Хиперион, № 1–2, 1925, с. 15. 248 249 Cinema in Periodic Press In 1924 Nikolay Raynov wrote in Cinema Star: “Indeed, the world, as we see it in the cinematograph, is all made of light: it is better than the world seen by us every day [...] a nice deception for the eye created by the jointly action of applied science, technique, stage art, and directional knowledge”219. In the early period of the Bulgarian cinema, the cinema criticism started along with the cinema itself. The reviews were multifaceted, interesting, often at both extremes of the scale. Among the intellectuals, there were those who categorically did not accept cinema as an art and wrote negative articles (responses) as well as others who were enthusiastic about the new invention. Luckily, the latter were far more and, over the years, many of the opponents of the cinema changed and, later, accepted it as an art. It was indicative that the well-known intellectuals, whom we today call classics of the Bulgarian art, began to engage in criticism. Among them was Chavdar Mutafov who commented on the emblematic film of the German Expressionism The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari: “One of the most valuable qualities of this film is its undoubted culture. This is not only the immediate connection with time like in fashion; it is not, either, that technical perfection that achieves itself because culture is not only a stage of development or manifestation of values included but, above all, style, unification, connection. Culture is the spiritual power of a time, of any time, united in form – and the problem of this form. [...] Such stylistic motives were included in the stage design of Doctor Caligari220. “Instead of nature, there was the scenery, the prospectus, a plastic stage; instead of normal daylight, the deceitful light of the spot lights shone in paradoxical contrasts; and, at last, the very perspective was shaky, denying the laws of the eye and seeking only the primary motif of the action: that hallucinated indifference of the soul where falsehood and truth playfully merge and unite.”221 Under the pen of Chavdar Mutafov, remarkable cinema lines emerged, even from today’s point of view. Today, we would say that he was one of the first cinema critics in Bulgaria. Should we turn away from the specificity in 219 Райнов, Николай. Лъчезарен свят. Кино-звезда, бр. 9, 10.02.1924; Cited after. Янакиев, Ал. Синема.bg, Титра, 2003, с.285. 220 The film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Kabinetat na Doktor Kaligari) (1920), directed by Robert Wiene, is the originator of the horror-genre films and a classic example of a German expressionist film. 221 Нашето кино, брой 43, 20.09.1925. 250 order to gain a sense of the more general picture, we will see that, immediately after its appearance, the cinema, both in the world and in our country, was not accepted as an art. However, very soon, according to the critic Aleksandar Yanakiev, “Our first minds, in their predominant part, have occupied the more productive position of perceiving and analyzing the new art in a serious manner. Of separating wheat from chaff. And of trying to use the success of screen art among the audience for its spiritual enrichment.”222 The first cinema productions, quite logically, were sponsored by the cinemas and had exclusively advertising and informative purposes. At first, critical articles about foreign films appeared. There were no Bulgarian productions until 1915 and, even after that, there were few, especially in the period until the 1930s when the marks of the emerging industry in Bulgaria could already be observed. Among the pioneers of the Bulgarian film theory and criticism was Kiril Krastev, the author of the 1929 book Opit za Estetika na Kinoto (A Try for Aesthetics of Cinema). His interest in the new art was consistent and lasting: he published a number of theoretical and critical articles in the then press such as Sashtnostta na Kinoto (The Essence of the Cinema) published in 1925 in journal Nasheto Kino. The real cinema reflections started appearing first on the pages of the daily newspapers that became a regular tribune both for cinema placards and film advertising as well as valuable cinema articles. But, along with the daily press (e.g. the newspapers Mir, Slovo, Dnevnik, etc.), where writers such as Sirak Skitnik wrote about the cinema, there were also specialized cinema publications. The life of most of them was short: soon after their start, they most often stopped, some of them forever, others reappeared after a while. The theatre critic who often dealt with the problems of the cinema – Stefan Gendov – published several journals devoted to the cinema. Most of them emerged just before the appearance of some of his brother’s – Vassil Gendov – films. Thus, for example, the weekly newspaper Teatar i kino, published by Stefan Gendov, emerged in 1933, days before the premiere of the Gendov’s film Buntat na Robite (The Rebellion of the Slaves) (1933). Only three newspapers came to light. Fortunately, there were also journals that were an exception to the rule of the short life of cinema editions such as Kinoglas (1921–1928) and Kino (1927–1936)223. The most long-lived edition in the field of the film Янакиев, Александър. Синема.bg. С., Титра, 2003, с. 34. The data for the years were taken from a thesis for obtaining a doctor's degree – „Български печатни издания за кино в България (1913–1944)“ на Росен Спасов. 222 223 251 art was journal Nasheto Kino published from 1924 to 1936. Its editor-inchief, throughout the whole period, was Pantaley Mateev Karasimeonov – a poet, a journalist, and one of the pioneers of the Bulgarian film criticism, also known by the pen-name PUK. The pages of Nasheto Kino were the field for the reflections of a number of our intellectuals who wrote about the film art. It also published translated articles by well-known world cinema theorists such as Bela Balazs, who did not only analyse our cinema (as opposed to the title of the journal) but, also, wrote about the world film processes, international film stars, and gave information on the technical innovations in the world of cinema. Among the regular contributors to the journal were: the writer Pavel Vezhinov, the cinema theorist Kiril Krastev, Fani Popova-Mutafova, Chavdar Mutafov. The cinema researcher Aleksandar Yanakiev highlighted that “the names of Chavdar Mutafov and his wife – Fani Popova-Mutafova – stood out among the group of the intellectuals who were often involved in the problems of the cinema in the 1920s. Their articles demonstrated erudition and insight. The accumulated film experience allowed them to have an extremely true criterion in assessing current film phenomena.”224 One of the many examples in his book Cinema.bg was, in his opinion, “the brilliant beginning of an article by Chavdar Mutafov”: “When an American wants to be sentimental, he starts to behave childishly. The woman for him suddenly becomes a little girl, like a porcelain doll or an old pendant, infinitely gentle and infinitely virtuous and, yet, American: sneaky and brave, a child of sport and the big city – and of luxury. Maybe the American’s fantasy is naive to Europeans. (...) It might be that the American farmer quietly reads his bible after having fired at his neighbour during the day as this occupation does not prevent him from being virtuous, but this is a naive virtue, both a savage and funny one, mixed with tears and cold-blooded greed.”225 It could be said that, in the initial period of the cinema in Bulgaria, the critical reflections occupied a very respectable place in the Bulgarian cinema life. PART TWO METAMORPHOSES OF MODERNITY (1944–1989) T. D. По Янакиев, Александър. Синема.bg. С., Титра, 2003, с. 44. Мутафов, Чавдар. Нашето кино, № 44, 28.10. 1925. По Янакиев, Александър. Синема. bg, С., Титра, 2003, с. 45. 224 225 252 253 THE COLD WAR The Cold War started after the World War II. This term originates from the British writer George Orwell, who used it for the first time in his essay You and the Atomic Bomb. He wrote: “We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity… that is, the kind of world-view, the kind of beliefs, and the social structure that would probably prevail in a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of ‘cold war’ with its neighbors”.226 During the Cold War art became a weapon for proclamation of the ideas of “two cultures” – capitalist and socialist – as well as of two different identities – East and West European, on both sides of the Iron Curtain. The Iron Curtain concept is related to the famous speech of Winston Churchill before an audience in the Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, on March 5th 1946. The Sinews of Peace, better known as the Iron Curtain Speech. Winston Churchill giving the Iron Curtain speech in Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, 5th March 1946 226 Orwell, George. You and the Atomic Bomb, Tribune, 19 October, 1945. http://orwell.ru/ library/articles/ABomb/english/e_abomb 254 255 In his speech, the influential British politician made his straightforward remark on the post-war political situation in Europe, which would be maintained for decades, spreading antagonism among the countries “on this side” and “on the other side”: “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow”.227 That Iron Curtain splitting Europe is perhaps the most eloquent symbol of the new confrontation that has occurred after the World War II as a political opposition between the Soviet Union together with the satellite countries joining the USSR and the USA with their allies. This is how the Cold War started. Following the conferences in Yalta and Potsdam of the Big Three, Stalin literally acquired Bulgaria, Poland, Rumania, Hungary and Yugoslavia. The Russian troops remain positioned in Berlin, Vienna, and Prague. The lands of a devastated Europe were distributed among the Great Powers. Very soon, however, the fear from the Russian expansion benumbed the Western world. Berlin was held hostage in this new battle and turned into front line, along which later on in 1961 the construction of the monstrous Berlin Wall was initiated and it was not until 1989 when it was destroyed. J. S. 227 Churchill, Winston. The Sinews of Peace (Iron Curtain Speech). Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, March 5, 1946. https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1946-1963-elder-statesman/the-sinews-of-peace/ 256 BULGARIAN LITERATURE AFTER 9TH OF SEPTEMBER 1944 In the Bulgarian literature, the period after 9 September 1944 was characterized by a striking overlap between party decrees and works of art. In the year of the “great breakthrough”, the traditions of the Bulgarian culture were ruined with criminal ease, authors and works were erased, ideological labels were put, and aesthetic processes were forcibly placed in the socialist realism’s narrow confines. The achieving of lasting results and a promising effect in the ideological manipulation of the literature required both the prohibition of authors, works, and facts and the creation of new “truths” about the literary history. Pencho Danchev – one of the most faithful literary critics – who powerfully imposed the new, ideologically deformed literary canon, wrote an article having the importance of a bill and specifying the forbidden books and writers. His requirements were categorical: “To classify writers as bourgeois and proletarian ones”, “to remove the inherent of the bourgeois science method of consistency and continuity in the development of the literature” 228. By denying continuity in the spiritual life, P. Danchev became founder of the division of the Bulgarian literature as well as the life and creative way of the writers into periods that were either acceptable or not conforming to the norms of the socialist realism. The first victim of that division was Dr. Krastyo Krastev, who, according to P. Danchev, having passed through a brief enlightenment stage, “developed from the petty bourgeois radicalism to the bourgeois ideology that was most often hidden under the mask of apoliticism”229. The editor of Misal Journal had one more sin. He became the ideologist of a “social group,” whose members “continued to serve Zlatorog and found their logical end in the cultural and literary department of the Zora Newspaper and the abhorrent criticism of the fascist Yordan Badev.” 228 Данчев, П. Върху програмата за български език и литература в училищата. – Литературен фронт, бр. 41, 7.11.1947, с. 3. 229 Данчев, П. За идейния път на д-р К. Кръстев. – Философска мисъл, № 2, 1947, с. 119–131. 17. Bulgarian 20th Century... 257 This sentence erased the cultural history of Bulgaria for several generations. The “social group” – too dangerous for the then time of unification and depersonalization – was actually the first intellectual circle. With their creative work, Dr. K. Krastev, Pencho Slaveykov, Peyo K. Yavorov, and Petko Iu. Todorov realized an important cultural mission in the 1890s and the beginning of the 20th century, trying to impose a new, modern dominant in the spiritual life, educating through their works, articles, and elite artistic taste, applying European criteria to the still too isolated realistic-patriarchal Bulgarian literature. But, above all, they were free creative individuals who had made their aesthetic and existential choices which, decades after their death, when their names had long become a sign of classicality, appeared to be incompatible with the narrow dogmatic frameworks of the socialist realism. The work of P. K. Yavorov was categorically divided into two parts. The first period received a commendable positive assessment because it was marked as realistic-social one, influenced by brief socialist enthusiasm. The second period after the “devastating” stay in France (Nancy, 1907) and the “fatal” encounter with the French symbolists deflected the poet into the labyrinths of modernism and decadence. That made his poems unacceptable because of the imposed ideological sterility in the literature. In this context, the most severe was the sentence of P.P. Slaveykov because no part of his creative work or personality could fit within the class-party approach. P. Danchev’s article dedicated to the poet was unambiguously titled On the Ideology of Pencho Slaveykov230. From it, we learn that “Slaveykov’s intuitivism was a typical decadent bourgeois philosophical direction. It was the naturally emerged worldview of the disillusioned bourgeois intelligentsia.” The poet who had extended the philosophical-intellectual spaces of poetry and thus became founder of the Bulgarian modernism turned out to be an antidemocrat who “for the first time brought anti-humanistic features into our literature”231. Can we assume that it was one of the possible ways of interpreting artistic texts? It goes without saying if it was the expression of the personal aesthetic taste of the communist critic Pencho Danchev. But here it is not about demonstrating one’s own critical views and conceptual beliefs but about the political system that imposed a complete identification of the literary criticism and the party rulings and required erasing of the boundary between creativity and ideology, between works of art and political information. At that time, already characterized by the history as a period of cult of personality, the cruelest damages to the Bulgarian culture were committed: some of the most prominent Bulgarian intellectuals were killed. Those who remained alive were doomed to miserable existence and their work was condemned as bourgeois or fascist. The works of art that reflected the new socio-political situation were a reproduced model of worker-rural storylines, with a distinctly prominent character – most often a party secretary – leading a heroic struggle against the enemies. In the optimistic final, of course, the good won and the bad characters were strictly punished. From a mediator in the sociocultural space, the literary criticism became a censor that did not analyze but condemned. The imposed style was imperative, the nuanced views were considered to be a deviation from the norm, the interpretation of the artistic works was, at its best, replaced by illustrative retelling of the content, and the moral-ethical suggestions of the works were degraded to loud slogans. That uniqueness in the spiritual space was achieved by depriving the society of a corrective – moral, conceptual or aesthetic. The literary publications before 9 September 1944 were suspended; their editors and collaborators were either not alive or forced to keep silence. Emblematic in this sense was the fate of the creator of the longest existed and most valuable Bulgarian literary journal Zlatorog Vladimir Vassilev. His name became one of the most strictly guarded taboos in the last decades and the collaborators of his journal – the most talented Bulgarian writers, poets, critics – were condemned by the ironic name the crowd around Zlatorog or the disdainful qualification of zlatorojshtina. That made them look suspicious and unreliable for a long time. By pushing the literary tradition to the periphery of the spiritual life through the creation of a distorted and tendentiously false idea of it, the myth of the innovation of the socialist literature was imposed. Without denying its kinship with the past – however only with its progressive, realistic tendencies –, the political power transformed the work of art from an aesthetic fact set into the socio-cultural space into an ideological factor manipulated by the class-party approach. 230 Данчев, П. За идеологията на Пенчо Славейков. – Философска мисъл, № 3–4, 1947, с. 190–228. 231 Данчев, П., За идеологията на Пенчо Славейков. – Философска мисъл, № 3–4, 1947, с. 204. 258 E. T. 259 THE CAPTURE OF CULTURAL ENGINEERING (1944–1956) The violent establishment in Bulgaria of a communist government of a Soviet type after the end of World War II and the related political, economic and cultural transformations made the Bulgarian art a cultural engineering object. The new Bulgarian power, established on 9 September 1944 with the help of the Soviet army, hurried up to nationalize the means and capacities whereby cultural products were created and distributed in our country. As regards cinema, this was carried out very quickly – as early as before the end of 1944 a draft Ordinance on the State Monopoly on the Import and Distribution of Films was made. In the beginning of 1945 the major tasks of the Balgarsko Delo foundation, which was set up in 1941 and transformed by the new power, were also formulated: “creation of highly professional national cadres, building of a national cinema centre as a base of shooting and processing of Bulgarian films and conduction of a broad programme for cinefication of the country and upheaval of the cinema culture through an appropriate repertoire”232. In May 1945 the commercial director of the foundation wrote to the Minister of Propaganda that it was necessary to convince the Soviet government “to send us a staff of several people, and namely: a good film director who is also a skilful instructor, an art-director, a cameraman for theatrical production, one skilful gaffer, one hand-artist-and-continuity-editor, one make-up man and one artistic advisor.”233. On 15 October 1946 the Cinema Culture Act entered into force – one of the first laws ever voted in the name of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria234. It was obviously so important for the governors that it was voted before the laws on the nationalization of the industry, banks and big urban property and before the law on rural cooperatives. According to arti- cle 1 of this law: “The state shall take care of the proper development of the cinema culture in the country”235. The management of cinematography was vested in the Ministry of Propaganda, subsequently transformed into Ministry of Information and Arts, and in 1947 – transformed into a Committee on Science, Art and Culture. The complete nationalization of the film production in Bulgaria took place in 1947 with the adoption of the Cinematography Act as well. Its authors from the Committee on Science, Art and Culture, headed by Valko Chervenkov, copied in essence the other nationalization laws. By virtue of this law, the Balgarsko Delo foundation was transformed into State Enterprise “Bulgarian Cinematography” at the Committee on Science, Art and Culture, which was entrusted with the supreme management and supervision of cinematography. According to chapter ІІ of the law: “Nationalization”, the communist state appropriated the capacities and all the materials of the Bulgarian cinema, which had had a difficult start but had started wining recognition in the 1940s. This was property, the value of which was “according to preliminary and unchecked calculations of the [nationalization] commission, probably more than BGN 700–800 million.”236 What is more, an attempt was made to erase and destroy the entire history of our cinema before its nationalization, and when it proved to be impossible – to belittle it as much as possible and to impose the myth that the Bulgarian cinema actually started its existence with the state production monopolized by the communist state. The documentarily unconfirmed words of Lenin “that of all the arts the most important for us is the cinema”, are a slogan, under which the cinema developed in all countries from the Soviet Block, including Bulgaria. Whether the Soviet proletarian leader actually made this slogan or not, the specific place of cinema in the system of the totalitarian culture is indisputable – because of the huge propaganda opportunities of the seventh art, which are based on the illusion of trustworthiness, inherent in the moving image. A no less important circumstance is that the cinema art is created industrially, which enables total institutional control over the creative process in its earliest phases. The governors fully realized the propaganda potential of cinema and formulated their party policy in the documents of the 232 БНФ, ф. „Българско дело“. Цит. по: Янакиев, Александър. Изграждане на социалистическата кинематография.. – В: Синема.bg. Сто години филмов процес: личности/филми/ кина. – София: Титра, 2003, с. 183. 233 Ibid, p. 183. 234 Държавен вестник, № 253, 14.10.1946. Министерство на информацията и изкуствата, Указ № 28. Ibid. ЦДА, ф. 383, оп. 1, а. е. 137, л. 77. Цит. по: Янакиев, Александър. Изграждане на социалистическата кинематография.. – В: Синема.bg. Сто години филмов процес: личности/ филми/кина. – София: Титра, 2003, с. 217. 260 261 235 236 Vth congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party (1948) as follows: “the use of the cinema must be developed as much as possible as one of the mightiest means of influence on the population.”237 Article 10 of the Cinema Culture Act created a “single state production cinema centre, the terrain of which was alienated under the procedure of article 11 et seq. of the Alienation of Real Estate for the State and Public Benefit Act”238. In this way, the communist state engaged in the creation of production capacities and turned the Bulgarian cinema into a state art, and hence – into a means of cultural engineering, into a tool for propaganda and legitimation of the communist ideology. The official concept was that in the socialist society the attitude to cinema was an “attitude free of commercial and speculative considerations, based only on the high evaluation of the role of this art, of the need for it as an ingredient of the general culture of the country”239. USSR, in turn actively supported the efforts of the local Bulgarian political structures to adopt the Soviet system of socialist production of films. Consultants came from Moscow who monitored the creation of the first Bulgarian state films. In 1947, on the basis of personal instructions by Georgi Dimitrov, the first Bulgarian cinema students were sent to the Katya Chukova as Ionka Geroite na Shipka (Heroes of Shipka), 1954 directed by Sergey Vasiliev Кино и фото, 1948, № 14, с. 2. Министерство на информацията и изкуствата, Указ № 28. // Държавен вестник, бр. 253, 14.10.1946.. 239 Шоселов, Рашо. Киноизкуство, родено от свободата. // Киноизкуство, 1965, № 9, с. 53. Moscow All-Russian State University of Cinematography (VGIK). From 1946 Soviet specialists started work on a project for the building in Bulgaria of a National Cinema Centre, the construction of which started in Boyana in 1949. In 1954 the first Bulgarian-Soviet film coproduction Geroite na Shipka (Heroes of Shipka), directed by Sergey Vasiliev, was implemented. The joint team worked on the film almost two years. Huge preparatory works were carried out in terms of study of documents, terrains for the shooting and pieces of realia from the epoch. The Soviet staging group arrived in Bulgaria with tens of railway cars full of technical facilities, shooting equipment, stage property and pyrotechnics. Part of the costumes and stage property were authentic exponents from Bulgarian historical museums. Army and fleet divisions were engaged for the crowd scenes. Multiple large-scale scenes were set – the crossing of Danube by the Russian army; the fights at Pleven, Stara Zagora and Sheynovo; the defence of Shipka, in which tens of thousands of supernumeraries took part. The property of the shooting group was carried with hundredths of railway cars and tens of road vehicles. For the fifty Bulgarians in the staging team and the twenty Bulgarian actors, including Konstantin Kisimov, Nikolay Masalitinov, Petko Karlukovski, Apostol Karamitev and Katya Chukova, the film became a true professional cinematographic school that had an impact on their further artistic activities. The cinema production won the Best Director award at the Cannes International Film Festival in 1955 – the first international success of such scale of a film with Bulgarian artistic participation – and what is more – at the most prestigious international festival. 262 263 Geroite na Shipka (Heroes of Shipka), 1954 directed by Sergey Vasiliev 237 238 Although the changes after 1944 in the Bulgaria cinema were violent and to a large extent resulted from the Soviet cultural engineering, the becoming of the state of the only, sufficiently powerful film producer definitely had a positive impact on the development of the national cinema industry. Regardless of its ideological ties, the Bulgarian socialist cinema won high social significance and for the first time in our history it had a true opportunity to compete in terms of social interest and impact with the “traditional” arts – literature, theatre, music and fine arts. I. B. MUSIC UNDER THE PRESSURE OF IDEOLOGICAL CENSORSHIP Contemporary historians has no doubts about the fact that “the political upheaval in Bulgaria after the end of the World War II was primarily due to the great geopolitical change, i.e. the passage of Eastern Europe from the sphere of pro-Western interests [...] to the Soviet sphere of influence. The decisive role of the external factor was visible not only at the time of establishing the Soviet state socialism model in Bulgaria but also in the course of its development and collapse in the second half of the 1980s.”240 As early as at the end of the 1940s, the state was already ruling and controlling all spheres of artistic culture, firmly resting on the powerful ideological mechanisms of Stalinism, and the formula of socialist realism was imposed as the only proper artistic method. The subsequent repressions for ideological reasons directly affected a number of prominent musicians, including Trifon Silyanovski, Georgi Tutev, Dimitar Nenov, Assen Ovcharov, Lea Ivanova, and Aleksandar Nikolov (known as Sasho Sladura). In his memoirs about that time, the composer Ivan Spasov talked about structural deformation of the natural artistic process241. The directions in art at that time, encouraged by the new authority, greatly reduced the creative flight of the person. They mainly stimulated placard expression, demonstrative political propaganda, hymns glorifying the heroic past, the romance of labour and creation, the new positive character, the loud patriotism. Leading roles in the field of music were assigned to the mass song as well as to the symphonic, opera, and oratorio genres. Thus, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, a number of epic-revolutionary works were created, including, for example, Symphony No. 2 Mayska and Overture Deveti Septemvri (9th of September) by P. Vladigerov, two symphonies by P. Staynov, the 240 Баева, Искра. Българският социализъм след Втората световна война като изследователски проблем. – В: Изследвания по история на социализма в България 1944–1989. С., Център за исторически и политологически изследвания, 2010, с. 10 241 Вж. Спасов, Иван. Животът ми. Опит за реконструкция на една разпиляна мозайка. Пловдив, 1993, с. 43. 264 265 Documentary recording of Shumete Debri i Balkani (music by L. Pipkov, text by M. Issaev) – emblematic anthem of the 9th September events symphonic poem Karvava Pesen (Bloody Song) and Praznichna Uvertyura (Festive Overture) by V. Stoyanov, and numerous choral mass songs. The intimate foreshortenings and the intricacies of the psychological creative vision related to the avant-garde ideas in the field of musical modernism as well as some aspects of the fashionable entertaining music did not fit into the context of the socialist culture with its accents on the collective beginning at the expense of the individual human being. At least in the dominating official environment, part of which was also the Union of Bulgarian Composers, the prestigious signs in art at that time commensurated with other categories. Under a centralized cultural policy, the chances of any deviation from the “right course” in the creation and distribution of music were virtually impossible. It was not a coincidence that modernisms and musical entertainment were viewed with suspicion, which was also a reflection of the permanently established values towards the expression observed in the field of popular genres (interpreted as the result of a “decadent” bourgeois influence!). Thus, within the range of the harshly criticized music trends not only the modernist trends but also the popular genres fell. The new authority rejected popular tunes, tangos, and operettas as an expression of hostile bourgeois influence. The growing stagnation in the conditions of a totalitarian regime shrouded in fear of “ideological diversion” as well as the reference to the principles of normative aesthetics (not only a “Bulgarian” tendency!) cultivated a rather sterile notion of artisticity. Connected with the pompous as well as sanctioning gestures of the official culture, such a notion tolerated negativity towards the notes of undisguised joy in music, interpreted as a flat unambiguous category that did not seem to have very much in common with the intellectual space of artistic experience. 266 Indicative in that sense was the ban on the first Bulgarian operetta based on a contemporary storyline: Delyana by Parashkev Hadzhiev. According to R. Karakostova, “despite the premiere success of the work (12 October 1952), as a result of the defeating editorial article Vredno Proizvedenie (Harmful Work) in the newspaper Rabotnichesko Delo242, after the twelfth performance (which was demonstratively left by the Prime Minister Valko Chervenkov!), the operetta was removed from the stage of the theatre. And the subsequent official publication, “Conclusions of the Science, Arts, and Culture Committee”, qualified the case as a “huge ideological mistake” and announced the taking of radical, drastic measures against “any underestimation of and lagging behind of ideological issues” in all fields of art, higher education, culture, and science”.243 The instructions “from above” specified not only what but also how to write. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, a number of young Bulgarian composers learned new creative approaches. They were subject to harsh criticism, especially after the ill-famed Decree of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (B) published in February 1948, when the gloomy shadow of Zhdanov – a close associate of Stalin and an ideologist of the socialist realism – tightened the methods of “fighting formalism” and the unconventional attempts in the field of atonal music. The Decree of the Soviet Union affected composers such as Dmitri Shostakovich, Sergei Prokofiev, Aram Khachaturian, and others. In Bulgaria, criticized were not only the then young authors Lazar Nikolov and Konstantin Iliev but also the well-known Lyubomir Pipkov despite the fact that he shared the proletarian ideas since his maturity as an artist during the 1920s. As the composer K. Iliev noted, names of emblematic personalities in the development of European music such as A. Schoenberg, A. Berg, I. Stravinsky, P. Hindemith, and other modern composers were completely removed from the agenda of the musical life.244 Despite the ideological barriers, young composers, including K. Iliev, I. Spassov, A. Raychev, and G. Tutev, did not give up their creative interests and continued to advance avant-garde ideas in the new Bulgarian music in the 1950s and 1960s. Incentives in that respect were leading musical events closely watched in Warsaw, Prague, Budapest. For example, I. Spasov, who Редакционна. Вредно произведение. // Работническо дело, № 301, 27 окт. 1952. Каракостова, Румяна. Идеята Държавен музикален театър и проекцията ѝ в националния репертоар до края на ХХ век. С., Марс-09, 2012, с. 35–36. 244 See Илиев, Константин. Слово и дело. София, 1997, с. 32. 242 243 267 studied in Warsaw, regarded Poland as a second country and noted that at that time Warsaw was one of the world’s centres of new avant-garde music. He remembered with special respect his meetings with V. Lyutoslavski and K. Penderecki.245 K. Iliev, who studied in Prague, saw in the person of A. Haba (along with Schönberg and Stravinsky) one of the greatest minds in the contemporary music.246 The group of the musicians with consistent interests in the field of contemporary music at that time also included the names of V. Kazandzhiev and L. Nikolov who, as early as in the late 1940s, actively worked in that direction. The “defrosting” process after the April Plenum in 1956 softened the censorship on art. But not quite. That same year, a review of works by young musicians was held. Harshly criticized were works by K. Iliev, L. Nikolov, S. Pironkov, V. Kazandzhiev, I. Spasov. They were criticized for the character of their compositional approaches and the means of expression borrowed from the arsenal of the Western European modernist art and the intrusion of foreign intonations into the so-called common tone. In a review article, P. Staynov noted that the general panorama, which, in general, affirmed the national image of our contemporary professional music, included authors whose creative works “sharply deviated from the main line”. In the name of dubious innovation, they brought into our musical practice musical expression means that were extrinsical from a modern ideological-aesthetic point of view and borrowed from the Western European modernist art.”247 The story, however, showed that it was exactly those authors who would become part of the strengths of the Bulgarian road to the contemporary music in the second half of the 20th century. After 1956, there was a time of relative liberalization in the national cultural policy but, after the Czech events in 1968, the ideological dictate again reminded of the “strong of the day”. For example, in the early 1970s a positive response to a work by K. Iliev Poema za Martvite, Posvetena na Zhivite (A Poem for the Dead, Dedicated to the Living), after P. Matev’s poem, became the occasion for the removal of I. Hlebarov from the post of Party Secretary of the Union of Bulgarian composers. Leni Valkova, Aleksandar Nikolov, and Lea Ivanova during a concert performance in 1948 See Ангелов, А. Иван Спасов. 60 стъпки по пътя към Храма. София, 1994. с. 130. See Илиев, Константин. Слово..., с. 197. 247 Стайнов, Петко. По някои въпроси на съвременната българска музика // Българска музика, 1956, № 8, с. 2. The stagnation in the late 1940s and early 1950s was also evident from the point of view of accessing up-to-date music information. Immediately after theWorld War II, the Bulgarians could hardly suspect the upcoming ideological opposition between the East and the West, the subsequent informational blackouts, or, for example, the relentless criticism of the swing’s post-war fashion. At least until 1947, Bulgaria was exposed not only to the Soviet but also to the American influence, including through the screenings of famous American film musicals. The situation changed sharply after 1948. The paths of penetration of current music information were fundamentally different from the usual channels in the Western world. Here, it was hardly possible to speak of any role of the otherwise powerful Western music industry. The channels in that direction were rather problematic as a result of episodic informal infiltration. An important role in that respect played the music broadcasts of Western radio stations such as Radio Luxembourg, BBC, Radio Monte Carlo, Voice of America (VOA). Despite the attempts to silence the “enemy” radio stations, their emissions opened a gap in the musical literacy of keen enthusiasts with interests in the spheres of jazz, rock music, and avant-garde music. After the Soviet model of the 1950s, the music of entertainment was already called estrada (pop music). With the accelerated migration to cities, the estrada was becoming increasingly popular. The impossibility of forbidding completely the Western influence led to a relative freedom in the development of the genre, which was also recognized as a local socialist alternative to the bourgeois popular culture. For that type of music, composers such as Yosif Tsankov, Zhul Levi, Parashkev Hadjiev, Emil Georgiev, Maurice Aladjem, Bencion Eliezer, Petar Stupel, Ivan Staykov, Dimitar Valchev, Angel Zaberski, Boris Karadimchev, Atanas 268 269 245 246 Boyadzhiev, Toncho Russev, and others began to write. Among the popular singers were Lea Ivanova, Liana Antonova, Leni Valkova, Margret Nikolova, Irina Chmihova, Georgi Kordov, Vidin Daskalov, Mimi Nikolova, Rositsa Nikolova, etc. An important moment in the relative liberalization associated with the estrada development was the first Starshelov Spektakal, held in 1954. Created in cooperation with Valeri Petrov, Hristo Ganev, and Boris Aprilov as well as with some of the future actors of the Satirical Theatre and the director Stefan Surchadzhiev, the show was a huge success. The orchestra that played in the show put the beginning of the concerts at BIAD Club and Bulgaria Hall that formed, to some extent, the look of the Bulgarian entertainment and jazz music in the 1950s. Again after the Soviet model, in 1951 the State Ensemble for Folk Song and Dance Filip Kutev was established, which opened up new perspectives in terms of the modernization and stage presentation of the folklore tradition. The founder and chief artistic director of the ensemble was the composer Filip Koutev. Leader of the dancing group was Margarita Dikova, who had worked for many years in the field of Bulgarian folk dances. Despite the years of isolation and stagnation in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Bulgarian musical culture did not break with its orientation towards modernizing pro-western tendencies in art. Something that for the Bulgarians – at least since the middle of the nineteenth century – was a dominant sign of socio-cultural behaviour. Another was the fact that the process of westernization / modernization in the context of the Bulgarian cultural situation had its own specificity, which could hardly be qualified as a superficial reflection to some fashionable dictate. Moreover, even in the difficult years after the World War II, an incentive in that process continued to be not only the curiosity about the world but also the natural inner need for viable alternatives felt in the new contemporary forms of art. C. L. Part of the ensemble with the composer Filip Koutev 270 271 BARING OF THE CINEMA ARTISTIC FIELDS, REPRESSIONS AND CENSORSHIP The new power imposed in the art a style, works and authors who served its political purposes. The methods of impact were various – from promotion of authors who were loyal to the regime to incrimination of works and physical lynch of politically inconvenient intellectuals and artists. A special place in this system of repressions was dedicated to the issue of ideological prescriptions on the part of the party political staffers and the tracking of the adherence to them in each specific work. By the end of 1940s most of those who had been creating and developing our pre-war feature films were prohibited from working on feature projects – they were only admitted to the newsreel and the production of scientific films. The most shocking case in this respect is the case of Aleksandar Vazov – the creator of the top achievement of the Bulgarian pre-war cinema, Gramada (Heap) (1936). In this context, it is not a surprise, for example, that chapter V of the Cinema Culture Act (1946), entitled “Supervision of Images to be Publicly Presented” factually regulates the principles of communist censorship, as articles 18, 19 and 20 of this law “establish supreme administrative, technical, artistic and ideological supervision of all movie theatres and all films shown in the country, which is assigned to the Ministry of Information and Arts... All types of cinema images, texts, announcements, posters, photos to them, which are imported from abroad or are produced in the country by private parties or companies on an ordinary or narrow film, may not be presented or shown publicly without the prior authorization of the Ministry of Information and Arts.”248 The minister of information and arts carried out this supervision through a special commission. The Commission was composed of representatives of the Directorate for Press and Propaganda of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, National Enlightenment, Social Policy and War, of the Chamber of People’s Culture and of the Balgarsko 248 Държавен вестник, № 253, 14.10.1946. Министерство на информацията и изкуствата, Указ № 28. 272 Delo Foundation. These organizations were represented by one member each. The commission was chaired by the director of arts or a deputy appointed by him. Unlike the first years of Soviet cinema, when the process of formation of cinematography in accordance with the new ideological principles run more or less in a creative way, and from an aesthetic point of view – even in an vanguard way, in the Soviet Block, which was newly created after World War II, Moscow developed a systematic and well organized activity of “setting” of every national cinematography in conformity with the total state control and the already hardened aesthetics of Soviet cinema. A state-controlled Script Commission was set up in Bulgaria, absent the approval of which it would be impossible to release for production any film script. In a “Decision on the work and state of the Script Commission and its future activity” of 1950 the following is said literally: “political errors were not found. The Script Commission correctly implemented the Soviet experience and the Soviet practice in its work”249. In this situation, in February 1951 the film Trevoga (Alarm), directed by Zahari Zhandov, was released. It is about a screen version after the Orlin Vassilev’s drama of the same name of 1948, already staged in the National Theatre. According to Ivan Popivanov the play had been Stefan Savov (Vitan Lazarov) and Gancho Ganchev (Boris Lazarov) in Trevoga (Alarm) (1951), dir. Zahari Zhandov 249 ЦДА, ф. 383, оп. 3, а.е. 6: Протокол от заседание на Сценарната комисия на 8.06.1950, с. 14. Цит. по: Станимирова, Неда. Преглътнатата горчивина. // Кино, 1994, № 3, с. 55. 18. Bulgarian 20th Century... 273 written “with inspiration and impressively” and “its main ideological concepts were delivered without elementary pretentiousness or bare rhetoric, live images and relations were created.”250 In the film it is just the opposite – on the screen the relations between the characters seem unnatural, the characters’ speech is declaratory and rhetorical. One can clearly track at all levels how the censor exerts ideological dictate as early as at the stage of film creation. The film Trevoga (Alarm) reached the screen after many dramatic changes described and analysed in detail by Neda Stanimirova in the book Kinoprocesat – Zamrazen vremenno! (The Film Production Process – Temporarily Frozen)251. The censorship related complications in the creation of the tape started in 1948 and continued until 1951 and lasted almost three years. The big dispute between artists and censors was about the figure of the main character Vitan Lazarov (played by Stefan Savov, who played it also in the performance of the National Theatre). In the initial variant of the play Vitan Lazarov was a former officer – this is how Orlin Vassilev responded to the party’s initiative of 1947 to attract the patriotic officers’ corps to the communist ideas. During the discussions of the script of the film this political scheme was no longer up to date – the then agenda included the revealing and unmasking of the “hidden class enemy”. “During the first discussions in the autumn of 1948 Orlin Vassilev, who had developed the initial script variant in cooperation with the directors Boyan Danovski and Zahari Zhandov, still stood up for his creative independence [...] After the fruitless attempts to resist and stand up for his author’s views (and rights too!) the script-writer finally gave up.”252 However, two events happened before that – first, Boyan Danovski gave up participating in the directorship of the film, and second, in the absence of the author of the play Orlin Vassilev, a session of the Script Commission, at which a vigilant member thereof accused the script-writer of “bourgeois contraband” and proposed revision of the script by Anzhel Vagenshtayn who had just come back from his studies in the USSR. Unlike Orlin Vassilev, Vagenshtayn was invited to the session in question. Vagenshtayn: “The author of the script looks from the enemy’s position Orlin Vassilev (1904–1977), author to the people and hits the fascism according to their positions, he has presented our Party in the most fragmentary manner; he has shown only the enemies as being able to feel – they have their spiritual life, and our guys are “grey”253. In accordance with the lines of the party, Vagenshtayn made Vitan a former agronomist in order to point out more categorically his petty bourgeois origin. Zahari Zhandov, in turn, had with the approval of the then director of production of Bulgarian Cinematography, Strashimir Rashev, started shooting and had shot around 65% of the film254. Certain frames had to be reshot but in some of the episodes Vitan Lazarov remained with his officer’s boots corresponding to his initial life of a former officer. In the beginning, the film was shown in the Mlada Gvardia (The Young Guard) movie theatre but the party political staffers were not happy with two things – first, that the leading role of the communist party in the fight against fascism was not presented. And second – that the plot was not developed to its natural “happy end” understood as the entry of the Soviet Army in Bulgaria. The censors requires from Zhandov to reshoot episodes and to add the required final. According to the imposed revision of the plot, the communist Velichkov (Dimitar Gachev) had to go outside the family drama 250 Попиванов, Иван. Драмата „Тревога“. Referati.org. http://www.referati.org/dramatatrevoga-1/45359/ref/p8 (viewed on 31 January 2018). 251 Станимирова, Неда. Кинопроцесът – „замразен временно“. Български игрални филми 1950–1970 в документи, спомени, анализи. – София: Логис, 2012. 252 Ibid. pp. 37–38. 253 Станимирова, Неда. Кинопроцесът – „замразен временно“. Български игрални филми 1950–1970 в документи, спомени, анализи. – София: Логис, 2012, с. 40. 254 Ibid., pp. 43–44. 274 275 and realize the leading role of the Party in the fight against fascism. The clumsy dramaturgical solutions shaped this plot line not quite convincingly. The Communist-Hero was a new character for our feature cinema who was not able to be constructed either in accordance with the then existing domestic literature tradition, or in accordance with the reality, which did not in fact offer such examples. The convincing outlining of the “new person” at this stage was unachievable for the then just-starting script writer Anzhel Vagenshtayn who would in the next decades write the scripts of some of the most successful Bulgarian feature films. The lack of skill to build the image of the positive CommunistHero who is simultaneously a creator of the history and a builder of the future, remains the main weakness of all feature films created in the early period of the socialist-realism cinema. On the screen the images of the standard Bulgarian communists suffer rhetoricalness and pretentiousness. Sava Velichkov from Trevoga (Alarm) is an ideological megaphone, an ex-officio figure, through which the resolution of the conflicts receives a politically correct interpretation. After the changes in the scenario and the reshooting and adding of new episodes the film obviously became what the party censors wanted. There were even two articles published: Greshki i pouki (Errors and Lessons) by Lozan Strelkov255 and Neobhodimi izvodi za kinokritikata (Necessary Conclusions for the Film Critics)256, which refuted the reviews that appeared immediately after the premiere of the film determining it as artistically unconvincing. Both texts, which were released months after the premiere, point out “the big achievements” of the film Trevoga (Alarm) in terms of its ideological effectiveness and give up any aesthetic claims against it. As early as at this stage the Bulgarian film critics were aware that from this moment on films would be evaluated not in accordance with artistic criteria but most of all in accordance with their propaganda usefulness. However – what is most surprising – this sketchiness was positively interpreted by as late as the 1980s: “The positive hero realistically embodies the most responsible social functions that the cinema from this period successfully performs – the education of the new human, builder of the socialist society. Probably exactly due to this specific socially aesthetic function arisen at the earliest stage of development of our socialist film art, the didactics of the figures, their simplicity, even their sketchiness and elementariness are qualities.”257 Aleksandar Yanakiev in turn addresses in an article with the telling title Mehanizmite na splashvaneto (The mechanisms of intimidation)258 the polemics surrounding Trevoga (Alarm) as symptomatic for the application of a certain mechanism of intimidation both of creators – cinematographers, and of the critics who evaluate their work. Tracing the stages of realizing and thinking-over of the critical reviews for Trevoga (Alarm), Yanakiev writes: “This is the first manifestation of the mechanism that will be in force in the next decades almost flawlessly. The scenario is, as follows. Usually an editorial or a copyright material from a person who is not directly related to the cinema would be released in any of the multiple literature periodicals. Sometimes a dispute would follow and in other cases “measures would be taken” directly – decrees and resolutions would be issued, films would be stopped, human’s lives would be broken...”259 255 Стрелков, Лозан. Грешки и поуки. // Литературен фронт, декември 1951. Цит по: Янакиев, Александър. Механизмите на сплашването..., с. 220. 256 Необходими изводи за кинокритиката. Цит. по: Янакиев, Александър. Изграждане на социалистическата кинематография..., с. 220–221. 257 Грозев, Александър. Началото. Из историята на българското кино 1895–1956. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. М. Дринов“, 1985, с. 144.. 258 Янакиев, Александър. Механизмите на сплашването.... с. 221–233. 259 Idem, page 220. 276 277 I. B. THE REJECTED RIGHTS OF LOVE LYRICS In this context, the love lyrics polemics organized by the official printing house of the Union of Bulgarian Writers could be considered as a cultural phenomenon. Its meanings were at least double-marked. On the one hand, the fact that a literary problem was posed for public discussion was a precedent for the first decade of the communist rule in Bulgaria. On the other hand, it was surprising that the discussion scenario allowed not only opinions of denial but also more tolerant and less dogmatic texts. Predominant were the letters of readers outraged by Ivan Radoev’s cycle of love poems and the angry critical articles. However, the love theme was not placed on the shameful pillar of the stigma, despite the severe existential consequences for the author and the absurdity of the situation. In the middle of the 20th century (1952), after a change in the political regime, it was as if all the shining examples of love lyrics were erased from the cultural memory of the European and the Bulgarian literature, with which the readers used to freely communicate, to pose as a problem the right of the contemporary poets to write love poems. Nonetheless, the organizing of a public discussion was already an indication of the possibility of love lyrics to become official so the emphasis was put on the question what it had to be. But let us trace the chronology of a turbulent discussion characteristic of the ideological discourse of that time. In the Literaturen Front Newspaper260, the first love cycle after 1944 was published. I. Radoev’s poems were in a juvenile style and romantically dyed, far from the declarative pathos and the false slogan revolutionary spirit. In that stigmatized time, they impressed with their freshness of feelings, joking playful expression, and transformation of the intimate experiences, the little things, into a core of the harmonious world for two. It was exactly that non-thinking of the great ideals, the substitution of the banal labour relations in the everyday life with a symbolic reality in which love was self-sufficient ecstatic experience that provoked the anger of the literary critics and lovers of love lyrics. Those verses were the pre-eminent cause – as we cannot assume that they secretly circumvented the strict barriers of censorship – for a massive outburst of normative criticism. The verses were qualified as “vicious” as they “incited to coarse erotic passions.”261 Their author was accused of writing a “vulgar poetry” in which something “old and rotten” could be sensed, i.e. bourgeois, as the lyrical hero “exhibited qualities uncommon for communists”. That meant that he did not have the right ideological orientation and was isolated from the problems of the society and not excited by the implementation of the five-year plan. Instead of mobilizing the reader in the fight against the old public order and morality, the verses were “written in a decadent demobilizing style.” This article, a masterpiece of the dogmatic criticism of the period, was the debut of Zdravko Petrov. Later, he became one of the most prolific fighters against the severe long-term impact that this approach had on the Bulgarian belles lettres. We put the emphasis on fiction as it synthesizes the most essential traits of both that literary-critical style and the time that created that style as well as the accusing tone in the discussion. The deniers of Ivan Radoev’s verses could not accept that love was an individual rather than a collective experience. That was why in the ordered (as the editorial office acknowledged in the final article) letters by workers and “working” peasants, it was indicated – as a major disadvantage – that the characters of that too “liberated” love flirtation were devoid of social characteristics, and this was not only suspicious but unacceptable. The electrician Krum Kotlyarov, for example, was indignant at the fact that the place where their love was born, “e.g., on the construction site, among the machines in an enterprise, in the cooperative fields”262, was not indicated. Another reader was even more vigilant. Not only were the two lovers deprived of a labour biography but the social background of the beloved girl was unclear and that lack of social identification was too dangerous. The author was recommended to “give more details about the life of the characters”263 as if he was a bureaucratic clerk writing their profiles and not a lyrical poet sharing the fascination of their love feeling. From poetry, readers required a highlighted storyline, positive characters working hard in a specific Петров, З. Порочни стихове. – Литературен фронт, бр. 37, 11.9.1952. Литературен фронт, бр. 39, 30.9.1952. 263 Литературен фронт, бр. 39, 1.9.1952. 261 262 260 Литературен фронт, бр. 33, 4.8.1952. 278 279 team, and their love to be realized not in purposeless sentimental talks but in conversations about the bright future of their homeland and their inevitable family commitment. This absurd aesthetic taste was stubbornly educated by the works of art published at that time and by the literary criticism establishing them in order to fulfil precisely the prescriptions of the socialist realism and the party decisions. Readers’ letters played a very important role in the literary life in the 1950s and 1960s. The citizens expressing their opinions were most often false persons who signed pre-prepared texts and highlighted the main theses that formed the official statement motivated in a final article. In this sense, they were symptomatic of the political manipulations on the literature. Under the pressure of the worker-peasant class, the poetry had to extend its thematic horizons without deviating from the obligatory ideologemes. The accusations of “doing harm” and the lack of “good morals” were transferred from I. Radoev’s poetry to his personal life and he had to leave Sofia. And what was the position of the critics? The respected critic Minko Nikolov qualified as ridiculous the accusations of “cynicism and bourgeois eroticism” made by Zdravko Petrov. He categorically distinguished himself from “the assessment of the verses as vicious” and insisted on “fighting against the simplification and schematization.” His article On True Love Lyrics”264 made the only attempt to adequately situate those verses; it considered them an artistic phenomenon which, though imperfect, attempted to break the ideological cliché. The then young filmmaker Luben Groys also took part in the controversy with an opinion unambiguously declared in the very title Poems That Will Be Remembered265. He made an interesting intertextual analysis of one of the poems and the narrative Edna Obikolka na Sveti Georgi (A Tour of St. George) and insisted that if the poem could be denied as vicious and erotic, the undeniably classical work of Elin Pelin had to be defined in the same absurd way. That argument was influential but, perhaps, not most convincing given the suspicious attitude to the literary tradition. In his text, however, he surprisingly put I. Radoev’s love poems and the love in Tihiyat Don (Quietly Flows the Don) in the common space of moral-ethical categories. “If love is cynical and vulgar, if it is a sin to 264 265 love a girl – as it is in Pod Dagata (Under the Rainbow) – then you have to deny the unforgettable book Tihiyat Don”. This effective comparison rather had the meaning of a brilliant rhetorical technique but was also an essential sign of the Bulgarian socio-cultural reality. As a supreme criterion of truthfulness, Soviet authors, literary-theoretical statements, and decisions of the CPSU were almost always referred to. That was a mandatory ritual, a measure of Communist legitimacy, a role model. The more quotes from Soviet party leaders or officially tolerated authors were placed on a minimal textual space, the more undeniable the assessment of the Bulgarian critic or writer was. That kind of protective mask made the author more invulnerable, granted him the right to publish his works without limitations, provided an opportunity for power in the literature, and was a prerequisite for a successful career in the cultural and political hierarchy. Sometimes, those attempts to impose peripheral names from the Soviet literature as supreme authorities created comic situations. For example, in the controversy about love lyrics, I. Radoev was repeatedly insisted to write like “the Soviet comrades” as a standard role model. The insistence that one author resembled another presupposed the unification of the creative work, the renunciation or deprivation of individuality, which was, in fact, one of the universal keys to the ideological manipulation of the literature. The socialist criticism, which after 1944 had set itself the goal to create a new national literature and break its spiritual connection with the traditions, not only forcibly introduced the artificial schemes of the socialist realism but also imposed a mirror copying of foreign, equally dogmatic models. The resistance to that double round of prohibitions was too weak and unorganized. With a greater or lesser density, in the time span of the period from 1944 to 1989, there appeared some individuals or groups of individuals who tried to compare the Bulgarian literature and criticism not only with the Soviet but also with the world tendencies, but they were sanctioned too quickly and too strictly. The accumulation of knowledge implied creative freedom but the Communist power preferred a speech that can be controlled and predicted, not highly artistic but a true one. E. T. Николов, М. За истинската любовна лирика. – Литературен фронт, бр. 39, 30.9.1954 Гройс, Л. Стихове, които ще се помнят. – Литературен фронт, бр. 36, 2.9.1952. 280 281 THE NOVEL TYUTYUN (TOBACCO) – SANCTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES However, in 1951 the novel Tyutyun (Tobacco) violated the rules of the boring banal prose of the 1950s established by the socialist realism. Dimitar Dimov’s book provoked an extraordinary interest by both his bourgeois storyline and pronounced psychoanalytic approach to the characters as well as the non-trivial artistic expression and salient expression of speech. Its publication inevitably provoked dramatic political collisions. Because of utmost importance, the discussion of the book – as was adopted in the Communist regimes – was wrapped in mystery. It took place in the Union of Bulgarian Writers and lasted for 3 days – from 8 to 10 February 1952. The main reports were read by the literary critics Panteley Zarev and Emil Petrov. In the imperative style typical of that time, they accused the author of the most terrible sins towards the system. The emblematic title of the main report – For a Complete Victory over Antirealistic Influences – was an indication of the sinister mechanism of the class-party approach in the literature. There was no mercy for the writer who had scandalously crossed the boundaries of the freedom allowed. With a sadistic delight, the shorthand records of the sessions preserved not only the words but also the emotional sentiment. The 23 speakers struggled to discover even more flaws in the novel. The softest of them was that the work was not artistic; then, in a grading order followed that the atmosphere of sexuality and eroticism could be felt in it as D. Dimov was captivated by the “bourgeois reactionist, Freudian” concept of personality. After the terrible three-day Golgotha, the author was given the right to last word. And there, for everyone who had made their heavy and unappealable judgement, there was a surprise. The writer was neither humble nor frightened. With self-confidence, he boldly responded to all remarks and defended himself arguingly. In those unpredictable times, in such cruel ideological accusations, only humiliating remorse and recognition of all faults would have saved D. Dimov from severe existential consequences. His behaviour, however, 282 was not just a sign of personal courage and creative confidence. The reason for that also harmoniously fit into the complex institutionalized play of the communist regime. Prior to the discussion, the writer had received a congratulation letter personally from the secretary-general of the Bulgarian Communist Party, Valko Chervenkov, who had highly appreciated the novel. How could we then define that situation: as a farce or a huge manipulation? In the context of the literal overlapping of the BulgarianSoviet literary relations, it was probably prearranged to repeat the already played scenario with the novel Burya (Storm) by Ilya Erenburg. In the discussion, he heard even more obscure qualifications of him and his novel but was not at all worried. When allowed to answer, Erenburg simply read a letter from Stalin with an appraisal of his book. Why did not D. Dimov read the letter is hard to guess. His early death (1966) stole the opportunity to get to know the true answer. Although the Bulgarian story had its continuation, the closeness between the two books and their authors, which was searched for and achieved, was obvious. Within the narrow limits of an ideologically connotated aesthetic scheme, no original or talented works could be placed and, therefore, repressive ideological measures were applied to them. When an artistic text went beyond the specified perimeters and thus became an example that could be followed, it had to be stigmatized. During that period, this was also the public function of the literary criticism: to pronounce its ideologicalartistic verdict in order to formally regulate its incrimination or forced revision. The Communist Party governed both writers’ lives and creative work. Its interference was rarely favourable; more often, it signalled a series of repressive events. But let us go back to the story of the novel Tyutyun (Tobacco). The triggered mechanism of denial could hardly be stopped. It was not enough, however, to speak about such a dangerous novel only in a closed professional society, so the discussion was transferred to the public space of the periodical press. In Literaturen Front, it was designed to unfold in the style typical for that time. However, after the publication of the above-mentioned report by P. Zarev266, there was tension because the 266 Зарев, П. За пълна победа над антиреалистичните влияния. – Литературен фронт, бр. 15, 6.3.1952. 283 editorial was not informed about the opinion of the senior party leader. Such diachronicity between the party and the literary leadership was rare. Nikola Furnadzhiev’s article with the emblematic title A Harmful Critique of the novel Tyutyun267 was accompanied by the late and, therefore, comical note that the editorial “was not sharing the opinion of the comrade Zarev” and that the published text was a “gross mistake”16. This dissociation could not save the literary newspaper from the accusatory introductory article About the Novel Tyutyun and its Critics published in the official party newspaper Rabotnichesko Delo. In it, the book was not only defended but also defined as “the pride of our literature”268. The attack changed its object: from the writer to his critics personally and the Bulgarian criticism as a whole. That was the first heaviest defeat of the dogmatism and the schematism dominating in the period of cult of personality. And it came from the party leadership to which the criticism was true. We cannot claim that this article changed the general sociocultural situation as some literary criteria were replaced by others, not less elementary and harmful. The situation that we could designate as an assessment of the assessment actually had only personal consequences. The institutionalized imposition of the novel did not save it from new attacks. That led to the absurd situation of D. Dimov revisioning his work closely watched by a special commission. The new version of the novel greatly lost its artistic value and became just a very characteristic work of the socialist realism. The ideology managed to put on it its heavy and deforming sign. However, the book that had provoked the dogmatism of the critics became the threshold that it was unable to overcome. After the case of Tyutyun (Tobacco), the suspicion of its incompetence remained and its status of a fair and objective mediator in the communication between writers and readers was also blurred. CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT OF ARTISTIC INSTITUTIONS. SOCIALIST REALIZM AND SOCIALIST MODERNISM 267 Фурнаджиев, Н. Една вредна критика за романа „Тютюн“. – Литературен фронт, № 16, 13.3.1952. 268 За романа “Тютюн" и неговите критици. – Работническо дело, бр.72, 16.3.1952. Dealing with artistic phenomena and practices of the Communist Era calls for the inevitable discussion of the social conditions and the organization of artistic life back including commissions, contracts thematic planning, planned and impromptu interfaces with various audiences, possibilities for works of art to emerge outside of public control, etc. The inner workings of the political regime changed over the decades which lead to changes, albeit non-fundamental, in the situation of culture and artistic expression. “Art”, in and of itself, cannot be “socialist” or “totalitarian”. Visual practices can be controlled and used ideologically to express certain ideas with or against the will of the artists. From the standpoint of the research experience of today we need to include in our historical narrative a discussion of the distinctions and interconnections between the social conditions and the influence of the works. We believe that artistic phenomena and practices in Bulgaria should be compared to other works of art and tendencies, and forms of interaction in from local and the wider artistic environment existing beyond the borders of the country or the period in question. In the wake of World War II Southeastern Europe (as well as the entire European Continent) was divided into two: the Soviet-Controlled Eastern and Central Europe (hereinafter referred to as Eastern Europe for convenience), and the rest of the continent commonly referred to as Western Europe. This segregation was finalized at the Yalta Conference of February 1945. It marked the beginning of the so called Cold War. The physical, virtual, and informational border between Eastern and Western Europe was metaphorically called the Iron Curtain. Southeastern Europe underwent fundamental changes as well. Greece and Turkey joined NATO in 1952. Bulgaria and Romania found themselves on the Soviet side and in 1955 became founding members of the Warsaw Pact. 284 285 E. T. After World War II, all the way to the late 80s artistic life in Bulgaria was managed and governed centrally. In 1947 all artists’ associations were disbanded and all Bulgarian artists could only become members of the country’s unique Artists’ Union (the Union of Bulgarian Artists). The last surviving privately-owned art galleries were shut down the same year. All bodies responsible for the management of artistic life were brought under the umbrella of the Union. In the early 50s journal Izkustvo and the specialized art publisher Bulgarski Hudozhnik were started under the auspices of the Union. The Union of Bulgarian Artists organized artistic exhibitions where works were assessed and judged by members of the Union. In terms of its prevalent artistic genres and trends, the artistic landscape in Bulgaria, like in most of the other communist states in the late 50s after the Era of Stalin and the personality cult, was dominated by tendencies which can be generally labelled as socialist modernism, after the socialist realism which were known for their keen interest in colour, texture, matter and the use of materials as the integrating factor of the artistic impact. In certain cases there is exchange in techniques and procedures between fine arts and applied arts. Works of art featured in the galleries vary – from naivistic imagery and decorativism in the cozy embrace of tradition to various Late Modernism hybrids to the photo- and hyper-realism of the 1970s – all of them within the frame of figurativeness. The Modernist Paradigm of transforming the works’ form and its materiality into meaning started to be perceived as conservative in Western Europe and the United States in the 60s. In contrast, here, delving into the own means of painting, graphic art or other types of art from the late 50s and the 60s garnered not only artistic but also political dimensions – striving for freedon of idividual expression. The political aspect of this however was situational and it is hard for us now to explain how and why the disavowal of the narrative, iterest in abstraction, and the sophistication of the graphic prints became key in an attempt to emancipate artists from the ideological constraints imposed by the powers that be. THE SOCIALIST THEATRICAL CANON AND STANISLAVSKI’S SYSTEM Following the coup d’état of September 1944, the power was concentrated into the hands of the left political coalition Otechestven front. Gradually, the communist party managed to monopolize the power same as to set a regime by following the Soviet model. The changes in the Bulgarian theatre related to the processes of its ideologisation and obedience to the socialist doctrine started as early as in the mid-1940s. One should, however, hardly absolutize the influence of politics on arts. It has its own logic of development, notwithstanding that the political element inevitably and sometimes drastically affects the life of individual Borbata prodaljava (The Fight Goes On), Krum Kyulyavkov, dir. Nikolay O. Masalitinov, National Theatre, 1945 I. G. 286 287 artists. Generally speaking, though, the political and social changes cannot amend right away and automatically the course of the overall development of arts. During the first years, the time of domination of the “highly conceptual” plays of the political parties with doubtful artistic merits had not come yet. The share of performances based on classic works right after September 9th was considerable. By means of this dramaturgy the Bulgarian theatre production defined itself and developed some of its basic aesthetic theatrical principles, made discoveries and innovations in the field of acting. The liberty for artistic interpretation, for searching of new forms and artistic language provided by classic works helped the artists in the creation of images, different from the more and more peremptorily imposed by the ideological models. The artists continued experimenting and building the foundations of the half a century old at the time professional theatre in Bulgaria, following at the same time the traditions of the world and national theatrical achievements. During this period, much effort was put for maintaining the values of the past as well as for creating new artistic peaks in the field of theatre. The appearance of young and gifted actors was also significant for the favourable development of theatre. Some actors among them included: Ruzha Delcheva, Andrey Chaprazov, Ivanka Dimitrova, Rachko Yabandzhiev, Margarita Duparinova, Tanya Masalitinova, Asen Milanov, Apostol Karamitev, Slavka Slavova, Lyubomir Kabakchiev, Georgi Georgiev-Gets, Spas Dzhonev, Mila Pavlova, Yordan Matev, Stefan Getsov, Lyubomir Kiselichki, Violeta Minkova, Violeta Bahchevanova, Vancha Doycheva, etc. The directors, actively working in the theatre and training generations of students, were: Mois Beniesh, Boyan Danovski, Krustyo Mirski, Stefan Surchadzhiev, Filip Filipov, etc. Later on Nikolay Lyutskanov, Encho Halachev, Anastas Mihaylov and other actors joined this group. Gradually, however, the political apparatus in the face of the communist party more and more brutally attacked the opposing intellectuals. Journal Teatr was first published in 1946 as an official body of the Union of Bulgarian Actors, where all normative party documents, theoretical articles, reviews, and critical overviews were published. 288 Fuenteovejuna, Lope de Vega, dir. Stefan Surchadzhiev, National Theatre, 1946 In its first issue, the Journal explicitly stated: “One of the most important missions of Theatre shall be to give a correct ideological and aesthetical direction for the theatre figures and the audience, thus meeting the requirements of our Fatherland front’s community”269. The main instructions given from superiors were mainly focused on the following: “setting up of contemporary and timely repertoire. Repertoire in line with the new time. In our country and in all other democratic countries. First, of the people of the liberator of mankind – the USSR, fraternal Yugoslavia as well as the fraternal Slavic population of Czechoslovakia and Poland; production of performances of high quality, both conceptually and artistically. Performances not aiming at formalistic achievements, but portraying truthfully and authentically the real life. The ideology, the morals, and lifestyle of contemporary citizen, worker, and peasant. Depicting man and woman. Today’s youth. The labour hero in the factory, in the work-shop, in the fields; active participation of the actors of theatrical culture in the civil and political life in the country. Creation of the citizen actor; systematic and organized improvement of the quality of the staff; combating all attempts and efforts to plant ideas in the minds of the Bulgarian people that are contradicting to their interests. In the first place, combating the fascists leftovers and attempts to restore the fascist 269 Задачи на списанието. Театър, кн. 1, 1946, с. 3. 19. Bulgarian 20th Century... 289 ideology in the field of culture; the exchange of repertoire and visits of individual actors, teams, and groups of actors among the fraternal and close people, first with the people of the USSR and Yugoslavia. The use on behalf of the Bulgarian theatre of the achievements and the experience of the theatre in the USSR; promoting, supporting and supervising the amateur actor teams as well as the striving to discover and further advance all gifted sons and daughters of Bulgaria in the field of stage arts.”270 From the end of the 1940s and the beginning of the 1950s in our country, each initiative in the field of arts and especially in theatre, which can hardly exist illegally due to its collective nature, was under the control of the State. The authorities, playing the part of a caring defender of arts, managed to subdue the actors. In a socio-cultural space, saturated with ideology, in the environment in which each act of life acquired political meaning for the authorities, living on such public tribune as the stage had the importance of political act. The theatre by all means had to be bound and forced to preach a certain ideology. The repertoire had to conform to the requirements assigned by the party and the government. It was dictated not by aesthetic motives but by ideological and political intentions. The tendentiousness, the banality, the sketchiness, the uniformity and the antiartistry of the performed dramaturgy were absolutely obvious. Obeshtanie (Promise), Andrey Gulyashki, dirs.. Nikolay O. Masalitinov, Filip Filipov, National Theatre, 1949 270 Задачите на българския театър. Театър, I, кн. 8, 1946, с. 2. 290 Razuznavane (Intelligence), Lozan Strelkov, dir. Stefan Surchadzhiev, National Theatre, 1949 The artists were expected to impose the new systems of importance and ideologically influence people. Their mission was to lead the rest. Not accidentally, one of the first innovations of the authorities was to award titles such as: National artist of the Republic, Honored theatre activist of the Republic, Honored artist of the Republic, etc.271 Receiving such a title was a huge honour. This was not only acknowledgement of his/her talent but it also obligated the actor to be loyal to the party. The actors were the figures most often awarded with the “national” title – 277 (around 40 % in one of 9 categories in total), followed by “national activist of science” – 97 and “national activist of arts and culture” – 95. The number of honored actors were also the greatest– 855 people (around 18 % in one of 49 categories in total), followed by the honoured teachers – 768 as well as the honoured activists of culture of culture – 619, mainly writers (playwrights) and journalists.272 In the simplified role system of the new plays each character took a specific place in the hierarchy complying with the principles of party affiliation (typicality), class affiliation, family affiliation, and nationality. 271 Указ № 960 от Президиума на 6 Велико Народно събрание от 15 юни 1948 г. Указ на театрите. Държавен вестник бр. 145 от 30. 12. 1949, гл. 3, чл. 26. Указ на Държавния съвет № 1094 за духовното стимулиране в НРБ. 1974. Отменено с указ № 3520 на Държавния съвет на НРБ от 30 декември 1987 г. 272 https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Почетно_звание_„Народен“ https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Почетно_звание_„Заслужил“ 291 Broniran vlak (Armoured train), Vs. Ivanov, dir. Boyan Danovski, National Theatre, 1949 The “new people” who could be individual or collective heroes include: the leader, the leader’s mother, the party hero, the perished hero, the worker, the peasant, the new intelligent, the new woman, the ordinary people and the new youth. There were also enemies – fascists, Americans, cosmopolites, provocateurs, foreign intelligence spies, betrayers, capitalists, exploiters, saboteurs, etc. Inbetween were the “disoriented” representatives of the intelligentsia and some representatives of the people. The main artistic tools used for depicting the people’s leaders were personification, stereotyping, monumentalisation, depsychologisation. The rest “new people” were brought up by means of typification, whereby reaching of “realistic mask” and iconic identity with the life prototype was possible. They were the most active, dynamic, and purposeful characters. Unlike the required romantic tinge with the performance of the good characters, the satirical and grotesque means of expression prevailed in the characters of the enemies. With the latter, the principles of personification, stereotyping, and depsychologisation were also observed. In essence, most of the characters were unidimensional – brought down to several typical features, describing the sex, age, party, and class affiliation. In most cases the characters presented on stage were allegories of the party ideologemes. The two polar paradigms in which they were included were the constructive and the destructive ones. The constructive ones 292 belonged to the bright future while the destructive ones belonged to the decaying bourgeois past. The first ones performed normative function and the second ones performed the critical function. The mechanism of the work was the following: the language models being ordered from superiors in books, articles, decrees, resolutions and decisions and so on had to be studied and observed. The actors were obliged to decipher these models only by the code, i.e. correctly and apply these in order to achieve the final objective – the socialist and patriotic education of the working people. The road to building the new world was, in fact, included mastering the meta-language, imposed by the authorities. The ideology of totalitarianism indicated the meanings not only by using the ideologised language, but also by leaving the domain of the rational, namely by implanting irrational fear and irrational faith. In this way the relativity of the act of denotation was forcibly objectivised to a degree, where the meanings imposed by the authorities were combined with the materiality of the world. The real facts, subjects, phenomena from the present times were losing their outlines, since while entering into the discourse; they were interpreted as unstable states of Razlom (The Break up), B. Lavrenyov, dir. Boris Babochkin, National Theatre, 1951 293 common inevitable advancement towards the ideal utopic role models of the future. In this process of re-coding of the concepts and creating of solely possible semantic fields, which were saturating the socium, the role of theatre was huge. Theatre played the honourable part of one of the sources to inspire ideology. It became a significant public institution for propaganda of the ideologemes imposed by the authorities. The repertoire was composed mainly by contemporary Bulgarian socialist and Soviet dramaturgy. All of these drama plays propagated the basic communist directives. Sometimes the actors, by means of allegories and kind of “Aesopian language”, were striving to express their own ideas and present them to the audience. In most cases, however, these attempts were immediately terminated by the censorship and the actors were reproached, fired, interned and so on. During the period of late Stalinism (1948–1953), the National Theatre became one of the main proclamators of the new party ideologemes. It was namely there that the theatrical canons and models emerged and formed and began to circulate and conquer the socio-cultural space. From end 1940s until the mid-1950s the method of the socialist realism was dominating in the theatre. The doctrine of the socialist realism has been developed between 1932 and 1934. This term was used for the first time in Literaturnaya gazeta Statue of Stalin in front of the National Theatre, 1951 Congratulatory address to MHAT by the he Union of Bulgarian Actors on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the theatre, 1948. on 23rd May 1932 and it was affirmed on the First All-Union Congress of the Soviet writers in 1934. The Union’s Decree stated that the socialist realism is a “basic method of the Soviet fiction and literary criticism”, which “requires from the artist a truthful, historically specific portrayal of reality in its revolutionary development. Furthermore, the truthfulness and the historical specificity of the artistic portrayal of reality should be combined with the mission “for conceptual transformation and education of the people working in the spirit of socialism”.273 The fact that the totalitarian state is appropriating the realism is not accidental. On the one hand, the realistic theatre was always neutralizing social relations imputed by the dominating ideology. On the other hand, that way the authorities manage to get inside the minds of the masses using a rather simple and comprehensible language After the setting up of the Darjavno vishe teatralno uchilishte (DVTU; State Theatre High School) in 1948, the affirmation of the Stanislavski’s system was initiated as main manifestation of the method of socialist realism in the theatre. As early as 1948, the Union of Bulgarian Actors sent a congratulatory address to MHAT (Moscow Art Theatre) on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the theatre. The address explicitly stated: “The great magician of the theatre, Konstantin Sergeievich Stanislavski, formed new theatrical wording, he inspired actors for new stage language, which is used today in all progressive theatres.”274 In 1949, Stanislavski’s system was indicated as compulsory by the Komitet za nauka, izkustvo i kultura (KNIK; Committee on Science, Arts 273 Первый Всесоюзный съезд советских писателей.: Стеногр. отчет. М., Госсударственое издательство „Художественная литература“, 1934., с. 716. http://www.pseudology.org/Literature/1SiezdSovPisatStenogr_1934a.pdf 274 Ежегодник Московского художественого театра 1948. Искусство, т. 1, 1950, с. 145. 294 295 and Culture), founded in 1947, combining state control and party control over arts. Its basic function with respect to stage arts “to conceptually and artistically as well as financially and administratively manage all theatres in the country” was pointed out in the Decree on theatres.275. The document of the KNIK stated that “the operation of all theatres should be guided by the system of Stanislavski-Danchenko, which, when properly applied, the only one for the time is being, that may ensure realistic method in the performance of the actors”.276 In 1951, on the pages of the Soviet press a discussion was initiated under the heading: “Let us thoroughly study and creatively develop Stanislavski’s inheritance”. It was the result of the article “For further progress of stage arts“277 in Sovetskoe iskusstvo from 1st September 1951. The text stated that the “activists of the theatre science, the students and followers of Konstantin Sergeievich Stanislavski were meant to study and creatively develop the heritage, armed with the new theoretical works of Yosif Vissarionovich Stalin and with the party documents, which were immeasurably expanding and deepening the Marxist-Leninist aesthetics and were enriching the contents of the method of the socialist realism”. For further progress of stage art. Sovetskoe iskusstvo, 01.09.1951 It is obvious that in this case there was complete rewriting and politicisation of the Stanislavski’s system. Basic result from this discussion was the transformation of the system into one of the party documents. It was recoded in concordance with the discourse of the authorities and it was decided that the system of Stanislavski about the Soviet theatre activists was one of the most important means contributing to the practical application of the principles of the socialist realism in theatre.278 Gradually, concepts like “Stanislavski’s system”, “socialist realism”, “new Soviet system”, “party documents” began to be regarded as inseparable from one another, whereas, however, the leading role of the party was underlined and furthermore, the huge and crucial importance of the new power for the creation and development of the system was underlined. For decades, the texts of the theatre reformer were read, quoted and recreated selectively, whereas the basic ideas were interpreted in the concepts, imposed by the party. In Bulgaria, the system was brought down to a resemblance approach, which was limited to trustworthy reproduction of a given environment and characters. The fetishism of Stanislavski’s method to work with actors was exclusively associated with the director’s ideas, which gave opportunities to subordinate the actor by rational and irrational means of someone else’s will, in this case the authorities, and thus the party discourse to be imposed in the society. In July 1953, a meeting was held in Sofia with reference to the discussion of the problems of the work in the theatres in the light of the system of Stanislavski. The main reports include “Creative heritage of К. S. Stanislavski” by B. Danovski and “The Bulgarian theatre and the system of Stanislavski” by G. Gochev.279 Most of the speeches evidenced the party orientation in the interpretation of his principles. Stanislavski’s doctrine on the supertask was associated to the need of progressive ideology and ethics. The supertask was the ultimate goal towards which the performers were striving. The possible supertask in socialist art had to overlap with the party ideologemes of the “loyalty to Държавен вестник, бр. 145 от 30.12.1949, гл. 1, чл. 3. Решение за състоянието на провинциалния драматичен театър и мерки за подобрение на неговата работа, т. 6, Централен държавен архив, фонд 143, опис 2, архивна единица 300, листове 19–24. 277 За дальнейший подъем сценического искусства. „Советское искусство“ – орган Министерства кинематографии СССР, Комитета по делам искусств и Комитета по делам архитектуры при Совете Министров СССР. 01.09.1951, бр. 70, с. 3. 278 Кристи, Григорий., Книга К. С. Станиславского „Работа актера над собой”, В: К. С. Станиславский, Собр. соч, т. 2, М., Искусство, 1954, с. vii http://az.lib.ru/s/stanislawskij_k_s/ text_0040.shtml (visited on 05.06.2018) 279 Дановски, Боян. Творческото наследство на К. С. Станиславски; Гочев, Гочо. Българският театър и системата на Станиславски. Театър, 1953, кн. 8–9, с. 5–39. 296 297 275 276 the party”, “in service of the people”, “civil consciousness”, “fight the enemies”, etc. Another moment from the system was emphasized, namely the subordination to the author’s idea and justification of the text, which was significantly narrowing the possibilities of actors and directors for interpretation and also stimulating the actor’s performance in the spirit of party schemes, mainly finding manifestation in the staging of contemporary socialist plays. “The given circumstances” was another basic notion in the system which was very carefully redefined by ideologists. Meeting these requirements was accomplished by means of different techniques, but mainly with the help of the so called “magic” if”, when the actor imagines what would happen if he was in the place of the character and is transferred from the plane of the reality into the plane of imagination.280 It should be noted that generally speaking similar type of theatre, searching for the creation of an illusion about life credibility, was very often striving towards the use of “magical” techniques to get inside to the conscious and subconscious mind of the performer through concentration and self-indulgence. The ultimate target of Stanislavski’s system, however, was associated with aesthetic quests, while the efforts of the authorities were oriented towards manipulation of the masses and incorporation of the party ideologemes in the society. The discussion held in 1953 stressed that the introduction of Stanislavski’s system required mastering of the Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, studying the party documents as well as the decrees by the Central Committee of Kommunisticheskaja partija Sovetskovo Sojuza (KPSS; Communist Party of the Soviet Union), with the aim to apply the only correct method of socialist realism.281 Obviously the authorities were interested in the system of Stanislavski only as far as it proposed means through the theatre and its impact on human mind for the society to be controlled. The awkward thesis and ideas in the texts of the big theatre figures were either being corrected, or as a 280 Станиславский, Константин С., Работа актёра над собой — Часть 1, III. Действие. „Если бы“. „Предлагаемые обстоятельства“, Собр. соч, т. 2, М., 1954. https://www.e-reading. club/chapter.php/101744/7/Stanislavskiii_–_Rabota_aktera_nad_soboii_%28Chast%27_I%29. html 281 Театър, 1953, кн. 8–9. 298 rule crossed out. In this way the typical for the totalitarian power hybrid, known as “Stanislavski’s system” was created. The strongly ideologised and deformed system of the great reformer was studied during the following decades in the Vissh institut za teatralno izkustvo (Higher Institute for Theatrical Art). It was successor to the Darjavna teatralna shkola (DTSH; State Theatre School), founded in 1942. This was an important step towards the institutionalisation of the education in acting in Bulgaria. The school institution to a large extent followed the principles for education in the school of Massalitinov with the National Theatre. After one year of existence, the DTSH was legalised with its own rules, affirmed with decree No. 69 from 4.10.1943.282 This school existed for several years, when in 1948 it became Darjavno vishe teatralno uchilishte (DVTU; State Theatre High School). In 1954 the DVTU became Vissh institut za teatralno izkustvo ‘Krustyo Sarafov’ (VITIZ; Higher Institute for Theatrical Art). For a long period of time the theatrical creators were trained, with few exceptions, in only one institute in a single system, even though by different pedagogues. Some of them strived to familiarize the students with the development of the contemporary European and international theatre. The system in its distorted form was used for a continuous period of time not only for training the students, but also in the staged theatrical practices. 282 Указ № 69 от 4.10.1943. „Държавен вестник“, бр. 233/16.10.1943 299 It was inculcated as the only correct working method in the theatre. Notwithstanding the efforts of the authorities, there was no prevailing aesthetic concept. A more careful analysis of the specificity of the socialist realism discloses that a certain common realistic style was missing. Instead, the ready productions were eclectic and within a strictly hierarchic and simplified portrayal system, whereby in different levels and in one very specific way the realism was intertwined with the ideological convention. There was a curious combination of monumental, sculptural and domestic forms of expressing. There were newly set up styles or codes but only a selection of the already existing and familiar ones. In socialist art elements from different artistic trends, flows, and styles from different epochs have been borrowed, such as naturalism, classicism, academism, monumentalism, realism, romanticism, symbolism and so on. The permanent censors – the artistic and directors’ council were assigned to discuss and solve all artistic and creative issues in the theatre, including the choice of repertoire, roles, conceptual and artistic clarification and forming of the play, approval or rejection of the performances.283 Representatives of the party elite were invited to the early premieres. The other tool for party censorship was the National reviews for theatre, started in 1949 under the strict supervision of the KNIK.284 Similar to the theatres in Sofia, the theatres outside Sofia copied the official party models. The few exceptions of some spectacles from the dominating grey theatre performances were stigmatized by the criticism as “formalistic”. After some years of stagnation, in the middle of the 1950s, resistance against the imposed normative requirements in the theatrical circles came to the fore. It found expression in the search of new artistic searches. J. S. Указ на театрите. Държавен вестник бр. 145 от 30. 12. 1949, гл. 2, чл. 14, 15, 16. Решение за състоянието на провинциалния драматичен театър и мерки за подобрение на неговата работа, т. 10, Централен държавен архив, Фонд 143, Опис 2, архивна единица 300, листове 19–24. IMPOSITION OF SOCIALIST REALISM IN BULGARIAN CINEMA The Bulgarian post-war cinema is formed on the basis of two principles: 1) a production principle characterised by complete state monopoly on the film production and film distribution and 2) an artistic principle, which is reduced to the aesthetic model of the socialist realism. The possibility of control over the creative process in the cinema from its earliest phases provides an excellent possibility to track down and analyse the cultural engineering carried out by the communist power in this sphere of art. According to a definition from the communism period, the socialist realism in cinema is “… a method of art... that is an aesthetic expression of the socialistically realized concept of the world determined by the epoch of fight for the establishment and building of the socialist society... The searches in the cinema art of the socialist realism, its clear theoretical base were and are determined by the Lenin concept of devotion to the Party and artistic truth, of tradition and innovation, by the Lenin principle of ideological clarity and general accessibility of art.”285 The so called party class approach in art imposed by Lenin in his article “Party organization and party literature” is the main ideological requirement to each and every piece of art. What is more, after the creation of the Soviet Block, to which the People’s Republic of Bulgaria belonged too, the only art tolerated in our country was the art created in accordance with the ideological prescriptions of Marxism-Leninism. In fact, the term realism is not adequate to the normative aesthetics of this style, which requires presenting as “reality” the communist ideologemes. The realism understood as “a main method of knowledge of the reality in its entire breadth, incl. of the achievements of art through direct perception”286 was replaced by variants of the myth of progressive revolutionary change that leads to the light communist future. 283 284 300 285 286 Кино (Энциклопедический словарь). – Москва: Исскуство, 1986, с. 402. Богданов, Иван. Енциклопедичен речник на литературните термини. – София, 1993, с. 318. 301 The imposition of the socialist realism as mandatory aesthetics of the Bulgarian feature films brought about the implementation of solutions that were literarily borrowed from the Soviet models, as the situation of imitation, which is typical of our culture, was updated once again. The Bulgarian feature film was created under the strong influence of foreign models before World War II too but the imposition of the Soviet aesthetic norms in the end of the 1940s intensely prejudiced and delayed both the search for the national specificity of the Bulgarian cinema and the development of individual creative styles. The Soviet films were proclaimed as unreachable examples of imitation. The violently imposed normative aesthetics in our country was not opposed to either by a serious cinematographic tradition or formed individual art styles and the socialist realism triumphantly conquered the Bulgarian screen. In the Bulgarian cinema the new style was introduced by an act of the government. “From its first steps our national Bulgarian feature film, which develops under the favourable influence of the Soviet feature film, took the right way – the way of socialist realism. This is the guarantee for its success”, is said in 1952 in the crucial Decree No. 91 of the Council of Ministers287. The governors relied on the socially transforming functions of the cinema and believed that the employees were guided by revolutionary ideals and strived to build the communism. The official historians of the communist power would allege almost until the end of the communist period that the socialist realism gives rise to a value-based, humanistic cinema as an alternative to the western popular production288. A quarter of a century later the author of these lines would radically change his opinion and would write that “the means of administrative pressure were used to impose the canons of the so called “method of socialist realism” summoned to replace the actual inconsistency of the social development with the ideal image of it imposed from “above”289. THEATRICAL ICONOGRAPHY OF THE PARTY LEADER 287 Постановление № 91 на Министерски съвет „Относно състоянието и задачите на българската кинематография“. Т. ІІ. 288 Such a concept is promoted by Грозев, Александър. Началото. Из историята на българското кино 1895–1956. София: АИ „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 1985. 289 Грозев, Александър. Киното в България. Ч. І (1897–1956). – София: Фабер, 2011, с. 340. A central character in the role system of the totalitarian theatre art was that of the party leader. Through the leader, the largest degree of symbiosis between the totalitarian discourse and the specific artistic language was accomplished. He was a representative figure, situated at the top of the public pyramid and personified the power in specific dimensions. On the one hand, this wa used to inspire the true being and the real might of the party, and on the other hand, its supernatural power. Due to its extraordinary importance for enforcing the basic totalitarian ideologemes, this character was marked by extraordinary sketchiness and was subjected to incredible control during its creation by the team. It was constructed as per a strictly defined canon. The model was assigned by the party elite in books, articles, resolutions and it had to be studied and observed. The authors were obliged to be aware of the norm and to observe and follow it. On the other hand, notwithstanding the existing rules for constructing the iconography of the leader, not everything was absolutely defined. Usually the strongly politiciсed party instructions were quite common and vague, and thus they allowed for different interpretations. Corrections were made in the process of their application in practice with regards to the specificity of art as well as the individual perceptions of the writer, the artist, the sculptor, the actor. In the conditions of enforced control on behalf of the often incompetent bodies entitled with this taskt, the authors were obsessed by fears and suspicions with regards to the degree to which they had correctly deciphered the party directives. As a result of this semiotic activity of different subjects in the hierarchy, hybrid political and aesthetic micro-canons were formed. The artistic language was adapted to the political text and the party instruction was adjusted to the specificity of arts. In this way the totalitarian models of the leader’s image in the type of theatrical iconography were formed, which were relatively stable formations, created in compliance with the political canon as well as with the political and aesthetic micro-canons. 302 303 I. B. The canonization and the mythologisation of the leader formed the basis of the totalitarian art. Without the existence of the party leader, it would not exist. The iconographic image of the leader represented the ideal model of the new man, builder of socialism and true creator of the new life. Politics and aesthetics merged. The leader was the principal character in a number of plays – Bulgarian and Soviet, a part of which were performed on stage. These include Georgi Dimitrov in Leipzig 1933 by Lev Kompaneets and Leonid Kronfeld (1951); Parvijat udar (The First Stroke) by Krum Kyulyavkov (1964); Cherveno i kafjavo (Red and Brown), Pojarat (The Fire) by Ivan Radoev (1972); Jeljaznoto sarce (The Iron Heart) by Bozhidar Bozhilov (1972), etc. Lenin was the main character in: Semeistvo (Family) by Ivan Popov about his early years (1952); Treta patetichna (The Third Pathetique) (1961), Kramalskijat chasovnik (The Kremlin Watch) (1969) by Nikolay Pogodin; Brestkijat mir (The Brest Peace) by Mikhail Shatrov (1987) and so on. In most cases they were first performed in the National Theatre, usually opening the new theatrical season290. Leipzig 1933, L. Kompaneets, L. Kromfeld, (Stefan Savov in the role of Dimitrov), dir. Boris Babochkin, Stefan Surchadzhiev, National Theatre, 1951 290 Вандов, Никола и др. Народен театър „Иван Вазов”. Летопис януари 1904 – юли 2004. /Други авт.: Антония Каракостова, Иван Гърчев, Снежана Гълъбова и Асен Константинов – София: Валентин Траянов, 2004. 304 Semeistvo (Family), Ivan Popov, dir. Mois Beniesh, National Theatre, 1952 Stalin has not been presented on the stage in а play, but on the stage of the National Theatre in 1949 а spectacular celebration in three parts was prepared on the occasion of the seventieth anniversary of the great leader and teacher. In the first part, scenes of Stalin meeting different people were staged. The second part comprised recitals of poems and stories about him. In the third part, cantata in his honour was performed. A particular play has not been staged about the leader of the Bulgarian Communist Party (from 1949 until 1954) and prime minister of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria (from 1950 until 1956) Vulko Chervenkov, but in Obeshtanie pred pravitelstvoto (Promise to the Government; 1949) by Andrey Gulyashki and Po moskovsko vreme (In Moscow Time; 1952) by Angel Wagenstein, as well as in some other plays, his portrait was on the stage. The leader, although not in the focus of attention as a basic dramaturgical figure was always present in the performance of party plays. He was usually mentioned, his thoughts were cited by the characters, indirectly he was involved in solving of a certain problem (acting as deus ex machina). His portrait (a bust or a sculpture) was a mandatory element of the decor. 20. Bulgarian 20th Century... 305 Po Moskovsko vreme (In Moscow Time), А. Angel Wagenstein, dir. Stefan Surchadzhiev, National Theatre, 1952 Even though the artistic freedom in the creation of the image was strongly limited, the actors were endeavouring to reincarnate themselves in the leader, since the entrusting of this assignment was regarded as being of great honour. The efforts were rewarded by the critics with national awards and honours. All actors performing the roles of Dimitrov and Lenin on the stage received special awards and titles. The strict party principles defined how should the leader be presented. The basic instructions for the actors, performing this character were to perform in such a way that the presence of the great man could be felt. The character of the party leader had to eradiate power and divinity. He had to be depicted at all times as a good character, although in some cases rigorous, demanding but just. The actor playing the leader had to be attractive and charismatic. When playing the part of the leader, monumentality, sculpturing of gestures, stereotyping and depsychologisation were required. The actor was obliged to personify a certain abstract phenomenon as an actually existing person through sculpture and conditional playing. 306 Typical stage settings with the presentation of the leader on the stage was his staging in the centre and often slightly higher from the remaining characters. With the representation of the leader the use of index gestures was recommended. The pose with forefinger stretched was typical. On a number of scenic canvases and sculptures, the leader was presented in this way. The gesture was symbolically demonstrating how he was pointing to the correct direction, which was ahead in the future. The strength and the self-confidence of the leader were concentrated therein, same as his ability to manage the masses and to lead purposefully towards communism. The principle of personification had to be paradoxically mixed with the opposite form of the actor’s expression, namely the iconic identification, aiming to reach physical resemblance, biographical authenticity, documentary correctness and hyperrealism. In the presentation of the leader the goal was the iconographic resemblance between the performer and the character, as far as the depicted person had as prototype the actual historical personality. The actor had to strive towards a literal resemblance, imitate the typical look, gestures, poses, voice and intonation of the leader. High degree of iconic identity and physical Treta patetichna (The Third Pathetique), N. Pogodin, (Rachko Yabandzhiev in the role of Lenin), dir. Krustyo Mirski, National Theatre, 1961 307 resemblance was required, such as – face, gait, gestures, voice peculiarities, etc. The actors playing the leader were usually wearing heavy make-up as a mask. The preparation of Dimitrov for Leipzig 1933 took three hours, and the preparation of Lenin for Treta patetichna (The Third Pathetique) took four hours. The creation of the image of the party leader in his totality and depth was regarded as impossible by the normative critics291. The contradictory and absurd requirements for monumentality on the one hand, and the usual humanity and simplicity, on the other hand, were incompatible. The leader was an embodiment of the power of the party. The image of the leader had to be monumental and had to demonstrate the giant, who at the same time had to be a man of the people, close to the masses, overcoming the gap between the party elite and the ordinary people. The leader had to personify the party, but also had to reflect the desires of the masses. This was achieved by combining the required realistic “mask” and unrealistic gestures with conditional mise-en-scene. He was presented as an ordinary person, who however possesses the strength, the readiness Leipzig 1933, L. Kompaneets, L. Kronfeld, (Asparuh Temelkov in the role of Dimitrov), dir. Boris Babochkin, Stefan Surchadzhiev, National Theatre, 1951 Treta patetichna (The Third Pathetique), N. Pogodin, (Rachko Yabandzhiev in the role of Lenin), dir. Krustyo Mirski, National Theatre, 1961 and the wisdom to become great. The building up of the ideological stereotype of a superman with aureole was preferable to the creation of an authentic image. That is why it was much more important to demonstrate the monumentality of the leader as a symbol of the party power. He was the icon, personifying the strength, the light and immortality of the Communist party on the way to the bright future. J. S. 291 Архив. Музей на Народния театър, инв. Nо. 752, папка 33, листове 158–172. 308 309 THE MASSES AND THE YOUTH ON STAGE The presentation of the populace, of the people, in art was intrinsic to the idea of social emancipation after the French revolution in 1789. Following the October revolution, the representation of the populace became part of the doctrine of the socialist realism – in the theatre, in the cinema, in the monumental painting and sculpture. In Bulgaria during the late Stalinism (1948–1953), predominantly pompous performances with mass scenes were staged. This was associated with the following of the basic socialist principles for party, class and nationality affiliation, complying with the multiple mentions of Marxist and Leninist postulates in the party documents, mainly from the essays of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels About Arts; Vladimir I. Lenin About literature and arts as well as the report of Maxim Gorki at the First Allunion Congress of Writers in 1934. They were those to define: the heroic paradigm, related to the heroic struggling of the people; the building paradigm, oriented towards the building of the socialist system as well as the military paradigm, reflecting the fight against the enemies. Whenever possible, the revealing of the individual characters of the new heroes and their enemies, conforming to the nationality affiliation principle in the arts of the socialist realism, would have been implemented in a more epic plan, thus personifying “the might of the populace – creators of the history”. The party ideologeme found expression by including huge mass extras on the stage whenever possible. These attempts to materialise the discourse of the power often posed paradoxical technical issues for the theatre. The theatrical activists were forced to discuss that Nezabravimata 1919 (The Unforgettable 1919) by Vs. Vishnevsky required 400 actors on stage, which was almost impossible with the available staff and the existing technical capabilities on the stage of the best equipped National Theatre.292 This was one of the reasons why the play wasn’t staged. 292 The image of the people was usually represented by mass scenes, most often performed by students in the State Drama School. Such examples are the productions of Selo Borovo (Village Borovo) by Kr. Velkov, Obeshtanie (Promise) by А. Gulyashki, Razuznavane (Intelligence) by L. Strelkov, Broniran vlak 14–69 (Armoured Train 14–69) by Vs. Ivanov, Glasat na America (The Voice of America) by B. Lavrenyov, Nemci (Germans) by L. Kruchkovski; Leipzig 1933 by L. Kompaneets and L. Kronfeld; Ujno ot 38-ija parallel (South of the 38th Parallel) by Т. D. Chun, etc. In other cases, the creation of collective characters was accomplished through random parts played by different actors. This way the characters of the sailors from Kroonstad in Razlom (The Break Up) by B. Lavrenov; the kolkhoz members in Shtastie (Happiness) by P. Pavlenko; the transport workers in Po moskovsko vreme (In Moscow Time) by A. Wagenstein; the peasants in Snaha (Daughter-in-law) by G. Karaslavov; the workers in Semeistvo (Family) by I. Popov, the Yugoslav people in Iskri v noshtta (Sparks in the Night) by A. Baruh, etc. were created. The main suggestion these characters aimed at was “the power and greatness of the broad people’s masses”. They represent the party Broniran vlak 14–69 (Armoured Train 14–69), Vs. Ivanov, dir. Boyan Danovski, National Theatre, 1949 Архив. Музей на Народния театър, инв. Nо. 752, папка. 33, лист. 132. 310 311 Razlom (The Break Up) by B. Lavrenyov, dir. Boris Babochkin, National Theatre, 1951 modification of the antique choir, who was at the same time witness and creator of the events. For this purpose, large architectural and stage constructions were erected, with the performers sometimes playing static and lifeless. In some cases, the stage movement of groups was purposeless. In other cases – the massive participation was too casual and the revolutionary ebullience, the violent determination and the struggling energy of the people could not be noticed. The Soviet actor B. Babochkin is recognized as master of the mass scenes. In 1951–1952, the director staged Leipzig 1933 and reworked Razlom (The Break Up). In these productions some of the actors of episodic roles depicted very successfully the totalitarian stereotype for collective image of the people. The monumentalisation was the main source for both the building up of the positive collective characters andthe revealing of the image of the group enemy. In these productions some of the actors of episodic roles depicted very successfully the totalitarian stereotype for collective image of the people. The monumentalisation was the main source for both the building up of the positive collective characters andthe revealing of the image of the group enemy. 312 For playing the ordinary people, the expressive sources were most often domestically realistic, in combination with the sculptureness of the gestures, elevation of the tone as well as other romantic techniques, for the enemy, however, the grotesqueness and sarcasm were sought after. According to the totalitarian model, the nationality found expression in the depiction of the life in the forms of life itself. This, however, was related to the requirements about realism as much as it might guarantee the public accessibility and easy reading of the coded ideological message. Nationality affiliation to a high degree means “ability to illustrate”, “primitivism”, “simplification”, “infantilism”, very often conscientiously cultivated by the authorities with the aim to easily manipulate the public consciousness. In connection with the nationality, understood namely in the sense of simplification and infantilism, which was also orientation towards the depiction of the young shift. Through these characters the new youth had to be repercussive, complying with the ideologeme for breeding in the spirit of freshness and revolutionary spirit. In the spectacles for young people, youth was universal – both for the heroes and for the actors. It had to cover everyone: old and young, situated both on stage and in the auditorium. With the representation of the young people it was Leipzig 1933, L. Kompaneets, L. Kronfeld, dir. Boris Babochkin, Stefan Surchadzhiev, National Theatre, 1951 313 a society of childish individuals. The socialist realism was distinguished with its infantilism, being one of the generic features of each totalitarian culture. The utopic ideal was a world, full with elderly children whose consciousness was to be easily managed, susceptible to superstitions, myths, idolatry, subordinate to the force of the authorities. That is why for the youth of the actor and the heroes represented by him/her, the author spoke with huge enthusiasm, notwithstanding the artistic achievements of the acting performers. With reference to the primitive totalitarian logic, the frequent showing of the young people on the stage, which would conciliate, enthuse and fascinate the audience, and it was one of the sources for automatic mass childishness of the individuals, thus the process of inseminating the party discourse in society was facilitated. J. S. Mlada gvardia (Young Guard), Аl. Fadeev, dir. Boyan Danovski, National Theatre, 1947 necessary to look for casual naivety, childish purity, and honesty. The new children were prepared for feats. Therein the bright and radiant image of the new generation pierced. Their strength was in their solidarity and that is why the young people were usually shown in groups. Through the collective image of the young people the ideologeme about the forthcoming new and passing away old was affirmed. The bright future was in the hands of the ones to come. Old ones who are passing away and only few of them can understand the new times and find their place, were opposed to the young ones. The rest perish not finding their street. One of the tasks with the presentation of these characters was to breed the young people in socialist spirit, by means of depicting the heroic peers by young and enthusiastic actors. At the same time this universal youth enthusiasm had a deeper meaning. It had to be suggested not only for the young people, but for everyone. Through the apologetics of juvenility, chosen to be the symbol of the spirit of the new time, the authorities tried to infect the society with young spirit, to intrude the typical for the world of utopia the young crosssightedness – fruit of innocence and purity – and in this way to cultivate 314 315 THE MYTH KALIN ORELAT (KALIN THE EAGLE) The cultural engineers of communism needed as soon as possible the production of a Bulgarian full feature film to prove the advantages of state film production before the private production. This film “must, while reflecting in a multiform manner the fights of our people – the today’s fights and the ones from the near and further past – set and resolve such human problems that are inherent in our time and which are in the mind and are decisive for the behaviour of the people”293. In the end, the propaganda noise failed to produce the so desired socialist-realistic state model-film. This is why a compromise decision is taken – to resume the work on the screen version of Nikolay Ikonomov’s play Kalin orelat (Kalin the Eagle) started by Boris Borozanov as early as before 1944. In accordance with the views of the socialist realism there started reshaping of the material shot before the end of the war, nationalized together with the entire cinematography. Neda Stanimirova, who is a contemporary of the events, writes that it is about finishing of the film, “which was inherited from the private film making”294. What is more – a solemn “launch of the shots” was framed up, accompanied by a speech of the deputy-minister and director general of Bulgarian Cinematography Encho Staykov and by solemn promises on the part of the “cinema workers”, which is documented and shown as newsreel. The aim of this replacement is to create the myth that the history of the Bulgarian feature files starts with Kalin orelat (Kalin the Eagle), proclaimed as the first Bulgarian state film. According to the text to the frames with the feigned launch of the shots of Kalin orelat (Kalin the Eagle): “a Bulgarian feature realistic film is started, which reflects the heroic fights of the people against the foreign yoke and the fascism”. In an absurd violation of the historic truth the Osman yoke and the fascism are Kalin Orelat (Kalin the Eagle), dir. Boris Borozanov, 1950 just about put in the same epoch and in the end a hybrid of the initial and subsequently shot materials was edited. The result is a romantic melodrama, superficially dressed with socialist rhetoric. The history of the lost orphan, who managed – after dramatic changes – to find his true father, is a main model of the melodramatic narration. However, according to the romantic tradition, the happy end presupposes that the convict’s daughter proves to be a lost countess. The plot of Kalin orelat (Kalin the Eagle) evolves exactly in the opposite direction – the French noble Edith (Petrana Lambrinova) is the lost daughter of a Bulgarian combatant sentenced by the Turkish to exile. Contrary to the fundamental melodramatic principle, the action of Kalin orelat (Kalin the Eagle) is not based on the changes in the personal Petrana Lambrinova as Edith/Nevyana Kalin Orelat (Kalin the Eagle), dir. Boris Borozanov, 1950 Кино и фото, 1949, № 4, с. 3. Станимирова, Неда. Кинопроцесът – „замразен временно“. Български игрални филми 1950–1970 в документи, спомени, анализи. – София: Логис, 2012, с. 45. 293 294 316 317 IDEOLOGY VERSUS ARCHITECTURE Ivan Dimov as Kalin the Eagle, dir. Boris Borozanov, 1950 life of the characters and the plot is free of any life-related details. What is more – the return of the main character Kalin (Ivan Dimov) to liberated Bulgaria, his joining to the socialist organization in the village of Beli Izvor and his death caused by a hitman – an enemy of the socialist movement – is the most significant change in the plot that aims at suppressing the “bourgeois” nature of the melodrama and at setting it in conformity with the socialist realism. On the same lines the lackey Jean (Stefan Petrov) receives a significant role in the development of the events after his “CV” is supplemented by participation in the French Commune. The traditional touching happy end is replaced by revolutionary decisiveness, with the promise given by the main female character Nevyana (Edith) to her dying father – to remain in Bulgaria and to continue the cause of socialism. It is obvious that the traditional romantic methods are adapted in the most elementary possible way to the new ideology. The premiere of Kalin orelat (Kalin the Eagle) took place on 1 March 1950 and it was the first declaration on the Bulgarian screen of the socialist approach to the history, which would remain in our feature films until the very end of communism. I. B. 318 The development of architecture during the second half of the 20th century is an eclectic, amorphous phenomenon and not only in Bulgaria. New construction technologies appear at breakneck speed and the numerous architectural styles develop in parallel and to a degree where they begin to overlap their initial purpose. Conceptual and aesthetic social preferences – architecture included – are beginning to be viewed as the popular conductors of mass communication and on an equal footing; in most of the functionally comparable cases the final appearance of the buildings publicly highlights the belief systems of their authors and investors. During the postwar period Bulgaria turns to a centralized governance dominated by the communist ideology. This political regime imposes a new form of market and work processes which restrict the previously popular artistic concepts. The artistic tendencies, considered suitable for the public, begin to demonstrate a clearly palpable propaganda suggestibility expressed in aesthetic solutions marked by the monumentality of scale and a scanty choice of approved stylistics. The ruling party is actively trying to find its individual architectural expression and in particular that of the ideologically relevant buildings. Still, the fluctuations of the ongoing political turmoil and the changes in the adopted artistic concepts come to effect in the seemingly endless changes administered to long-standing buildings and facilities. Viewed historically, constructions of a similar design can thus convey an array of differing messages. After World War II Bulgaria is on the fringes of the world socialist block organization centered in the USSR, the leading success and experience of which is to be implemented in all spheres of life. The architectural style developed by Soviet designers becomes the key factor in justifying a number of stylistic and functional solutions. The manifestations of the regime are strongly expressed in the organization of design and construction processes, and Bulgaria’s economic structure 319 successfully adopts and implements a number of processes and practices which have already been realized in the USSR. In architecture, the process of commissioning, design, and construction works follow the Soviet model and, indeed, during the postwar era private entrepreneurship and personal business initiatives in the construction industry are forgotten. Nationwide, specially planned construction activities, serving the needs of the people, are undertaken by technical services set up by the People`s councils (or as functions of the larger scale stateowned enterprises and institutions). Specialized groups of designers are set up practically everywhere: “The projects and bills of accounts of all state construction sites as well as those of the cooperatives, the political, and public organizations shall be made only by the respective designer organizations”295, reads the text of the 1951 Ordinance on Planned construction. Gradually, the design and engineering activities are administratively distributed in “thematic” work teams at the various institutions, administrative regions, etc. The activities of Transproekt, Hranproekt, Energoproekt, Zemproekt, Agropromproekt, Promproekt, Zavodproekt, for example, are targeted at building transport, agricultural, industrial and other buildings and facilities. The studios Glavproekt296, PRONO, Technoexportstroy execute specific (administrative, military and public) tasks on the centralized market, both in Bulgaria and abroad. Designer services such as Sofproekt were organized for the regional needs of settlements, municipalities and the adjoining territories. The control over the proposed construction projects and proposals is also absolutely centralized. By the middle of the century, “…the entire Soviet country is an indescribably large construction site where the dynamics of peaceful construction works are constantly accelerating and the results from it are becoming more and more majestic,“ writes Tsapenko in one of his articles in the periodical Sovetskaya architektura. In his report on Bulgarian architecture297, he goes on to comment on the processes in the country by saying that “In the democratic People`s Republic of Bulgaria large See: Article 44 of the Capital Construction Regulation from 1951. “Glavproekt” researches and manages all projects, intended part of the State agricultural plan, commissioned by the State, the public, or the cooperatives.”, Informs a notice in the journal “Architecture and construction”, 1951. 297 Цапенко, Михаил. Българската архитектура. // Архитектура и строителство, 1951, 6, с. 1. The Palace of the Soviets designed by B. Yofan, 1930–40 – a picture from a 1947 edition of the journal “Arhitektura” (Architecture).298 construction works are ongoing and, indeed, socialism everywhere treats construction works as a state issue of great importance”. In fact, the Soviet Union and the allied countries are not erecting buildings only: a whole new social order is under construction. In reality what is actually under construction is socialism. And one may say that the countries of the Eastern block view construction as an explicit metaphor for the processes governing society as a whole. Even key public figures are identified as “builders”. “Whereas in a class society the word “palace” stands for a building inaccessible for the people, in our Soviet state, the public buildings, used to serve the masses are, by law, called “palaces”: palaces of the Soviets, palaces of culture, of art and science, palaces of youths and pioneers, palaces-museums, etc.”, says A. Mihailov299. Thus, while at the beginning of the 20th century the eclectic and neoclassical architectural tendencies in Bulgaria illustrate the desire to adopt European traditions, by the middle of the century, erecting buildings in the neoclassical palace style is aimed to show the elevated culture and the extraordinary, even “elite”, achievements of the socialist regime. Another well vocalized and distinctive aesthetic assessment made by David Arkin states that the “ostensibly innovative machine-based aesthetics has hermetically sealed the architectural creativity in the watertight box of 295 296 320 298 Тонев, Л. Едно посещение в ателиетата на академика Б. М. Иофан – Москва // Архитектура, 1947, 3, с. 28. 299 Михайлов, А. Архитектурата на социалистическия реализъм. – В: Съветската архитектура. – София: БАН, 1951, с. 37. 21. Bulgarian 20th Century... 321 lifeless and joyless technicism”300. The latter is also stigmatized by Arkin as possessing the “anti-humane interior of art in the era of imperialism”, and is summarily marked as formal. Following this widespread logic (of the “antimachine” aesthetics), the simplified stylistics of prewar modernism, in the Bulgaria, has been substituted by the use of the ordinal principles and the emphasis on architectural decorations of the so-called “cult period”. Stalin`s death in 1953 and future prospects, as outlined during the 1956 April plenary party session, change the situation in Bulgaria. The first issue of the journal Arhitektura, in 1955, begins with a printout of Khrushchev‘s speech, titled “Towards the wider implementation of industrial methods as a means of improving the quality and lower the costs of construction”301. It is during this period that a new term is to appear and incorporate the concept of “excessive ornamentation”, as a means to criticize the (neo) classical decorations, the lush use of ornaments and representative spaces and even the very method underlying the building of monumental, presentational construction projects. The late 1950s can be characterized by an alteration of the qualitative accents in the appearance of new buildings… yet again. The ideologically tinted aesthetic formulas are clearly visible in almost all theoretical and critical texts generated during the early decades of the socialist period. In his study of Bulgarian architecture from the middle of the 20th century, for example, Lyuben Tonev divides the design and construction activities during the 1944–1960 period302 into three distinct stages. In his opinion the period between 1944–1948 is characterized by the efforts to correct the negative heritage from the past, followed by the adoption of the planned economy principles in construction between 1948 and 1955, and the elimination of the purposeless decoration of the buildings during the The Five-Year-Plan (1955–1960). Correcting the negative heritage is another popular expression used to mark the ruling left-wing regime`s approach to the earlier right-wing arrangements and achievements found in the country. The reproaches for 300 Аркин, Давид. Борба за стил в архитектурата, – В: Съветската архитектура. – София: Академично издателство „ Проф. М. Дринов“, с. 28. 301 Хрушчов, Никита С. За широко внедряване на индустриалните методи, за подобряване на качеството и поевтиняване на строителството; Реч произнесена на 1.12.1954. – Архитектура, Отдел «Архитектура» при СТНС, 1955, 1, 1–14. 302 Тонев, Любен, Архитектурата в България 1944–1960. – София: Академично издателство „ Проф. М. Дринов“, 1962. 322 A 1956 publication in the journal Architecture with a review of the Siberian pavilion in the VDNH – Moscow303 formalism and aimless ornamentation lay at the basis of many critical and purely ideological statements. The public discourse often places the concepts of the decadent eclectic, constructivist and excessive architecture, as well as the rough devoid of any detail forms (typical of some of the major European cities) in opposition to the bright and cheerful, realistic and truly national architecture produced by the socialist regimes. In spite of the fact that censorship imposes its preferences and assessments it does so without destroying – or remaking – the already erected (and often expensive) buildings and complexes. One may notice that the accusations of formalism and ornamentation are, to an extent, selective and usually lead not so much to changes in the appearance of the buildings themselves but rather to awarding or sanctioning their designers. Still, after 1956 new projects in the neoclassical or eclectic style, are rarely approved. On the other hand, some of the already completed emblematic sites (such as Georgi Dimitrov`s mausoleum, the Dimitrovgrad city center and the largo in Sofia) manage to retain their positive characteristics in the public domain as late as the final decades of the 20th century. Widely used during the middle of the century, in the years to come the politicized aesthetic categories gradually lose their importance and their practical implication becomes negligible. The passage of time leads to an adequate reassessment of Bulgarian architectural heritage and the theoretical and functional trends typical of the age. The positive attitude 303 Абросимов, Павел. Състояние и задачи на съветската архитектура. // Архитектура, 1956, 1, с. 13. 323 By the end of socialist rule the development of modernistic concepts had gradually dwindled and deformed (similar to their world evolution). “After the dramatic and controversial quests of the early 1970s, by the end of the decade and the beginning of the next, the ideas of modern architecture began to exhaust and turn banal”306, continues Konstantin Boyadjiev. Unlike the appearance and the aesthetic effect of the buildings, the social role of architecture and the very logic underlying the practice of the profession remain much closer to the specifics of the political regime and the region as a whole. S. T. The Mausoleum of Georgi Dimitrov, 1950, designed by the architect Georgi Ovcharov304 towards the symbolic buildings from the beginning of the century, such as the Central Market Hall, Sofia Central Baths or the Theological Academy is revived. The prewar works of the greatest architects in the world are being reconsidered and viewed in a positive light. By the end of the 1950s, the discussions regarding the establishment of a regional (nationally and regionally unique) architecture or the development of the then popular modernistic concepts are, to an extent, “frozen”. The forefront is now occupied by the new, socialist constructions (often proclaimed to be the result of the knowledge and support given by Soviet architects). In the years that follow, however, the ideological architectural environment and its inevitable regional and national features are becoming increasingly intertwined. At the same time, the architectural imagery is now perceived as closely related to satisfying social, ergonomic and/or technological needs and, indeed, as a part of the world architectural evolution. According to Konstantin Boyadjiev, “Bulgarian practices during the late 1950s and 1960s mix the aesthetics of “orthodox” modernism, the pursuit of “organic architecture”, with the rudiments of local interpretations of “brutalism” and the grace and picturesqueness of Brazilian architecture.”305 Стоянов, А. Шрифт и архитектура. // Архитектура и строителство, 1951, София, 8, с. 8. Бояджиев, Константин. Историцизъм и модерност. – В: София 120 г. столица. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. М. Дринов”, 532. 304 305 324 306 Бояджиев, Константин. Историцизъм и модерност... 541. 325 THE NEW UNIVERSITY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING The traditional academic quests, started in BIAD, BIA and DBA during the second half of the 20th century are – to an extent – taken over by the IGA (Institute of urban planning and architecture at BAS). It was established in 1949 and was divided in 1962 into two branches, namely STIGA (Department of theory and history of urban planning and architecture) remaining as a unit within the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and NIGA (Research institute for urban planning and architecture) at the State Committee for Construction and Architecture. The Institute for Typography and Industrialization of Construction (ITIS), the Complex Research Institute for Territorial Planning, Urban Planning and Architecture (KNITYPUGA) and a number of smaller centers also deal with the architectural issues in the country. The main objectives of these research organizations are coordinated centrally and their work is focused on historical and urban studies as well as on the automation and standardization of the construction process. The first Bulgarian higher technical school (VTU) was opened in 1942 and in October of 1943 it organized studies in the specialty of “architecture”. Finally, and although as late as 60 years after Liberation, the architectural and building guild in the country got the academic opportunity to systematize and retransmit the knowledge accumulated over time. The first class accepted 44 students in architecture: 33 men and 11 women. Todor Zlatev, Ivan Danchov, Stancho Belkovski, Petar Markovsky, Dimitar Tsolov and Lyuben Tonev are the names of some of the first teachers in architecture, while the painters Ivan Penkov and Boris Kolev, the sculptor Ivan Lazarov and others organize the courses in painting and modeling. Nikola Obreshkov, Georgi Bradistilov, Ivan Stranski and Georgi Nadjakov are the notable professionals invited to teach other scientific subjects. Among the first graduates were the architects Margarita Todorova, Metodi Pisarski and Metodi Klassanov. 326 After the war restrictions on traveI and studies abroad were centrally imposed on the entire country. Thus, the opportunities for architectural education were concentrated in the VTU, although some controlled relations with academic centers in the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries were allowed. After 1944, a large number of architects and engineers, who had studied abroad, returned to Bulgaria and according to Metodi Pisarski and others307 the second class of VTU included 33 students from Vienna, 33 from Dresden, 35 from Munich, 26 from Zagreb, 14 from Brno, 11 from Berlin, 11 from Graz, 8 from Stuttgart and some people from other locations in Europe. In 1944 a group of some 700 students were additionally admitted, free of charge and with no entry examinations.308 The development of the VTU as an institution is neither smooth nor problem free and the dynamics in the characteristics of the political regime is one of the factors for its numerous reorganizations. In 1945 it was transformed into a “State Polytechnic”, and during the 1953–1954 academic year it was divided into four independent institutions teaching construction and building (Institute of Civil Engineering – ISI), mechanics (MEI), chemistry and technology (HTI) and mining and geology (IGI). Following the transformation of ISI into (Higher Institute of Civil Engineering – VISI), 1963 and Higher Institute of Architecture and Civil Engineering (VIAS), 1977, architecture today is being studied in the academic structure called UACEG – University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy 1990. The main departments formed in the faculty of architecture initially follow the typological directions in the function of the buildings or focus on a diverse scale of architectural problems. The students, who have graduated the first class, become specialists in the sphere of residential, public, industrial, agricultural and urban planning309. With time, graduation in the fields of history and theory of architecture, residential building and interior design became common practice. The University of architecture and construction is one of the first institutions (in this particular branch of science) to employ computing technologies. In 1977 the so-called “training and computing center” was set up and in 1979 the universal EIM EC-1033 was put into 307 Писарски, М., Класанов, М., Тодорова, М., Войников, Ц., Тенев, И., Аврамова, А. (1993) Алманах [на ВИАС–София]: Първите студенти и преподаватели по архитектура, 1943 г., ВИАС, София., с. 67. 308 Класанов, М. Цит. съч., с. 31. 309 Класанов, М. Цит. съч., с. 66 (табл.3). 327 THE NEW MAN AND THE NEW CITY: REFLECTIONS The new VIAS building, 1977, designed by Atanas Delibashev, Ivan Popov, Mitko Angelov, Chavdar Angelov, et.al. operation. Personal computers had been in place since 1983 and as of the beginning of 1989 the first local computer training network was launched. Meanwhile, by the end of the 1970s and the early 1980s, the new university building was erected in the then modern style.310 In addition to its educational functions the VIAS (VTU) creates its own design and research sectors and participates in construction and regulatory projects on the state and municipal level. The period in question does not feature large private orders and luxurious, individual constructions although architectural design is considered to be a somewhat “elitist” activity, directly related to the “building of the bright future”. During the 1943–1992 period 5743 students had become VIAS graduates of which 3176 were men and 2297 women as well as 327 students from Syria, Iraq, Cyprus Greece and some African countries311. Together with some of the prewar professionals, the graduates of the Senior institute of construction became active players in the new socialist architecture and construction activities. S. T. 310 311 The new products and buildings are a part of the continuous stream of innovations in the socialist society. They are targeted at highlighting its specificity and higher value and, at the same time, at strengthening its individuality and autonomy. But together with the strive to find a special, socialist “facade” the settlements in the country keep growing and changing together with the world trend towards urbanization. The rapid increase in the number of urban residents, as a steady tendency, is visible throughout the 20th century – as a difference from the rural population which grows until 1946 but then shows a marked drop312. Bulgaria`s city residents in 1946 were 1,735,188. By 1985 they are already 5,799,939 people while for the village population these figures are 5,294,161 and 3,148,710 respectively313. This state of affairs necessitates changes in the structure of the settlements: changes which relate to the dynamics in the construction of residential areas, the road system and a wide range of auxiliary constructions. With time urban development plans begin to leave space for large scale industrial and public zones in addition to the inevitable process of modernizing (reconstructing and/or rebuilding) the urban centers. Dimitrovgrad is the first new Bulgarian city built according to a specially commissioned urban plan elaborated in advance. It was founded on 2 September 1947 on the basis of a decree signed by Georgi Dimitrov which provisioned the unification of the villages of Rakovski and Mariyno in the district of Haskovo with Chernokonevo, in the Chirpan district, and the formation of a single settlement bearing the name of Dimitrovgrad. A number of local specifics – like the nearby coal mines, railway lines, the features of the terrain and the Maritsa river passing through – precondition the building of this new settlement (with its center located between the individual settlements). The envisaged new industrial zones are another objective 312 Population analysis see at: Ковачев, Атанас. Градоустройство. – София, Москва: Пенсофт, 2003, с. 31. 313 In 1946, 5 294 161 of people population lived in villages. The data is extracted fron the National Statistic Institute, Sofia (http://www.nsi.bg/Census_e/Census_e.htm, visited on 1.11.2018). УАСГ, История, 2014. Класанов, М. Цит. съч., с. 159–160. 328 329 factor underlying the decision to build the city. In addition to all of this, the urban planning process was consistent with the visualization and application of the new communist ideas explicating some propaganda and purely representative functions. Dimitrovgrad is sometimes called “the city of Bulgarian-Soviet friendship“ and “the young socialist city“. The construction works are carried out by the Bulgarian “brigadier” movement and, indeed, a considerable number of the younger generations who worked on the project have remained to become permanent residents of the settlement. The original project for building Dimitrovgrad (the work of the architect L. Tonev) was based on the logic of the satellite urban planning concept314. The proposed urban plan, however, does not fully comply with the immediate environmental conditions and industrial capacities and is, at the same time, low built (and also has a low population density). At the end of the day the effort was assessed as being ineffective, and not sufficiently monumental and solemn in character. The implementation of this project was stopped but in 1951 the development of the city continued. It was now based on a planned assignment and took a new conceptual focus under the guidance of the architect Petar Tashev315. A large-scale urban planning scheme was now to be implemented the axes of which are to categorically organize and structure the available urban space. Tashev sees the central parts of the city as a system of 4 to 5 storey building blocks, the ground floors of which form spacious galleries with colonnades facing the pedestrian street spaces. It should be noted, that at that point in time wide boulevards and monumental urban axes were considered to be one of the “faces of the Dimitrov era” and they find their expression in the spatial structure. The major element of this composition is the so-called “Palace of the soviets” which – however – was never built. The building of the city of Dimitrovgrad turns out to be a good opportunity for the public presentation of the regime. It finds its positive reflections not only in professional iterature, but also in many artistic texts and visualizations, photographs and posters. The poet Penyo Penev – one of the active participants in building the city – writes: Желева-Мартинс, Добрина. Димитровград: идеи и интерпретации. // Архитектура, 2010, бр. 5, с. 33. 315 Ташев, Петър. Новият градостроителен план на Димитровград. // Архитектура и строителство, 1962, № 2, с. 12. Layout of the center of the town of Dimitrovgrad, 1951, arch. Peter Tashev.316 “A source of youth and power is Dimitrovgrad, between yesterday and today – a sturdy front; a wider port for joy so sweet, a border made of hearts and concrete”!317 The building of Dimitrovgrad is also shown in the film Dimitrovgradtsi (1956), with actors such as Georgi Kaloyanchev, Maria Rusalieva, Ivan Dimov and others. The film is reminiscent of the life of the brigadiers building the new city with their personal experiences being tied to the processes and problems of the ongoing construction works. A Dimitrovgradzi film poster (1956 г.)318 314 330 Source: Regional Historical Museum, Dimitrovgrad Пенев, Пеньо. Димитровград. 318 Source: Bulgarian National Film Archive. 316 317 331 The “brigade” movement fades out and transforms during the coming decades. Construction works gradually begin to conform with the context, with the newly developing technologies and regions and with the specialization of the construction companies and plants. With time the industrialized, panel-type construction almost replaces the monolithic construction methods used in Sofia and other major cities in the country. Work processes change – as does the scale of the activity itself. “The construction of single and two-family houses and of traditional residential cooperative buildings is gradually being replaced by the construction of residential complexes...”, Georgi Labov wrote in 1979319. As he sees it, the first of their kind in Sofia are the complexes Lenin, Iztok, Vladimir Zaimov, Hristo Mihailov, Geo Milev, Zapaden park to be followed somewhat later by suburban residential regions such as Mladost and Lyulin as well as Studentski grad. Residential panel blocks of flats and micro-regional structures are an effective attempt to respond to the increased demand for housing in the cities. The strictly functional zonal arrangement in the design of the residential complexes now include auxiliary buildings and green park areas. At the same time, their repetitive forms and uniform parameters come to illustrate and emphasize the social equality of their occupants. Their centralized distribution among the needy, however, is exploited as just another method of controlling and manipulating the population. A drawing by Todor Krustev321 (1979), showing a successful nostalgic projection of urban design by the end of the 20th century Adapting to urban life in general and the gradual process of populating and living in urban areas and blocks of flats escalates to a level where it becomes an artistic issue. The residential complexes often serve as the background and – occasionally – even the subject of numerous of works of art. Nikolai Haytov‘s 1967 Darvo bez koren (Uprooted tree), for example, reveals a number of problems people face when relocating from their village to the city. The personal areas, individual rights and the public’s activities in them and their architectural solutions are placed under careful scrutiny in the satirical play Rimska banya (Roman bath), 1974, written by Stanislav Stratiev. The plot is spread around the remains of an antique bath found under Ivan Antonov`s living room. The comedy Toplo (Heat), 1978 is a movie dedicated to the solution of the purely domestic problem of building a central heating installation in a block of flats. The architect Stoev`s conscience is spectacularly placed center stage in one of the last socialist film productions – Adio Rio (1989). By the late 1980s, however, major changes can already be seen not only in the theoretical and professional development of architecture itself but also regarding its place and role in the socialist society. S. T. Studentski grad (7, 8 and 9 blocks)320 319 320 Лабов, Георги, Архитектурата на София. – София: Техника,1979, с. 79. Лабов, Георги, Архитектурата на София. – София: Техника, 1979, с. 304. 332 321 Кръстев, Тодор, Архтектурното творчество. – София: Техника, 1979, с. 69. 333 ANTICONFORMIST MODEL AND NEOREALISM IN CINEMA For the first time, the term neorealism appeared on the pages of the Italian magazine Cinema in 1943 in an article about Luchino Visconti’s film Ossessione (Obsession). Visconti belonged to one of the most famous Italian aristocratic families, and editor-in-chief of the magazine – the latter on its way to establish itself as the theoretical stand of the new style – was Vittorio Mussolini, the son of the fascist dictator who ruled in Italy at that time. It sounds absurd and ironic but exactly those two young men committed themselves to the imposition of a cinematic style which completely opposed the aesthetics of the fascist cinema produced in Benito Mussolini’s Cinecita film studio. Neorealism, which was going to become the world’s most prominent trend in cinema of the 1940s, worked with simple stories about marginal characters played by non-professional actors, shot by hand in natural settings, i.e. with visual authenticity not previously seen on screen. The young Italian film-makers successfully experimented with techniques which enabled them to make leftist political messages in the complex situation at the end of World War II. In the extremely short period from 1943 to 1949, the style was vehemently developed by Visconti, Vittorio De Sica, Roberto Rossellini, Cesare Zavattini, Alberto Lattuada, Pietro Germi and Giuseppe De Santis. The ongoing war hindered the screening of the first neorealistic films outside Italy, but Roma citta aperta (Rome, Open City), 1945 by Rossellini made the style internationally known. With its hallmarks Sciuscia (Shoeshine), 1946 and Ladri di biciclette (Bicycle Thieves) by De Sica (1948), neorealism gained worldwide popularity and, as a result, began to commercialize, absorbing melodramatic techniques and relying on star actors. At the beginning of the 1950s, the style was blurred in the wave of the solidly funded Italian spectacular productions. Regardless of its short pure-form existence, neorealism changed the film-language and fundamentally influenced all post-war cinema, from the French New Wave to the Portuguese Cinema Novo, to the Serbian Black Wave and to the Iranian New Wave of the 1960s. At the end of the 1950s, a decade after its decline, neorealism also played a special role in promoting the new model of anti-conformist films in the Bulgarian cinema. The model crystallized in the attempts of a group of rebellious Bulgarian film-makers to oppose to the socialist-realism dogmas. The death of Stalin (1953) and the subsequent XX Congress of the CPSU and the April Plenum of the Central committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party (1956) created some opportunities for expressing, by cinematic means, the already emerging social disappointment of the real socialism. On the other hand, the influence of the world cinematographic process – first of all the Italian neorealism and the French New Wave – provoked the natural aspirations of artists to express themselves beyond the prescriptions of the socialist realism. Binka Zhelyazkova with Zhivotat si teche tiho (Life Flows Slowly By), 1957 and Rangel Vulchanov with Na malkiya ostrov (On the Small Island), 1958, both directors working in the neorealistic style, set the beginning of the Bulgarian anti-conformist cinema of the socialist period. Regardless of the censorship and exclusion from international screenings, these two films – Zhivotat si teche tiho (Life Flows Slowly By) and Na malkiya ostrov (On the Small Island) (especially the latter one) – were not only milestones in the development of our cinema but also the Bulgarian, albeit very modest, contribution to neorealism. Zhivotat si teche tiho (Life Flows Slowly By) (with screenwriter Hristo Ganev) was probably the first work in all Eastern European post-war cin- 334 335 Vittorio De Sica (1901–1974) ema which raised the question of the drastic retreat of the real socialism from the communist ideal. Zhelyazkova and Ganev created their film from the position of participants in the communist resistance. They sincerely believed in the Marxist utopia and experienced a severe crisis because of the narrow-minded banality of its Bulgarian version. Ganev and Zhelyazkova gave up the usual for that time heroic romantic interpretation of the subject of communist resistance and chose the openness of neorealism. The film is a detailed chronicle of the post-war degradation of the former partisan commander, corrupt MP, and director of a state-owned enterprise Zhelyo (Bogomil Simeonov). Zhelyo is opposed to two of his ex-comrades – Petko (Georgi Georgiev-Getz), a disabled from the resistance, and Velko (Lyubomir Dimitrov), who sacrificed himself in battlе and died to save his comrades. Petko is one of the few consciously self-marginalized honest communists in the Bulgarian cinema of the socialist period. Getz’s character prefers to sell pretzels instead of taking his place in the political hierarchy. According to the film, the adherence to the pure social ideal in the communist Bulgaria inevitably led to social marginality. Along with this, Zhivotat si teche tiho (Life Flows Slowly By) (1957), dir. Binka Zhelyazkova Zhivotat si teche tiho (Life Flows Slowly By) (1957), dir. Binka Zhelyazkova Geogri Georiev-Getz as Petko the self-sacrificing communist would invariably be present from that moment on as an alternative character in the few Bulgarian films of the socialist period, commenting on the morality of the former guerrillas who usurped the power in the new society. Ganevi’s colleagues, who took part in the discussions on the release of Life Flows Slowly by, all of them convinced Communists, appreciated and defended the innovation of the authors. Angel Wagenstein prophetically emphasized, “With this scenario, we are one year ahead of the cinematography of the other popular democratic countries.” Vulo Radev put the stress on the superiority which this film gave to the Bulgarian film-makers at that time over the experiments of their Polish counterparts.322 The colleagues not only appreciated Ganevi’s civic courage but also considered the film in a very broad context. However, the stylistic and thematic innovation of the work as well as its neorealistic aesthetics triggered an acute reaction by party censorship followed by sanctions against the authors and “locking” the film for thirty-one years, until 1988. Life Flows Slowly by was the first Bulgarian feature film produced under the socialism and suspended by the censorship. Furthermore, the merciless neorealistic honesty of the film resulted in a change in the directorships of the Cinematography Department and the Feature Film Studio as well as in dismissals in the Ministry of Culture. On 5 July 1958, a 322 Станимирова, Неда. Кинопроцесът – „замразен временно“. Български игрални филми 1950–1970 в документи, спомени, анализи. София: Логис, 2012, с. 109 и 117. 336 22. Bulgarian 20th Century... 337 Decree of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party On the State and Further Development of Bulgarian Cinematography was published, which denounced the artists323 who had departed from the socialist-realism dogmas, withered their illusions of creative freedom, and suspended the planned premiere of the film. In the 1958 decree, the film debut of Rangel Valchanov, in collaboration with Valeri Petrov as screen-writer Na malkiya ostrov (On the Small Island), 1958, which, like Zhivotat si teche tiho (Life Flows Slowly By), provoked a heated debate among the Bulgarian film-making community. “This film brings us to the level of the European film-makers. The film On a Small Island marks a very bold leap towards the artistic maturity of our cinema,” said Emil Petrov at the discussion of the film before the Art Council of the Feature Film Studio.324 The film really was an absolute aesthetic innovation for our cinema. For the first time in the history of the Bulgarian cinema, a film with a complex non-linear dramaturgy, created by the great poet Valeri Petrov, appeared. The plot of the film was made up Na malkiya ostrov (On the Small Island), 1958, dir. Rangel Valchanov of four different stories told from four different viewpoints positioned in different historical times. Each of the four main characters – Kosta Rika (Stefan Pejchev), the Student (Ivan Andonov), Zheko (Konstantin Kotsev), and the Doctor (Ivan Kondov) – tells their own story about the events. Moreover, the narrators’ voices seem to come from quite another reality (and this is really stunning) as they have long been dead. Petrov and Vulchanov created two mirror worlds; their contemporary Bulgarian reality of the late 1950s was reflected from the point of view of the early 1940’s and the sacrifice of the fallen communists. The complicated filmtime set in the script built a structure unknown to the Bulgarian cinema so far and was a huge challenge for the debutant director Rangel Valchanov, who not only brilliantly dealt with it but, from that time on, made the unification of asynchronous times a basic element of his unique style. The virtuosity of the two great artists Petrov and Valchanov brilliantly shone in the elaborate development of the internal monologues of the characters on which the entire structure of the film was based. Neda Stanimirova noted that this was an “avant-garde approach to the cinema of the 1950s”325. I would like to emphasize that it was avant-garde not only for the Bulgarian cinema but for the cinema of that time as a whole – Alain Resnais’ Hiroshima mon amour (Hiroshima, My Love), 1959, appeared one year after the Bulgarian film. However, the findings of Valeri Petrov and Rangel Valchanov were not to reach the world screens; the decision of the Bulgarian Cinematography to send Na malkiya ostrov (On the Small Island) to the Cannes International Film Festival was cancelled after a defeating editorial in Novo Vreme journal, published by the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party326. The rejection of Na malkiya ostrov (On the Small Island) by the censorship began as early as the preliminary discussions of the script and the director’s book by the Arts Council of the Feature Film Studio, with objections to the style in which the Communist characters were presented. The accusation that “they maybe look more like criminals rather than communists”327 was the leitmotif of all discussions, press releases, and, Постановление на ЦК на БКП „За състоянието и по-нататъшното развитие на Българската кинематография“, 1958. Цит. по Найденов, М. Партийни и държавни документи за развитието на българската кинематография, І част (Архив на Българска национална филмотека). 324 Станимирова, Неда. Цит съч., с. 152. 325 Ibid, p. 161. Този въпрос е разгледан подробно и в Станимирова, Неда. Кино и героика. София: Наука и изкуство, 1973. 326 Станимирова, Неда. Цит. съч. , с. 141–142. 327 Ibid, p. 135; Изказване на Д. Даковски, с. 150; Дописка на П. Яръмов – Черноморски фронт, 11.V.1958., цит. по Станимирова, Неда. Кинопроцесът – „замразен временно“ ..., с. 156–157. 338 339 323 finally, though paraphrased, found its place in the text of the decree itself. The negative reaction was a response to the almost complete deconstruction of the socialist-realism model and the imposition of the neorealistic style at all levels of the film: dramaturgy, directing, visual style, and acting. As a Press and Cultural Attaché at the Bulgarian Embassy in Rome from 1947 until 1950, the script-writer Valeri Petrov was immersed in the atmosphere of the Italian neorealism. One of the hardest accusations against Na malkiya ostrov (On the Small Island) was namely that in the style of the film the strong influence of neorealism328 could be felt, and, because of the typical of the style deheroization of characters, the main characters died ludicrously and their death was devoid of any heroism329. The rejection of neorealism by the Bulgarian communist censors arouses some perplexity as it was actually the leftist stream in the European cinema at that time. In our country, head of the struggle against that artistic style was Todor Zhivkov himself, who was unlikely to be familiar with its aesthetics and hardly wrote his own speech. Perhaps his counsellors had explained to him the ideological dangers hidden in the intrusion of neorealism into the Bulgarian cinema and, hence, he boldly assailed the Bulgarian cinematographers for allowing themselves to deviate from the method of socialist realism330. My hypothesis about where the danger of the intrusion of neorealism into the Bulgarian socialist cinema lay is that neorealism was the real leftist cinema of the epoch. It offered a non-Soviet aesthetic alternative to bourgeois art; instead in socialist-realism falseness, left-oriented authors could work with involuntariness, truthfulness, and orientation to the objective reality (Bazin331) of neorealism. In 1957 and 1958, the two feature films Zhivotat si teche tiho (Life Flows Slowly By) and Na malkiya ostrov (On the Small Island) appeared in the Bulgarian cinema, which was clear evidence that not all Bulgarian films created in the era of socialism must be automat- Binka Zhelyazkova during the film shoot Zhivotat si teche tiho (Life Flows Slowly By), 1957 ically attributed to the official socialist-realism style. As early as in the first post-war decade, there were authors in the Bulgarian cinema who opposed to the aesthetic prescriptions and struggled for their own creative style to correspond to the trends in the European cinema. Their films were the real achievements of our cinematography of that time. I. B. 328 За висока идейност на нашите игрални филми. – Ново време, 1958. Цит. по Станимирова, Н. Кинопроцесът ..., 143. 329 Изказвания на Д. Даковски и Я. Молхов на обсъждането на филма от Художествения съвет на СИФ, 31.12.1957 г. Цит. по Станимирова, Неда. Кинопроцесът ..., с. 154–156. 330 Живков, Тодор. Повече между народа, по-близо до живота. Реч на първия секретар на ЦК на БКП др. Тодор Живков на отчетно-изборното събрание на Съюза на българските писатели. – Киноизкуство, №5, 1958, с. 2. 331 Bazin, Andre. Was ist Kino? Köln: Dumont, 1975, 153. 340 341 THE POETRY OF THE 1960s BETWEEN REBELLION AND CONJUNCTURE The forcefully applied method of the socialist realism proved to be an impeccably developed methodology for imposing ideological control over the literature. Just as writers had accepted their creative destiny and the fact that, in order for their works to be published, they had to be “dressed” in the artistic form of the party decisions, the political and cultural situation changed unexpectedly. After the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the Plenary Session of the Bulgarian Communist Party in April 1956, attempts to break the dogmatic norms started, which tightened the culture. In that short period of political chaos, before the introduction by the system of its new repressive functions, the intelligentsia tried not only to catch up with the missed but also to win new creative spaces. The long-held spiritual vacuum was torn apart by a few scandalous poetic debuts of those times. Lyubomir Levchev’s self-confident statement Zvezdite sa moi (The Stars Are Mine), 1957, the experimental quests in the sphere of Vladimir Bashev’s modern poetic discourse in Trevozhni Anteni (Alarming Antennas), 1957, the regaining of the rights of love lyrics in Ako Nyamashe Ogan (If There Was No Fire), 1958 by Damian Damyanov, the provocative poetic testimonies of Stefan Tsanev and Satiri (Satires), 1960 by Konstantin Pavlov disturbed the literary critics. We chose exactly these authors not only because their books caused sharp discussions but because they became a unique sign of their time. United by their common debut in the cultural chronotope, they became not the traditional generation of the literary history of the 1960s but were honoured with the emblematic April Generation, which identified them with the new official party line. The history of establishing that generation in the literature and its gradual institutionalization had very important meanings for that period. The Bulgarian poets very accurately copied the public behaviour, the high pathetic, the rhetorical expression of the Soviet poets Yevgeny Yevtushenko, Robert Rozhdestvensky, and Andrei Voznensensky. 342 They wanted to be bold and unpredictable, to provoke and scandalize. They denied the obsolete schemes with their complicated metaphorical expression, original imagery, and underlined intellectuality. Their poetry was not chamber but primarily dialogically open and insisted on direct contact with readers. L. Levchev, St. Tsanev, K. Pavlov, presented by the critic Tsvetan Stoyanov, organized a poetic show on wheels332, which caused incredible interest in the big cities of the country. The audience not only listened to their inspired performances, it excitedly recited their poems as they were the epitome of the long-awaited political defrosting. That was not the opinion of the dogmatic criticism. What disturbed it most was that they denied the classic rhyming verse and affirmed the free one. By bringing a number of examples from the literary history, the fans of the rhyming verse argued that the free verse was decadent and not typical of our poetry. Their resistance to poetic experiments was rather ideologically than aesthetically motivated, especially since the free verse had long been a must in the world literature. The fear of the elusive control over the literature turned critics into comic old-fashioned people trying to turn back the time. The poets were accused of manners, imitation, and, as a particularly dangerous trend, Nikolay Staykov – an author forgotten today –, saw the prospect of “our poetry becoming highly intelligent in time”333. The modernist poet of the beginning of the 20th century – Lyudmil Stoyanov – who was then zealously guarding the ideological parameters of the new literary canon, was concerned about the demonstratively declared withdrawal from the tradition. That, in his view, made young artists too dependent on “harmful imperialist influences”, alienated them from the ideals of time, i.e. “the realization of communism throughout the world”334. Ivan Burin, also an ideologically right poet, said with a revival passion: “Let us fight against the modern Greek mania, against the worshipers of the modern bourgeois art.”335 In the discussion field, there were many controversial centres outlined. Atanas Slavov, later a dissident-emigrant, strongly opposed the dogmatic theses of N. Staykov by marking the parameters of the clash Вж.: Славов, Ат. Българската литература на размразяването. С., 1994, с. 111. Стайков, Н. Действителна и мнима поезия.– Литературен фронт, бр. 42, 18.10.1962. 334 Стоянов, Л. Поезията ни вчера и днес. – Литературен фронт, бр. 41, 11.10.1962. 335 Бурин, И. Не даваме Яна на турска вяра. – Литературен фронт, бр.6, 7.2.1963. 332 333 343 between the young and the old. Using impressive metaphors, almost crude comparisons, he explicitly and clearly identified the phenomena and revealed the “philistine complacency in poetry”336 as well as the dangerous tendency for “the struggle for communism to become a profitable situation”. Polemical tension was also brought by Tsv. Stoyanov’s article Bulgarsko, Naistina Bulgarsko (Bulgarian, Indeed Bulgarian).337 He produced well-grounded arguments in defence of the heretical then thesis of seeking national identification by commeasuring not only with the tradition but also with the European modernity. That text provoked the wrath of I. Burin, who belligerently insisted on saving the national identity from “confused intellectuals for whom the moon was made of green cheese and whom we called snobs.”338 In his article Na Razni Adresi (At Different Addresses)339, M. Nikolov tried to analytically deconstruct the positions of both polling camps. His affection, despite some critical remarks, was unequivocally directed at the new poets. With his inherent tolerance, he wanted the flaming passions to yield to objectivity, and the defamation to arguments. Quite perceptibly, the critic relinquished biased forecasts of victories and defeats in this collision, leaving “the time to resolve the dispute between the talented and the dialogue between the books.” The poets were also actively involved in the discussion. St. Tsanev brought out the forgotten genre of literary manifesto340. In it, he insisted, blamed, promised that their generation would always provoke and speak only the truth. Georgi Dzhagarov, in an emotional-pathetic text, urged the April poets to never be modest, to speak loud, and to annoy their patrons. L. Levchev made a family tree of the free verse and emotionally proved that the most difficult existential choice was to be free341. A choice that really turned out to be not just difficult but impossible both for him and the so-called April-Generation poets. The free verse polemics was seen as a cause for a clear clash between the retrograde critical norms and the new aesthetic trends that had already 336 Славов, А. Еснафското самодоволство в поезията. – Литературен фронт, бр. 47, 22.10.1962. 337 Стоянов, Ц. Българско, наистина българско. – Литературен фронт, бр. 3, 17.1.1963. 338 Бурин, И. Цит. статия 339 Николов, М. На разни адреси. – Литературен фронт, бр. 8, 21.3.1963. 340 Цанев, Ст. Защита на свободния стих. – Литературен фронт, бр. 40, 4.10.1962. 341 Левчев, Л. Проблеми на свободния стих. – Литературен фронт, бр. 9, 1.3.1962. 344 emerged. That was a discussion in which there were more feelings and emotions than arguments. The analytical observations in the field of poetics or theoretical interpretations were not respected; they relied on the effective verbal expression, the impressionist style that turned some of the articles into shining essays. The intelligentsia was intoxicated by its freedom and wanted to benefit from it as much as possible as it anticipated it was going to be short. Despite the political change occurred, it must not be forgotten that the official artistic method in the country was not abolished. Therefore, the fundamental argument in the legalization of the free verse was the proof produced by Vassil Kolevski, the critic who was most strictly watching for its preservation: “Free verse is part of the socialist realism.”342 Enthusiastically or polemically, in the wide range between praise and denial, the acceptance of free verse343 was the end of the ritual of shaping the literary generation, which was increasingly less rebellious and more formalized. The reasons for this lay not only in the literary career ambitions but also in the new political stagnation. In 1963, the short play of democracy ended. With a speech, fairly classified as historical, Todor Zhivkov categorically placed the literature in the narrow limits of the communist ideological principles and thus marked the beginning of the period known as totalitarianism. Poets turned to be quite adaptable to the new ideological demands. The dialogicity characteristic of their poetics changed considerably. Last but not least, the political power was added to the poet-reader communicative chain. For the first time in our literary history, the poetry was institutionalized. Its relationship with the readers was becoming more formal and the one with the ruling party was becoming increasingly intimate. The generation of new poets, which called itself or was called by others Aprilsko, went out of its anonymity and represented the April party line. The official canonization of the April generation even more painfully outlined the class-party approach in the literature. On the one hand, it illustrated the myth of “the generous care of the party and the government about the writers” and, on the other, served as an example 342 с. 50. Колевски, В. Свободният стих и социалистическия реализъм. – Пламък, № 8, 1963, 343 Дискусията за свободния стих е богато документирана и аналитично проследена в книгата на Димитър Аврамов "Диалог между две изкуства". С., 1993, с. 394–403. 345 and a lesson. Those who were loyal to the Communist Party were given power and glory and those who were deviating from the norms of the civil obedience were given denial and oblivion. The establishment of the April generation in the literature even more drastically highlighted the torn traditional mechanisms of aesthetic relationships in the spiritual space, whose emblematic sign was the artistic circles, strands, and schools. In the situation of the socialist realism, there was no room for aesthetic diversity, schools were a heretical Western influence, and the very definition of a creative circle was too suspicious to the authority. The so-called April generation was not a monolithic group of individuals with brilliant creative careers and high power positions. Therefore, it was important to mark the meaning of the typical of the period under review political guidance of literature rather than unify the creative and life fates of the poets. They were very different as personal behaviour, poetics, and a career. The poet who remained true to the rebellious spirit of the 1960s was Konstantin Pavlov. With his first Satiri (Satires), he violated the rules of the game called socialist realism by “de-aestheticizing the image of the legendary horsemanrevolutionary who gave his life for the happiness of the people.”344 The poems of K. Pavlov provoked the intellectual knowledge of the spiritually Konstantin Pavlov (1933–2008) 344 Колевски, В. Сатирите на К. Павлов. – Литературен фронт, бр. 40, 15.11.1965. 346 freed person. They broke the trivial spatial-temporal dimensions through multifaceted images-metaphors and seemingly abstract associations and built a grotesque world in which the human spirit was bound up with the inability to make its choice, with the iron predestination of the political dogma. The literary criticism of the 1960s did not want and could not understand his poetry but could feel that it was dangerous because of its diversity. This led to a precedent in the Bulgarian book publishing. The second book by K. Pavlov Stihove (Verses), 1965, was published with a note from the publishing house, which described it as “peculiar and, in some ways, controversial with its author’s vision.” Its diversity was due to the “unusual logic of both the images and the means of expression that led, at places, to ambiguity of the author’s idea...”.345 That visibly innocent differentiation of the editorial office of the official publishing house Bulgarian Writer, in fact, had the meaning of a public verdict. The book was used as a pretext for carrying out another criminal literary campaign. K. Pavlov was accused of having turned his “Back to Life”346, of propagating alienation and pessimism instead of an optimistic spirit, and that his poetry lacked positive characters and was “a refuge of animals, parasites, insects, horses, pigs, spiders, flies, fleas, and fish.” The “sophisticated” aesthetic taste of the Russian literature expert Hristo Dudevski also angrily rejected the “ugly images in K. Pavlov’s poetry”347 and resented the “poetization of the ugly, the monstrous, the nasty.” The critics who accused the poet of being a fan of repulsive images were also struggling to use, to put it mildly, strange comparisons to incite the apocalyptic danger that his verses were producing. Of them, Stoyan Iliev felt a bone-chilling fear, as if he “had sensed the invisible presence of a rattlesnake.”348 Maxim Naimovich was shocked by the “incomprehensible aesthetization of the dirty, the nasty, the disgusting.”349 With those findings, the authors cited become victims of the critical 345 After years, Peter Karaangov, then director of Balgarski pisatel (Bulgarian Writer) Publishing House and author of the note, called it "unfortunate" and repented: "Now, of course, this is not a testimony that we should be proud of, it rather reflects the time and the atmosphere, and, in a way, our fall, because we did not have the courage – I mean, first of all, me myself – to protect, according to all of us, a talented book, interesting, peculiar, strange..." – В: Каролев, Св. Петър Караангов. Литературна анкета. С., 1997, с. 195. 346 Спасов, И. С гръб към живота. – Работническо дело, бр. 325, 21.11.1965. 347 Дудевски, Х. Експеримент или …– Народна армия, бр. 36, 25.11.1965. 348 Илиев, С. Отмъщението на сатирата.– Септември, № 2, 1966, с. 235. 349 Наимович, М. Герой или жертва. – Литературен фронт, бр.9, 5.3.1966. 347 dogma, of the inability to capture the messages of those verses, to perceive, behind the external visibility, their painful insights and alarming warnings. Satire really took vengeance but not on its creator but on the striking elementary interpretations of the critics who remained in the literary history with the lamentable reputation of protagonists in a vicious ideological action. After a series of articles, K. Pavlov’s book was seized from the bookstores. The poet was subjected to forced silence and a ban on printing his poems for almost two decades. E. T. 348 THE SOCIALIST REALISM – NORMS AND BREACHES The literary-historical narrative for this period can not be complete unless it is personalized. The life and the creative destinies of Bulgarian writers are complex and ambiguous, as has been the time. Some of those who shared Communist beliefs were not just monolithic in their stands, but forcefully asserted Socialist realism. But despite the authoritative – most often authoritarian – presence in literary life of the time, the works of Orlin Vasilev, Kamen Zidarov, Kamen Kalchev, Angel Todorov, Mladen Isaev, Dimitar Metodiev, Veselin Andreev and many others are now known only in a narrow circle by researchers or fewer readers obsessed with nostalgic memories of that era. The theoretical concepts and critical reviews of Todor Pavlov, Panteley Zarev, Maxim Naimovich, Vasil Kolevski, Pencho Danchev and others, who forcefully imposed and uncompromisingly upheld the ideologically connotated norms of Socialist realism, are emblematic examples of the repressive methods of censorship and the distorted artistic criteria, and provide us with knowledge, albeit too gloomy, of the spiritual life in the period 1944–1989. The artistic processes at that time were aesthetically poorly connotated, and politically heavily burdened. Authors were deprived of the free creative expression and literary criticism became a manipulative weapon of the new regime. It changed its methods, mission and criteria, and did not seek for, neither validated the modern, provocative experiment or the classical, but talented poetry and prose. The critical text narrowed the boundaries of literature to the declaration, the slogan and the cliché. Lacking its identity, criticism became institutionalized, it became a censor that penalized aesthetic pluralism and creative freedom. This merging between ideology and literature put the very essence of criticism to the test. The contrasting opposition between free criticism – denying, analyzing, populating, on the one hand, and the criticism exercising authority over literature – controlling, sanctioning, authoritatively imposing ideological discourse, on the other hand, is most 349 clearly displayed in the periodic press. In this sense, the leading literary journals in the years of totalitarianism, Plamak and Septemvri, had an important function in building new hierarchical structures in literature, in imposing criteria that not only distorted the value of the contemporary literary process, but also radically overturned the notion about the writer’s and the critic’s figures. If they refused to fit into the political format of suited and ideologically faithful individuals, or tried to preserve their creativity from aesthetic compromises, and their life-style from betrayals, the regime showed no mercy. Their names and books were doomed to prohibition and oblivion. Emblematic examples of this are Vladimir Vasilev, Simeon Radev, Dimo Kyorchev, Ivan Radoslavov, Chavdar Mutafov, Fani Popova-Mutafova, Yana Yazova, Rayko Alexiev, Zmey Goryanin, to mention but a few. Some of the Bulgarian artists, who were already well-known names in the literature before September 9, 1944, succumbed to the ideological pressure and created works that denied even their own poetics and aesthetic stands. Poems that glorify Stalin, Georgi Dimitrov, Valko Chervenkov and the Communist Party were written by Dora Gabe, Elisaveta Bagryana, Blaga Dimitrova and others. The new poetic paradigm included artists from the generation of the 1940’s such as Alexander Gerov and Ivan Peychev, some early works by Ivan Radoev, Ivan Dinkov, Hristo Fotev, Ivan Teofilov, Binyo Ivanov and others, although their later creative works, and the works of not a few other writers, made the core of an alternative canon350 opposing Socialist realism. This trend, as Plamen Doynov argues backing his stand with arguments, is predominantly characteristic of poetry351 as a more dynamically changing genre, skillfully masking the heretical messages through a complex synthesis of allusions, metaphors, historical and mythological images ‘attired’ in the comfortable, yet too transparent for the dedicated reader, ‘garments’ of the Aesop-style language. Of course, Socialist realism in the late 1980’s was not as dogmatic and repressive as in the first decade of the Communist regime. These transformations in the artistic strategies, which were increasingly moving astray from the ideological matrix, 350 Alternative canon as a term was introduced, scrutinized, analyzed and backed with arguments by Plamen Doynov in not a few books on the literature in the People’s Republic of Bulgaria. 351 Дойнов, П. Алтернативният канон: поезия, НБУ, С., 2012, с. 21 caused delayed public repentance or tacit adjustments of personal positions. But throughout the period, authors who dared to break the norms of the official artistic method, or to denounce their own creative and existential choices in the 1950’s, became subjects of criticism and strict institutional sanctions – books seizure, banning publication, and personal repression. With these more daring or shy gestures of protest, they still managed to bind together, self-critically and painfully, but in a talented way, the pieces of their own, more worthy literary and historical portraits. Below you will meet poets of different generations who with their life behaviour and poetic messages deconstructed (and rendered meaningless) the principles of the official artistic method. Their verses still provoke reflections on the power to make choices in a non-free time, by denying public vanity, and experiencing the catharsis of speech in loneliness. The basic codes in Ivan Teofilov’s poetics are commensurate with what is personal as morality and position that have remained unchanged and non-dependent on the ideological constraints of time. He radically overturns the image of the author’s figure, which should be firmly associated with ideological slogans and party orthodoxy, and should create poetry harmoniously embedded in the official literary canon. In the poetic world of Theofilov, creative identity is withheld with silence, absence and distinction. Identity is understood as self-assertion and assertion of own patterns of behaviour and spiritual retreats. With Theofilov, this is an opportunity to form a complex time-space, in which moment, feast, seasons, city, nature, death and words intersect. The boundaries between them are instable and mobile, but this synthesis turns out to be too productive. The poet delicately and with a filigree touch modelled his world, outlining the space of his philosophical reflections, doubting the written verses and spoken words, but believing in the seasons and the feast, when travelling through his time to the Golyamata nosht (The Great Night). Topos, symbolic messages, and emotional signs mark the transition between temporal dimensions along the existential path, marked by a dignified assertion of personal positions, but also with loneliness. Ivan Teofilov is one of the few knights of the word that have remained clean of compromise and betrayals. For him, poetry is a sacred confession and revelation. It is a discourse between the initiates in a common language, which implies not only communication, but also getting into the 350 351 world of the other. In Teofilov’s verses we read our unraised questions and we get surprising answers, we discover our fears, we try to make sense of forgetfulness/oblivion and to understand our life burdened by our daily sins and trials. In the metamorphoses of his life and emotional present, in the journey from future to history, the poet retains his identity, trying to fix the cracked monolithic structure of time today, fastened by the elusive past and the daily disintegration of the present. His poetry, regarded in a broad socio-cultural and aesthetic context in the borderline between going the astray from triviality and the clichés of Socialism, provoked modern poetic inventions at the end of the 20th century. It tolerates the creation/formation/birth of the real, not the ideologically imposed generations in literature. Through his work, Boris Hristov declares the high moral meaning of refusal as an intellectual stand and recalls the cost of his own personal choice. His verses outline the signs of his life destiny, marked by silence, by the pain of disintegrating meanings, and the refusal to compromise, by the sense of loneliness as the only existential opportunity. They thus perform their mission – to challenge any form of authority in art and all manipulative games in life. He believes that poetry is a choice in which the dimensions of personal as morality and beliefs are more powerful than the temptations of glory and the disciplinary coercion of ideology and politics. He does not hide behind comfortable allegories, enigmatic phrases and modern clichés. In the whirlpool of time and timelessness, framed by the overwhelmed pain of betrayal, by the withered sense of the words, by the defamatory holiness of the poetic temple, the poet makes merciless dissection of the man, condemned to non-freedom, to alienation, doubts, and unbelief, the man who puts a boundary between memory and future. By crossing this boundary, he discovers an abyss, but fearlessly goes to the end. This is a hard but well-rationalized personal choice, which implies the denial of value and existential attachments. The transition between the temporal dimensions is marked by the increasingly intrusive archetypes of the past and the unparalleled loneliness of the present. His experiences are a metaphorical picture of human life in which real and fictional occur in the memory of other lives, because the accumulated knowledge and wisdom had pained those before us as well. Together with the poet, we return back but not forcefully to readily understand 352 what the great poets352 have said between the lines long ago. And he clearly marks his way, backward I will develop. This is a journey to the primal world of nature, to a harmonious, natural habitation before poetry: And I will go madly to life on the waves / what I ever figured out – to experience. Magically obsessed or denied, poetry is that sacred zone where the otherwise impossible mosaic of scattered pieces of longing for mythological concepts is arranged, it is vanity and glory here and now, but also a sign in eternity. Boris Hristov’s poetry – even if he had distanced himself from it – outlines the spiritual space of the intellectual of the 21st century. In it, the illusions of difference point to the vanity of glory and the power of oblivion. Every artist, apparently or secretly, dreams of greatness and eternity, but realizing that he can not distance himself from the everyday and banal issues, obsessed with guilt, he strengthens the self-sufficient non-openness of his world. Occupying a place on the crossroads between curse and blessing, standing lonely in the crowd of people who do not understand him, the poet crosses the line between life and death to regain the meaning of speech and rediscover harmony. But then there is no rest, neither fabulous resurrection of the spirit. Because every choice is a difficult denial of the past, a further clash between human vulnerability and the cold indifference of the world, it is also a new provocation, judge – whether you’ll beg or you’ll be beating. In this space of intense emotions, oppositions of different nature cascade: biblical – life- and household-related; mythological – surrealistic; lofty – trivial. Choosing a crossroads such as partitioning and vowing, the author consistently and consciously constructs his image through words – colliding, complementing, mutually denying. Swaying between extreme states, with a sharp, categorical gesture, he gives up the privileged posture of an artist, denounces his spiritual identity. This is the final closure of the poet in his absolute subjectivity. Despite the compulsive analogies between life and creativity, the untwining parallels between autobiographical and aesthetic plots, B. Hristov outlines the new cornerstone signs along on his way. It is the freedom to choose, without obeying, the will to defend your choice and the inability to share loneliness afterwards. Consciously crossing the boundary between its closed world and public space, the 352 Quotes from poem „Cross of Honour /Честен кръст“ (1982). 23. Bulgarian 20th Century... 353 poet knows that it is not a painful reality for him, but an intoxicating opportunity to feel comfortable with one’s own self. Loneliness is an opportunity for self-absorption, a chance to understand people and things without unnecessary words and false gestures. It provokes viewing behind the obvious vision, because it exacerbates intellectual scepticism without limiting imagination, because real life is actually sealed in the loneliness of memory. There is an intolerable gap in life without memory. This is a journey into the moving sands of the time when a mortal man realizes his vulnerability in the endless cosmos. Having opened the curtain of this irrational otherness, filled with horror the poet peeks into the chaos of his own soul. This is the painful creative insight that the one who denounces merges with what is denounced. Despite his ritual renunciation of poetry, B. Hristov is doomed to the word, just as is life to death. Life is the illusory moment of happiness, sealed in memory, but it is also a picture, disintegrating from its banality and destroyed by insurmountable alienation. Death, however, is neither a fatal end, nor freedom for the human spirit tied up by its shadow. The irony of B. Hristov is tamed by humble respect for this all-powerful force that draws life as a piece of art – deceitfully beautiful, enticing, cruel and unique, as is his poetry. Ivan Metodiev is a l onely, tragically different figure. He is a poet who does not want to rule over time and space by categorizing them in absolute truths and cliché formulas. Looking at the world through his contemplative and naive but so wise Prosti setiva (Simple Senses), 1980, he worked only two decades, but left a continuous trace in the history of Bulgarian literature. Because I. Metodiev is an artist, in that divine sense of creating new universes withwords in which there are no absolute truths, because there contrasts coexist and reconcile. These delicately created poetic worlds are seemingly simple, visibly concrete, but unexpectedly wisely reveal to the sensible reader our existential time, populated with small miracles and great pains. They add meaning to our destiny in the darkness and in the light of the road, which you follow before time runs out and perhaps to remember us with what is accidental.353 They show us how thin a string is which connects our bodies with our immortal but so injured soul; they fit us into that infinite harmony of nature that makes us free. The poems of Ivan Metodiev are the shared silence; they add meaning to the nothingness, and populate time with memories. They make us humble, linking in the absurd unity good and evil, beautiful and ugly, love and death, before the dream falls apart in the metaphysical contours of nothingness. Each of his verses is sharing, through which he mournfully or moderately optimistically allows us in his poetic nava. This is his strange, different, unique and at the same time so close and familiar poetic world. Between the happy feeling of unexpected moments of timelessness, and the catastrophically happening time, burdened with loneliness and doubt, the poet provokes us to see the invisible things, to cross beyond the bounds of the clear, the tangible, to be amazed by the power of the imperceptible, of the speck of dust, of silence, to draw our unique Peizaj na dushata (Landscape of the Soul), 1983. He invites to feel world as an image scattered in the metaphysical spaces of our reflections, in the deep philosophical meaning of being. But the poet is questioning the meaning of the very act of God creates and creates, then writes here and there, of the spoken words, of the things that happen, colourful and colourless alike. This is the multifaceted, complex reality that the poetry of Ivan Metodiev creates, and the liberated associativeness and intellectual reflection universalize his messages today. Georgi Rupchev’s poetry draws the labyrinths of the complex, painful and beautiful trips within one’s own self. They bring sadness, wonder and 353 Quotes are from a handwritten collection of poems by I. Metodiev, Primary Thought, found after his death (2003) and published in: Книга за Иван Методиев. Проекти за свят. ИЦ „Б. Пенев“, С., 2018, с. 227–261 Ivan Metodiev (1946–2003) 354 355 knowledge, because they draw the path and our return deep into memory, beyond oblivion and death. To die is late, as everything was known. To forget is scary, before all that’s still Not been.354 Balada za neizvestnia jivot (Ballad of the Unknown Life) Georgi Rupchev lives with death and for him he is not the only one. These are many deaths in everyday life that he overcomes, leaving the trivial outlines of life to rediscover but also to lose his own self and the others: One after another I leave myself, One after another I return different to myself Goliamata zemia (The Great Land) In the magic of the first encounters of words, but mostly in the silence of loneliness he creates poems. His poetry does not pretentiously seek meaning, it is self-inflicted by the encounter between the original play with words, and the wisdom it carries. This wisdom is not due to the vast and varied knowledge that he accumulates with childish curiosity and intellectual passion. His wisdom is experienced because it comes in his present life from many other incarnations, from memories or dreams about them. It is therefore natural that his first book be called Umoreni ot chudoto (Tired of the Miracle). Fatigue here is not a perfidious pose or self-irony. It is the state of a wise spirit who has a mission: to convey the memories of other times, to share the insights born in the dreams of people from other spaces, to remind the miracles of displaced or fuzzy times as he calls them, and thus to arrange the complex puzzle of our living with a sense of slow disappearance in the great land or in the unknown life. This is the miracle of his poetry. Miracle is the experience that has come from: Neither time, neither, neither, neither... Nosht v mi (A Night in E). It is a biblical parable or a modern tale that acquaints us with mythological and modern characters to guide us through insightful messages, cultural associations, discreet ironies, and clear quotations. The Self in his poems is most often They or We: We are double, triple, quadruple, quintuple... Goliamata zemia (The Great Land). He is Tannhauser, Tristan, Orpheus, Tybalt, Emma, Mary. They, and many others, die in his defeats, and are born with his loves. They are the poet’s many faces of his many lives. Yet, despite the strong sense of personal presence, of entering a sovereign, intimate world, G. Rupchev’s poetry does not imply a literal identification or banal co-experience. It is a provocation to unravel acquired knowledge and sent messages. It is poetry that opens space by populating it with the memory of many past times. Despite loneliness and pain, it defies alienation as a modern man’s drama and becomes a talented model of creative re-creation of the world. G. Rupchev is poet of the night. He loves her and her good, and demonic powers, he is convinced that at night man is more real and stronger because the daily masks fall. Therefore his poetry is like the night – magical, attracting and frightening for her power. It creates eternity and ensures future. This was probably why it was not understood and appreciated at the end of the 20th century, and now, his poems seldom slip through the well-guarded canon boundaries. *** 354 Quotes are from the collections of poems by G. Rupchev: Tired of the Miracle (1982); Relief of the Night Shift (1987) and The Powerful of The Night (1991). The first decades following the political transformation are traditionally characterized by ideologically saturated prose, in which the rather schematically presented characters, categorically designated as positive (the true communists who are building the bright future) and negative (bourgeois people nostalgically contemplating in the past), are laid in instructive plots and engage in biting verbal dialogues with a foretold outcome. Psychological sketchiness and slogan-type rhetoric are characteristic of the artistic style of the fictional works in the 1950’s. The radical economic changes – collectivisation of the land and nationalization of the industry, and the political repressions over the dissidents, are represented as unavoidable, selfless acts of the heroes with Communist views, and the tragically connoted fate of the wealthy factory-owners and big landowners – just as justified retribution. After 1956, in the period of so-called unfreezing , prose also began to seek its own, different ‘vision.’ In their books writers such as Yordan Radichkov, Emilian Stanev, Pavel Vezhinov, Diko Fuchedzhiev, Vasil Popov, Georgi Mishev, Lyuben Dilov, etc, explore new thematic fields, abandon the reportage style, and analyze, although timidly, the cracking of the monolithic social and political fabric of Bulgarian society. The storytelling of 356 357 Yordan Radochkov, Nie, vrabchetata (We, the Sparrows), 1984 the fictional works rediscovers the complex nuances of everyday living, and the writers recover their reflex of revealing the characters of the new age as individuals of contradictory nature, pathetically experiencing not only the excitement of the group, but also as alienated and lonely, devoted to dramatic existential collisions. Prose creates a fragmentary picture of modern life by overlaying different viewpoints – of folklore, mythology, grotesque, fantastic, social and critical, through modern artistic paradigms – adding lyrical touch to the narrative, fragmentary artistic expression saturated with the intellectual reflections of a language rich in allegory and symbolic messages. Both readers and critics face the challenge of replacing the voluminous epic narrative with short genre forms in which complex plot lines are intertwined intricately and chaotically, and the logically unfolding storyline gives way to a parodic play of strange characters, lacking any plot. We have to admit that the readers are much more open and better prepared for the creative provocations of modern Bulgarian prose in the 1960’s and 1980’s. Criticism, in a way that is difficult and quite painful for writers, appreciates this return to the sustainable roots of the native, but by means of a travesty of the traditional subjects, images and rituals 358 into a ‘reversed’ but parallel reality that transforms into a creative artistic protest against the ideologies of Socialist realism. Probably because of the impossibility of accepting these violations of the artistic style of Socialist realism, reviewers have long been bewildered with the Radichkov Phenomenon, and tested the violence/fierceness of their incomprehensible denial on the Svirepo nastroenie (Violent Mood), 1965. However literary criticism was still forced to recognize his next books by entering them in the canon of the official method as ‘magical realism.’ Radichkov’s poetry has provoked a critical ‘bustle’, because by provoking traditional narrative techniques, it actually created original prose, in which, as in a variegated kaleidoscope images alternated of a strange lineal/tribal space populated by mythical, legendary, fantastic beings performing rituals that have long been forgotten or have never existed. This world is of a grotesque-carnival type; it evokes amazement, but also the stirs the memory of times and people who carry important messages for modern man. They violate the notion of the simplified linear sequence of life. They shift cultural layers, and overlay archetypal signs in the world of the present; they draw wisdom from the natural, the primal, the original; they mix the ironic view to the conservative rural lifestyle with the absurd realities of urban life in the years of Socialism. But this is a picture of the disturbed balance, of the destroyed sacred values , of the lack of harmony between man and nature. The characters in it are lonely, alienated even from their own being, as if they are enthralled by their intercourse with verblyudi, but are so entrenched in their conviction that in our human prose355 we cannot separate chaff from grain356 in our foolish attempt to fly357. Thus, in Radichkov’s stories and drama plots develop like a spiral and grow richer, coming to the fore are new dimensions of conflicting clashes between traditions and modernity, between the desire of the Bulgarian man to have both wings and roots – all narrated in a distinctly metaphorical, absurdly associative, ironical and anecdotal way. These make perhaps the cutest and most colourful style in Bulgarian prose. The presence of Vasil Popov in Bulgarian literature – quite a short one, but intense with creative provocations, is characterized by the dogmatic criticism of the 1950’s and 1960’s with strange, contradictory definitions. Reference is made to Yordan Radichkov’s collection of short stories, Human Poetry, Sofia, 1971. Radichkov, Yordan. Chaff and Grain, Sofia, 1972. 357 Radichkov, Yordan. Attempt to Fly, Sofia, 1979/1980. 355 356 359 He is described as a neo-romantic, as pessimist, as impressionist, as admirer of Hemingway’s adventurous spirit. Quickly distancing himself from the mandatory themes of the early Socialism (Communist ideals and heroic gestures of anti-fascist struggle)358, the writer focused on the psychological dimensions of the in fact very difficult daily routine of the heroes – builders of the Socialist society – on the complex dilemmas they experience, resulting from the dramatic mismatch between high ideals and social and political reality. Of course, these are not bright or categorical demonstrations of artistic rebellion – the system would not allow that. V. Popov is looking for a delicate dissolution the obligatory optimism and focusing on the socio-psychological problems of the real man in the present time and space. Certainly, modern reader would not accept this as a gesture of a bold opposition to the system, but at that time even the attempt of artistic and fictional suspicion in its order and in the imposed moral and ethical norms caused serious suspicions in a writer’s orthodoxy. V. Popov is not a politically repressed writer, but his works have a fundamental place Vasil Popov, Korenite. Hronika na edno selo (The Roots. Chronicle for a Village), 1975 Ivailo Petrov, Haika za valci (Wolf Hunt), 1982 in the history of Bulgarian culture. His opposition to the postulates of Socialist realism is at the artistic level – too contingent plots, emotional experiences complicated to a tragic impasse; a delicate hint of psychological traumas that make his characters insecure in themselves and in the world around them, asking difficult and uneasy questions remaining without answers, living on the edge between past and present. They bear the features of that ‘lost’ generation of the 1970’s, which the political system is afraid of, and therefore does not want to recognize it. In an open compositional structure and linking the characters in a cyclic plot, the book of V. Popov, Korenite. Hronika na edno selo (The Roots. Chronicle for a Village), 1975359, tells about that human life which the people of a doomed village live seemingly humbly. But it is this superficial static character of a world that allows the author to probe into the depths of the psychological experiences and traumas that the transformations of social existence cause to his characters. The impossibility to destroy that spiritual energy that carries the wisdom of eternal times, and which must 358 Reference is made to his first book, Short Stories (1959) and to the novel The Little Mine (1962) 360 359 The book combines the short stories in the Roots (1967) and Eternal Times (1973) collections. 361 be preserved to exist, is conveyed in the spell-like words of the mystical and ‘eternal’ old woman Nedelya – because these are the roots that identify the labyrinths of our self-knowledge, they outline the signs along the way through our historical and existential time. The works of Ivaylo Petrov mark the difficult road the Bulgarian prose has followed– from the rural woman’s naive-romantic hopes for a new life in Nonkina lyubov (Nonka’s Love), 1956, through the experience of a psychologically credible but very tight and softened picture of the collectivization of the land in the novel Martvo valnenie (Deadly Ground-SeaSwell), 1961, to the exposing, shattering/moving epic of the catastrophic, long-lasting effects of this act on the life and the soul of the Bulgarian peasant in Haika za valci (Wolf Hunt), 1982. In the last novel by I. Petrov, the past enlivens in the brutal cruelty of political events that break human destinies, provoke moral and ethical degradation, leaving behind only death and destruction. This novel uncovers the repressive mechanisms of time that deny humanity, kill love, and abuse belief in Christian values. The time that turns friends, neighbours, brothers into a bunch of wicked people that have long lost the meaning and direction of their lives. Obsessed with the passion for revenge, for them the truth is no longer an insight, it is only a reason for retribution. The denial of Bulgarians’ traditional bonds with the land and its care, the disintegration of the sacred relationship with the family and the ancestral roots, the guilt and responsibility for the crimes that violate traditional virtues in the name of class and party laws – these are the universal themes for reflection posed by the novel of I. Petrov. THE AESTHETICS OF THE NEW WAVE VS. SOCIALIST REALISM IN CINEMA At the end of the 1950s, a new cinematographic style, established by the French New Wave (La Vouvelle Vague), emerged and radically changed filmmaking. The films by Truffaut, Godard, Romer, Chabrol, and Rivette, which were associated with the term new wave, gave rise to different versions of the movement beyond the borders of France, such as the New German cinema, the Czechoslovakian New Wave, the Yugoslavian Black Wave, and so on. By the start of the 1960s, Bulgarian filmmakers, especially the new generation who had studied abroad, also veered to the wind of change, which blew, from France. Following Truffaut’s proclaimed idea of ‘la politique des autures’ (the politics authors’), they fought for establishing the figure of the film director as the exclusive author of any film and rebelled against the ideological stereotyping, which was the fundamental principle instructions of socialist realism. Films, such as Hronika na chuvstvata (A Chronicle of Sentiments), Slanceto i syankata (The Sun and the Shadow), Carambol, and Ponedelnik sutrin (Monday Morning) were the leading examples of the Bulgarian new wave cinema. E. T. A Chronicle of Sentiments A Chronicle of Sentiments, the debut of director Lyubomir Sharlandzhiev, was the first attempt at creating a Bulgarian film inspired by the aesthetics of the French New Wave. Sharlandzhiev and scriptwriter Todor Monov were browsing for a plot formally relevant to the working-class theme, to secure the approval of their superiors. Neverthe less, despite the Party’s instructions, they created the film as a mosaic of personal experiences and intimate drama story-lines with a big con362 363 Sun and Shadow Hronika na chuvstvata (A Chronicle of Sentiments), 1962, dir. Lyubomir Sharlandjiev struction site in the background. A Chronicle of Sentiments became the first post-World War 2 Bulgarian film, which returned psychologically genuine characters. A Chronicle of Sentiments is a chronicle of characters’ personal dramas. Sharlandzhiev opposes the aesthetics of socialist realism with ‘filmmaking where character renditions create the feeling of authenticity, without abating their impact’ and where ‘things are perceived as they are, neither inverted, nor distorted.’360 The efforts at genuineness motivated the crew for impressive actor performances and Zhorzheta Chakarova (who was still a student at the Theatre Academy in those years) was awarded Best Actress at the National Festival of Bulgarian Cinema, for her role as Mareto. This was the first official recognition for the new free style of acting, which the film attempted to establish. In 1962, Nikola Korabov published his article New thoughts call for new forms of expression361, which was upheld as a kind of Bulgarian new wave manifesto. 360 Antonioni, Michelangelo. Fare un film é per me vivere. in Cinema nuovo, no 138, marzoaprile1959. 361 Korabov, Nikola, New thoughts call for new forms of expression. // Cinema, 1962, issue 9, pp. 6–9. 364 In 1962, as part of the new movement, Sun and Shadow, the first Bulgarian plotless film by the artistic team of Valeri Petrov (writer) and Rangel Vulchanov (director) was released. The film’s narrative was based on spontaneously expressed feelings, free associations and connotative suggestions. The film’s theme, the narrative technique and the director’s style were similar to those of Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959) by Alain Resnais. The story of a young Bulgarian man (Georgi Naumov) and a young woman from the West (Anna Pruncal) who fell in love on a Bulgarian beach carries a delicately interwoven political implication. Petrov and Vulchanov tell the story of a love threatened by a possible nuclear conflict between the two main political systems of the period. While the young woman from the West is pessimistic, the Bulgarian man is able to reassure her that peace will prevail and to return the smile on her face. During the Cold War, a love affair between people living on the opposite sides of the Berlin Wall was hardly possible.362 The Bulgarian government did not tolerate reSlanceto i syankata (The Sun and the Shadow), 1962, dir. Rangel Valchanov The Berlin Wall was raised one year prior the premiere of Sun and Shadow. 362 365 lationships between its citizens and westerners, and romantic plots of this kind were regarded taboo on screen until the fall of the Berlin Wall, apart from the negative interpretations in espionage films. Sun and Shadow is the only Bulgarian film from the socialist period telling a love-story of people representing the two political systems. The verse ‘There can be no farewell for us’, from a song popular at the time, was chosen as the film’s leitmotif. However, the director chose a cinematographic style which implied that a love like this was only possible on screen. The Director of the Bulgarian Cinematography State Company accused him of ‘abstract humanism and pacifism’363, while censorship perceived the plotless narrative and the nonlinear dramaturgy structure as the adverse manifestations of bourgeois formalism. This, however, did not impede Sun and Shadow from being screened on international festivals and from winning an award for Bulgaria in San Francisco (1962). The censorship’s double standard towards Sun and Shadow set the beginning of a process, which gained pace over the years: some films were produced with the aim to maintain Bulgaria’s filmmaking prestige abroad, but shown on terms of limited access to Bulgarian audiences. The fight for the new Bulgarian filmmaking was, most of all, a fight to evade the Party’s censorship, which got in the way of any foreign influences, except for the Soviet ones. In the 1960s, the very leader of the Bulgarian Communist Party and Prime Minister, Todor Zhivkov, became actively involved in this process when, in April 1963, he ‘held a special meeting with the country’s intellectuals and laid out his requirements and directions’. Regarding the cinema sector, he was dissatisfied with the critics, who held incorrect views and gave inadequate resistance to (…) the imitation of foreign models (…).’364 Karambol (Carambol), 1966, dir. Lyubomir Sharlandjiev In spite of the repression, Bulgarian directors had to face, they kept working towards a European style. Sharlandzhiev’s Carambol in 1966 was a revisit to the new wave aesthetics and a bold departure from the working-class environment through his choice of young intellectuals as the main characters in the film. Working within the typical new wave style, which imitated direct observation, the director firmly disregarded the notion of cinema as a tool for ideological purposes. The central theme of Carambol is the maturing of the post-war generation and the establishment of its new values – a favourite topic of new wave directors around Europe. Carambol (1966) was preceded by two French films on maturing – Pierrot le fou (1965) and Masculin feminin (1966) by Godard and it was hardly a coincidence that Sharlandzhiev’s film was released simultaneously with some of the most notable examples of Eastern European new wave cinema – Closely Watched Trains by Jiří Menzel, Daisies and Pearls on the Bottom by Věra Chytilová (Czechoslovakia), Barrier by Jerzy Skolimowski (Poland) and Rondo by Zvonimir Berkovic (Yugoslavia). The film’s dramatic setting evolves around an intricate web of relationships, which is where its title comes from – ‘carambol’ is a type of billiards where the shot on the cue ball sets the object balls in motion, triggering an avalanche of strikes. The film’s structure is similar – the audience is invited to a game of carambol played with a cinematic toolkit of expression. Despite all this, Sharlandzhiev seeks to achieve the so-called ‘de-dramatization of reality’365, staying true to the nouvelle vague requirement that a film should create 363 Dunchev, Alexander. The key objective of our motion picture artists, Sofia, Cinema Arts, 1964, issue 2, p. 4. 364 Yanakiev, Alexander. Cinema.bg. ‘A 100 years of film process: persons, films, venues’, Sofia, 2013, p. 226. 365 Cousins, Mark. 1960–64: A New Wave и 1965–69: Braking New Ground. Episodes from The Story of Film: An Odyssey, TV series, the United Kingdom, 2011, Мark Cousins, author, director, host. 366 367 Carambol an impression of the authentic experience of living. To achieve this, the director relies on spontaneity – in situations, relationships, actor performances and the evolvement of the film narrative. The unrehearsed reactions, the spontaneous presence of the actors and the deliberate softening of speech, of which A Chronicle of Sentiments was merely an implication, this time come to the forefront as a clearly manifested new style of acting. From now onwards, young Bulgarian film-actors would adhere to this style, whenever possible. The visual style of Carambol (cinematographer Emil Wagenstein) was also governed by the unintentional story-line and, of course, by the ‘camera as a pen’ (camera-stylo) approach, which was typical for the new wave. Wagenstein’s camera follows the characters closely, capturing details of their expression and behaviour, their barely noticeable gestures, choosing to dismiss the circumstances in favour of their thoughts and feelings. Through the use of black and white film combined with dim lighting and pastel highlights, Wagenstein creates a soft and gentle atmosphere and adds an inspired contribution to Sharlandzhiev’s work on one of the outstanding masterpieces of the Bulgarian new wave cinema. Unfortunately, the film gained little popularity in Bulgaria. There were no attempts to screen it abroad either. Young intellectuals, the typical new wave audience, were the minority of Bulgarian viewers at the time. However, there were other reasons for Carambol’s low publicity. The film was not well received by the censorship and, taken the centralized film distribution, it was released in a very unfavourable competitive environment. Its premiere coincided with the first domestic screenings of The Leopard by Visconti, The Black Tulip by Christian-Jaque, starring Alain Delon, and Winnetou by Harald Reinl. Due to this insidious scheduling, this chamber film passed ‘unnoticed’ by the Bulgarian audiences. Sharlandzhiev was criticized for restricting himself within ‘a set of intimate (…) daily-life ethical’ problems and shying away from ‘acute social topics.’366. I believe that the director’s focus on the layer of psychology in this film demonstrated his attempt to contextualize Bulgarian cinema in the European pursuits of the 1960s. Sharlanzhiev would continue to develop this interest in psychological analysis. He would use it as the foundation to up build the dissident pathos of The Prosecutor (1968), which was banned for 20 years by the censorship and belatedly premiered in 1988. Monday Morning In 1965, one year before the premiere of Carambol, Irina Aktasheva and Hristo Piskov’s film Monday Morning was shot. It had a premiere in 1988. On this occasion, Neda Stanimirova, a contemporary of these events, wrote: “What had obviously had an utterly unexpected and shocking effect, must have been the fact that the bitterest truths in the film were not vested in a traditionally heroic protagonist (…), but were spoken out with daring honesty by a girl (…) whose face and body resembled the then idolized Brigitte Bardot.”367. What lay behind this over 20-year ban on a film depicting an impossible love affair? A member of the Artistic Supervisory Board of the Motion Picture Studios accused the directors of having succumbed to ‘the twist epidemic, which had extensively penetrated into this film’368, while the director of the Bulgarian Cinematography Administration, which had control over filmmaking, perceived the morally corrupt characters as ‘a step back from the righteous course, which the authors had otherwise managed to keep.’369 The film’s screenwriter, Nikola Tiholov, to gether with the directors, presented to their superiors a list of 10 al terations to the film, which they had made themselves370 and a year later, the Ponedelnik sutrin (Monday Morning), 1965, dir. Irina Aktasheva & Hristo Piskov Ibid. p. 214. Ibid. p. 222. 369 Ibid. p. 228. 370 Ibid. p. 236. 367 368 366 Stanimirova, Neda. The cinema process – temporarily frozen, p. 264 368 24. Bulgarian 20th Century... 369 ‘revised’ version of the film was once again brought for discussion by the Artistic Supervisory Board, but this time, in the directors’ absence. They contested before the Chairman of the Culture and Art Committee: ‘We were waiting in the Studios’ hallways to hear that our film had been released on parole. Even a criminal put on trial would hear his sentence pronounced by the presiding judge, and not by a third person. (...) (…) We were not given the opportunity to defend our film, furthermore, when its fate had already been decided, then any game of alterations was equally humiliating to both the film authors, and those requesting the alterations.’ According to Stanimirova, in February of 1967, two years after the film’s completion, its premiere was postponed on account of the forthcoming National Congress on Culture.371 From that moment on, the title Monday Morning stopped being mentioned, as if the film never existed. There are no documents clarifying when or by whom the film was suspended and on what grounds. It is apparent that ‘special’ censorship methods were employed making it impossible even today to figure out exactly what happened. My assumption is that this oppression was caused by the fact that, contrary to the dogmas of socialist realism, the plot of Monday Morning evolves in a free-ride and spontaneous mode around the provocative character of Tony (Pepa Nikolova), an outsider, who seeks an outright clash with the pervasive hypocrisy of Bulgarian society. Tony was expelled from the Young Communist Organisation for her frivolous sexual behaviour, and sent to be ‘re-educated’ to a ‘leading team of Communist labour’ where she started a romantic affair with its leader. What she confronted there, was demagogy and hypocrisy personified by the factory party leaders, with which she could not come to terms. Disgusted by the utter incongruity between their proclaimed values and their narrow-mindedness, Tony left the leading team and her paragon lover, who was hopelessly holding on to mediocrity. From this perspective, Monday Morning was an expression of leftist criticism, unprecedented for the Bulgarian cinema heretofore: the social system was challenged openly and defiantly for its deviation from the Communist ideal. Furthermore, the young, simple-hearted and unrealistically brave, for the time, heroine acts in outright opposition to society’s demagogy. In Bulgarian cinema, this was the first appearance of a protagonist clearly refusing to conform with the system. This was a blow right at the core of socialist realism aes371 Ibid. p. 236–237. thetics, which evolved around the positive image of the communist. Moreover, the character of Toni, along with the she-wolf (Ilka Zafirova) from the film She-wolf [Valchicata] (1965) by Rangel Vulchanov, outset a whole series of outsider heroines, whose presence in Bulgarian cinema makes up for the absence of a male dissident hero. Those female characetrs appear on the screen in the 1960s with their individual rebellion and enthusiasm to assert their individuality even at the price of harsh public sanctions. Their goal to achieve sexual freedom might seem insignificant from today’s perspective, but in the context of the period, it was perceived as a bold protest again the regime’s brutal intrusion in the most intimate spheres of human life. In addition, Monday Morning assumes a daring stance by reducing the working class, ‘the most progressive driving force of society’, to a crowd of common folk with its philistine outlook: the leading team is a random group of people driven together by their bald materialistic ambitions. A similar view of the working class was expressed in a previous movie by Aktasheva/Piskov called There Is No Death [Smart nyama], which was taken down four days after its premiere in 1963. In Monday Morning the focus on the workers’ primitive motivation was even sharper. And Toni’s censured line: ‘In America they have long built this communism of yours.’372, draws the first parallel in Bulgarian cinema between the materialism of Eastern Europe and consumerism of the West. Despite the obstacles of censorship, which Carambol and Monday Morning had to face, they deepened and enriched the non-conformist trend in Bulgarian cinema, by developing the aesthetics of the new wave within the context of Bulgarian culture. A few more films skilfully managed to fuse the same aesthetic principles with moderate social criticism and were screened without falling victim to censorship. They were The She-wolf [Valchicata] (1965) by Rangel Vulchanov, Knight Without Armor [Ritsar bez bronya] (1966) by Borislav Sharaliev, Detour [Otklonenie] (1967) by Grisha Ostrovski and Todor Stoyanov, and The White Room [Byalata staya] (1968) by Metodi Andonov. In their non-conformist films of the 1960s, Sharlandzhiev, Vulchanov, Aktasheva and Piskov, Sharaliev, Ostrovski and Stoyanov, and Andonov provided successful Bulgarian interpretations of the radical aesthetics of the French new wave, conceptualizing it as an alternative to the dominant model of socialist realism. I. B. 372 370 Ibid. p. 236. 371 373 In this sense, the understanding of the new music, even when considering phenomena from the second half of the 20th century, often was a slave to aesthetic views formed decades earlier, as early as in the 1930s, under the influence of the neo-Marxist, reductionist ideas of T. Adorno subjected to a number of critical reviews for their insubstantial claim to certain types in the general field of music. Of course, the parallels with the French cinema were in some sense conditional, at least having in mind not only the pursuit of new aesthetics marked by the signs of the author’s psychological screening view and visual stylistics that broke with the traditional paradigm but also that specifically local thematic accent that marked the urge for change, characterized to a great extent by the critic attempts and the shedding of the ideologemes and clichés of the so-called socialist realism: a specifically “our” theme, somewhat “allowed” after the relative relaxation in the context of the political climate that covered the Eastern Bloc in the late 1950s. In that sense, the New Wave in the Bulgarian Cinema was not an isolated phenomenon in the Bulgarian culture. Similar renewal processes were taking place in various fields of art, not unrelated to the turn to a cultural policy that in all its appearance stimulated in the early 1960s the institutional support of a number of festival practices with a non-traditional profile in the arts, the establishment of new perspective performing formations, or, say, the breakdown of the rough ideological criteria in the repertoire policies of a number of state cultural institutions. Another issue was that the new cultural policy had not abandoned the familiar ideological mechanisms of “relaxation” and “tightening” evidenced by the dramatic fate of the film Ponedelnik Sutrin (Monday Morning) censored exactly for ideological reasons for twenty years, for example. Despite the relative liberalization in the cultural sphere, the urge for change would continue to stumble upon the sanctioning gestures of the totalitarian regime, the vague fears of “ideological diversion,” the stiffening ideologemes of normative aesthetics, which – at least in the sphere of music – cultivated a rather flat, declarative notion of “artisticity” imposed as a unique criterion in the filtering out of artistic values. Being an emblematic representative of the generation trying to overcome the stiffening ideologemes of the time, Leviev himself experienced the blows of that policy. For the character of his innovative attitudes to art, significant probably was the influence of that kind of underground in the context of the common ideological stagnation connected with the native Plovdiv bohemian, defending its mentality in communication and in its “taste for life” but also compensating to some degree the lack of freedom in the norms imposed. The sense of informal community affiliation brought relative comfort and the value orientations stimulated the interest in the “forbidden things”, 372 373 FILM MUSIC AND THE NEW WAVE IN CINEMA Among the emblematic titles related to the emergence of the 1960s New Wave in Bulgarian cinema, two titles stood out: not least, because of the innovative line in the treatment of the musical component as an organic aspect of the cinematographic narrative. Both in Otklonenie (Deviation) (1967) and Ponedelnik Sutrin (Monday Morning) (1966), this line, produced by the composer Milcho Leviev, was in harmony with the new directions in screenwriting, characteristic of the awakened spirit in the context of the Bulgarian culture at that time. At the same time, it pointed to a connection with the processes in the field of the new music in our country, which (paradoxically indeed!) was inertly realized through the prism of a limited range of aesthetic orientations associated with local reflections, mainly in the sphere of the so-called music avant-garde, excluding phenomena, for example, in the field of modern jazz, which, in no less radical degree, updated the notion of new music and of the diverse aesthetic aspects accompanying the development of the new artistic thinking.373 It is no coincidence that M. Leviev’s invention, alien to petty opposition in this spirit, fit in the direction of the new Bulgarian cinema both in the 1960s before his emigration and in the years after the 1989 Change when he renewed his active creative participation in the Bulgarian musical culture. How to understand the New Wave in Bulgarian cinema? How much was it a direct reflection of the renewing processes that arose in the late 1950s in the European, and in particular, in the French author’s cinema? To what extent were these processes an expression of a fundamentally general tendency in the post-war years, which in a new way connected the concepts of change and modernity and legitimized certain directions in different spheres of art? especially as regards the current world of art beyond the Iron Curtain. It was no coincidence that exactly that environment, a conduit of freedom of thought and a certain behavioural naturalness, cultivated emblematic artists such as Georgi Bozhilov-Slona, Yoan Leviev, Dimitar Kirov, Encho Pironkov, and others, who modelled, in a sense, the face of the new wave in the sphere of the modern painting in Bulgaria. Viewed in the specific context of the 1960s, M. Leviev’s work embodied in a number of ways the New Wave in music, including in the world of film music, understood not so much in the direction of its face connected with some generalized notion of the not quite liked in our country idiomatics in the field of jazz music writing. In fact, such a more general “popular” jazz stylistics was introduced into the cinema by a number of composers as early as in the late 1950s. Among them were Petar Stupel: Lyubimetz 13 (The Favourite 13), 1958; Starinnata Moneta (Die Antike Münze/The Antique Coin), 1965; Cyril Cibulka: Nespokoen Dom (Troubled Home), 1965; Atanas Boyadzhiev; Georgi Genkov and Emil Georgiev. In any case, the New Wave in the cinema did not coincidentally encounter its logical ally in the New Wave in music. Both in Otklonenie (Deviation) and Ponedelnik Sutrin (Monday Morning), M. Leviev’s approach illustrated his innovative ideas in the spirit of an actual sense of modernity, projected in a similar way in the psychological screen etudes and the modern poetics of the two films. The viewers, who remember the first screenings of the film Otklonenie (Deviation) in 1967374, hardly realized that they were witnessing a new wave in the Bulgarian cinema. But many of them positively perceived the aura of that aesthetic change and the tendency to psychologism in the cinema-drama genre with contemporary themes, as stated in earlier films such as Slantseto i Syankata (The Sun and Shadow) directed by Rangel Valchanov (1962) or Hronika na Chuvstvata (A Chronicle of Sentiments), 1961, directed by Lyubomir Sharlandjiev. With their different views, they revealed processes that transformed the ideologemes of socialism into a specific personal position. Widely regarded as a significant cinematic achievement, which has not lost its attractiveness of an exciting artistic work375 even today, Otklonenie (Deviation) impressed the well-informed cinema audience that had traced, within the then cinema lectures, emblematic foreign-cinema models such as Eight and a Half (1963) by Federico Fellini, Jean-Luc Godard’s Pierrot the Madman (1965), Ingmar Bergman’s Wild Strawberries (1957), Akira Kurosawa’s Rashomon (1950), etc. Surely because of the notes of intimate sentiment in the cinematographic narrative and the character of a new and, in any case, unpolished stylistics seeking immediacy in expressiveness and, undoubtedly, also because of the charisma and the impressive and alien to the declarative theatrical approaches acting of Nevena Kokanova (Neda) and Ivan Andonov (Boyan), Otklonenie somehow corresponded to the poetics and the general psychological profile of the famous at nearly the same time Claude Lolouch’s A Man and a Woman (1966) (starring Anouk Eme and Jean-Louis Trettinian), remembered, not least, due to Francis Le’s original music. The parallels between the two films are, of course, conditional. If Lelouch’s film chose the pink formula of the happy end, Grisha Ostrovski’s black-and-white band told the story of an unfulfilled love, “of the relations of two people who once loved each other, separated for a long time, and then accidentally met.”376 The story underlying Blaga Dimitro374 Otklonenie (Deviation), 1967, Director: Grisha Ostrovsky, Todor Stoyanov; Screenwriter: Blaga Dimitrova (on the motifs of Blaga Dimitrova's novel Patuvane kam Sebe si (A Jorney to Yourself); Cameraman: Todor Stoyanov; music by Milcho Leviev; starring: Nevena Kokanova (Neda), Ivan Andonov (Boyan). 375 The film was awarded with a number of prestigious awards: BFF Varna'67 – The Special Prize, the Award for Female Role for the role of Nevena Kokanova, the Operator's Award; ICF Moscow'67, USSR – First prize "Gold Medal", FIPRESCI Award; ICF Delhi'68, India – the Indian Society for Relations with Abroad Award for Best Film. 376 Знеполски, Ивайло. See http://bnf.bg/bg/odeon/movies/617/ Otklonenie (Deviation), 1967 film poster 374 375 va’s novel Patuvane kam Sebe si (A Journey to Yourself) had its hot and topical for its time thematic accents. Sinking into the psychological waters of the love story but also in a rhetoric that obviously looked for the contrast between “before” and “now,” the film was also an attempt at social criticism, “an overview of a generation that lived through its youth in the late 1940s, and, twenty years later, realized that the memory, besides nostalgia, carried the insight into their lost youth, the lost personal happiness under the weight of the ideological postulates.”377 The dramaturgical construction here relied on non-linear narrative techniques. Thus, the “journey” in the screen narrative, whose “fictional reality” occured within one day, acquired broader projections: it jumped back and forth in time, comparing the present time (mid-1960s) to reminiscences of the past (late 1940s), and – on the other hand – was a hint at the road to personal self-knowledge. It was precisely the idea of travelling as a leading dramaturgical line that, in a sense, determined the music decisions in the author’s music by M. Leviev. Built on a basic musical segment with a structural-constructing function relevant to the overall film composition, to the smooth transition from scene to scene, and the dynamics and variability of psychological states, it also played the role of a specific identification marker, of a leitmotif that portraited the dominant psychological tone – not just as a projection of some static state but as an associative factor with an allusion of travelling, transformation, change, i.e. as a factor that naturally involved the logic of improvisational musical thinking. Originally set not as a title, not as a preceding overture but as a parallel to the visual-side emotional image directly embedded in the screen story, the underlying musical segment was built on an original, unobtrusive but embossed, memorable theme in the spirit of free-jazz stylistics and instrumental sound with support on a rhythm section, dialoguing parties in the brass section, piano and guitar improvisational solos. The nature of the theme put the mood in the line of an urbanistic worldview, which also brought the somehow alienated rhythm of the big city and seemed to emphasize the nostalgic accents in the film poetics. In the course of the film action, the theme reminded of itself in a fragmented or a more deployed way, spontaneously transforming itself. It was entangled either in the screen dialogue or in the predominantly visual moments in order to”close” the format by sounding the final inscriptions. 377 Янакиев, Александър. Българско кино. Енциклопедия. София, Титра, 2000. с. 481. 376 Frame from the film Ponedelnik Sutrin (Monday Morning) It is hard to say what would have been the broad public opinion of the film Ponedelnik Sutrin (Monday Morning)378 had it seen the light of day in the year of its creation. Having been censored for ideological reasons, the film was “rehabilitated” and screened as late as 22 years later, in 1988, when the Union of Bulgarian Film Makers awarded it with the Special Prize, the Female Award for the role of Pepa Nikolova, and with the Operator Mastery Award for the work of Dimo Kolarov. Then, on the eve of Change, the message of the film continued to sound up to date and illustrated the fresh artistic breeze of that new generation of actors who, in the 1960s, set up renewing stylistic landmarks for the years to come in both the cinema and the theatre. In any case, the film critics seemed to be unanimous that Ponedelnik Sutrin (Monday Morning) was the film that most definitely expressed the free spirit of the era, the first Bulgarian film that totally – both stylistically and ideologically – rejected the socialist realism.379 The very scenario basis sought to show “the falsity of the Communist rhetoric, the double standards, the mismatch between words, slogans, spells, and reality. The only decent person, a person who thinks with her head, defends her positions, shows boldness and character, turned out to be the “fallen” girl, Tony, who did not want to enter the mold of the “exemplary worker.” Her dreams went beyond the horizon of a flat in a block of flats and household furnishings. She wanted space for her soul and real feelings.”380 In the words of another author, “what was unexpected and shocking was the fact 378 Ponedelnik Sutrin/Monday Morning (1966): Director: IrinaAktasheva, Hristo Piskov; Screenwriter: Nikola Tiholov, Cameraman: Dimo Kolarov; music by Milcho Leviev; Starring: Pepa Nikolova (Tony), Assen Kisimov (Yordan), Petar Slabakov (the Director), Kiril Gospodinov, Stefan Danailov, Rusi Chanev, Plamen Donchev, Katya Paskaleva, Mariya Stefanova, Anya Pencheva, Stefan Mavrodiev, and others. 379 Братоева-Даракчиева, Ингеборг. Българското игрално кино. От Калин Орелът до Мисия „Лондон“. София, Институт за изследване на изкуствата, 2013. с. 125. 380 Янакиев, Александър. Цит. съч., с. 498. 377 that most of the bitter truths in the film were pronounced not by a traditional positive character... but by a girl like Tony, with a face and figure like the then idol Bridget Bardo and with provocative honesty.”381 As M. Leviev, a witness of the story about the ban on the film, recounted, the head of state’s “arguments” for stopping the film were: “In Bulgaria, there is no prostitution, never have been, and will never be!” The dissident profile of the film message, spoken in some places as if colloquially but, also, in a somewhat declarative way, with multiple implications in the screen dialogues, is even a historical document, especially as regards the burning aspects of the depicted reality. The wanted suggestion for an immediate and unbiased look at the reality also found expression in the wide place of borrowed music, which created a very detailed meaningful idea of the surrounding sound environment: the sounds of the radio, the cafe, the pub, the street, the dance party, the production banquet, etc. Also Beatles’ sounds could be heard coming from an “informal” source (a hint on the “not allowed” for ideological reasons music!). Thus, the director’s view of the musical landscape at that time built another unambiguously acute critical reflection to the ideologemes of the socialist rhetoric. The other musical layer in the screen narrative, similar to the music in Otklonenie (Deviation), was based on a basic instrumental segment in the spirit of contemporary jazz stylistics and portrayed that single light thread in the screen story related to the character of the “bad good girl”. Both in Otklonenie (Deviation) and Ponedelnik Sutrin (Monday Morning), the music revealed a new aesthetic perspective in the development of the film language as a meaningful organic synthesis between sound and image but also as a contemporary form of artistic and social nonconformism consistent with the ideas presented in the two films. Aspects of this perspective were found in M. Leviev’s music to a number of other feature films from the 1960s. A wider view of his work in this field included films such as Zako Heskiya’s Goreshto Pladne (Hot Noon), 1965; Vassil Mirchev’s Mazhe (Men), 1965; Opasen Polet (Dangerous Flight), 1968 by Dimitar Petrov; Ikonostasat (Iconostasis), 1969 by Hristo Hristov and Todor Dinov; Borislav Sharaliev’s Edin Snimachen Den (One Shooting Day), 1969, and, more recently, Pismo do Amerika (A Letter to America), 2000 by Iglika Trifonova. C. L. THE SPIRIT OF THE PLACE OR ON THE NATIONAL IDENTITY OF THE BULGARIAN LITERATURE The unceasingly updating in the Bulgarian literature nativeforeign opposition was also a characteristic of the aesthetic space of the 1960s and 1970s. The basic ideologically connotated concept was developed by Toncho Zhechev in the text Natsionalni Osobenosti v Literaturnoto Razvitie (National Specifics in Literary Development)382. In it, he developed his thesis on the regional closeness and the almost tragic backwardness of the Bulgarian literature, which could be overcome by “behaving honourably and with dignity based on the roots of our history and identity”. He marked that process as painfully lengthy and conservative. Without absolutization of the role of the “hollow” – the metaphor image of the uniqueness of the national time-space –, the critic derived the formula “from the regional to the national and from the national to the universal”. The concept of T. Zhechev, with a patriarchal nostalgia, insisted that the Bulgarian literature had to preserve its folklore authenticity rather than freely open to the world aesthetic tendencies. The absolutization of the national self-sufficiency would rather trigger encapsulation of the artistic processes which, instead of attracting the attention of the world with their originality and colours, would deepen the cultural isolation. The works of writers such as Ivo Andric and Yordan Radichkov were important arguments in support of his thesis but the regionalism, as a foundational sign of a literature rather than a creative work, inevitably suggested its situating in a closed and constraining context. As part of an open communicative space, the Bulgarian literature before 9 September 1944 had dynamic aesthetic contacts. Its free dialogue with the world did not deprive it of its national specificity but rather 381 Cited after Станимирова, Неда. Кинопроцесът – „замразен временно“. София: Лотис, 2012, с. 236. 382 Жечев, Т. Национални особености в литературното развитие. – В: Националното своеобразие в литературата, С., 1966, с. 33. 378 379 outlined it. The putting of those problems in the context of the ideological stagnation could also be considered as an attempt at a new conceptual approach to literature. It was neither unique nor monolithic and, therefore, could not be formulated in a single thesis, however convincing it might have been. The writers viewed their creative work as a socio-cultural mission through which the world would accept the Bulgarian literature as equivalent. Without being original, Vassil Popov’s thesis383 quite convincingly insisted that the analysis of the contemporary phenomena, the exploration of the modern personality were codified in the past. He viewed history as an information bank that brought not only knowledge but also lessons. As an example of a brilliant synthesis of contemporary cultural and historical strata, the writer also pointed to the works of Yordan Radichkov. Putting the problems of the native into the centre of the artistic creativity dominated the aesthetic conception of the socialist realism. The interpretations of the theme made by writers who had worked in the time of no ideological or aesthetic constraints – such as Bogomil Raynov, Lyudmil Stoyanov and others – were more conservative and regressive, insisting on breaking the national characteristics through the political prism of internationalism. Deprived of self-esteem and information, with distorted criteria, living in fear because of their creative past and existential beliefs, the older writers and critics considered as too suspicious, in terms of concept, the ambitions of the young generation to create a literature directly commensurable with the European artistic trends and equated not only in the socialist but also in the world aesthetic space. The controversy young versus old, in contrast to the productive aesthetic opposition introduced by Dr. K. Krastev, was devoid of prospect as the class-party approach predetermined the frameworks where the national character and the universal messages of the Bulgarian literature had to fit in. Yet, in the 1970s, the literary criticism, though timidly, succeeded in drawing the thesis that the Bulgarian poetry, prose, and criticism had to overcome their isolation, cross the narrow frameworks of regional closeness, and participate in the world cultural dialogue of the time. This bold, even heretical for its time, concept was brilliantly grounded in the article by Tsvetan Stoyanov Po Povod Duha na Myastoto (On the Spirit of the Place)384. In it, he put the national spiritual culture within the most expanded coordinates where the belonging to a “hollow” was only an inevitable sign in any author’s creative biography. It was not the regional but the universal meanings in the works that had to predetermine the place of a writer in the spiritual space. When not the identification with the spirit of the place (a term by K. Kuyumdzhiev) became significant but the actual, unending communication with the cultural events in the world, when the regional colouring did not turn into a style but in a stroke that characterized the national uniqueness, then, according to Ts. Stoyanov, a literature was equal to the others without losing its identity. That thesis, too vanguard and brave for its time, became prevalent only after the democratic changes in Bulgaria in 1989. But even the fact that those problems were not only raised but also gained publicity was a sign that the Bulgarian literature stated its own positions, was insistently trying to measure itself with its free past in order to outline the perspectives of its future. Unfortunately, those attempts were too restricted by the ideological censorship to achieve a strong public resonance. 383 Попов, В. История и съвременност. – В: Националното своеобразие в литературата, С., 1966, с. 206. 384 Стоянов, Ц. По повод „духа на мястото“. – В: Националното своеобразие в литературата, С., 1966, с. 305. 380 381 E. T. BACK TO TRADITION: THE 1960s AND THE HISTORICAL-RECONSTRUCTION CINEMA In 1962, the film Cantata, by Hungarian director Miklós Jancsó, marked the beginning of one of the most interesting phenomena of 20th century Eastern European cinema – the historical reconstruction cinema. This term is my own creation and it aims to describe the significant amount of Eastern European films in the 1960s, which can be best described as cinematographic journeys into the roots of national traditions, which had been consciously repressed by the Communist regime since the end of the 1940s. The creators of these films aim to build bridges between the traditions and culture of their ancestors, which had been left in the past, and the culture of the present, which was robbed of its national identity. At first, Bulgarian cinema joined this movement in a very specific way – with Vulo Radev’s black and white melodrama Kradetsat na praskovi (The Peach Thief) and by doing so it departed from the orbit of art-cinema to which many other film projects adhered to as a rule. Furthermore, the film’s story was not told in a vague manner or set in some nonspecific past era, but rather in a very clear time and place – post-World War I Veliko Tarnovo. During the 1960s, when the film came out, there were still people in Bulgaria who had firsthand memories of the period reconstructed on screen. Emilian Stanev, a contemporary of that era and author of the short story on which the film’s screenplay was based was still living. The film Kradetsat na praskovi (The Peach Thief) managed to unearth layers of Bulgarian national consciousness considered taboo up until that time by the cinema of socialist realism – the complexities of Bulgarian life from the time depicted in the film, condemned by the communists as “bourgeois”, the genuine patriotism of the Bulgarian Royal officers; a truthfully represented historic perspective used as the framework for the individual longing, and forbidden love which is itself a metaphor for personal rebellion. While recreating the various aspects of life in that era, Vulo Radev used some provocative musical choices – for the first time in twenty years, since the Soviet Army’s entry in Bulgaria, Georgi Shagunov’s funeral march Pokoinitsi (The Deceased), based on the 382 Nevena Kokanova (Lisa) and Rade Markovich (Ivo) in Kradetsat na praskovi (The Peach Thief), 1964 dir. Valo Radev poem of Ivan Vazov, was played on screen; also, for the first time since 1944, church music was used in the music score of a Bulgarian film. These provocative novelties spurred a wake of turbulent response in both viewers and the censorship. During the preliminary discussions, the film faced serious resistance – its creators were accused of nationalism and chauvinism. One of the members of the Artistic Supervisory Board posed the question: ‘What is this, what kind of officers are you showing?’, Nevena Kokanova (Lisa) in Kradetsat na praskovi (The Peach Thief), 1964 dir. Valo Radev 383 Nevena Kokanova (Lisa) and Rade Markovich (Ivo) in Kradetsat na praskovi (The Peach Thief), 1964, dir. Valo Radev while the director of the Film Distribution Department declared: ‘There’s no point in twisting the truth – this is a poor, pointless film with which we share no common ground…’. The discussions ended with the director being ordered to cut the ‘episodes with the officers’ from the film. Vulo Radev, however, was adamant in his refusal to cut anything from the film relying, by his own admission, on his close friendship with Venelin Kotsev, the then Secretary of Ideology for the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Part. Kotsev allowed the screening of the film to the public and by doing so determined the future of Kradetsat na praskovi (The Peach Thief), which, in the forthcoming decades, would come to be considered an undisputed film classic385. Audiences embraced the film with genuine enthusiasm, projecting their own repressed yearnings onto the tragic love story of Lisa (the wonderful Nevena Kokanova) and Ivo (the Yugoslavian actor Rade Markovič). The film’s main strength, apart from the captivating performances by the actors, is the fact that Vulo Radev allows the romantic plot to unfold following the laws of melodrama, without any politicizing. In this regard, 385 Kradetsat na praskovi (The Peach Thief) was a small revolution in Bulgarian cinema of socialist realism – after two decades of more or less successful attempts of ideological indoctrination from the screen, the film rehabilitated the significance of the personal story. Radev exploited universal existential values like love, freedom, war, and death, entirely abandoning the pathos of socialist realism, just to make the audience reunite with his understanding that man was the absolute value and object of art. The very message conveyed by the film builds the long-cherished bridge to the forsaken past and indicates the film’s generic affiliation with the historical reconstruction cinema of Eastern Europe. The success of Kradetsat na praskovi (The Peach Thief) allowed for the cinematic reevaluation of historically-based plots as a potential ‘free space’ for tackling universal themes and problems. Furthermore, in the next two years, Soviet filmmakers produced another two classics of the historical reconstruction cinema: The Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors (1965) by Sergei Parajanov, and Andrei Tarkovsky’s masterpiece: Andrei Rublev (1966). In Bulgaria, Vulo Radev’s Doroteya Toncheva (Rada) in Shibil (1968), dir. Zahari Zhandov See: Radev, Vulo. Изгубени пространства. София: Литературен форум, 2002. 384 25. Bulgarian 20th Century... 385 cinematic endeavors were joined by Zahari Zhandov’s film Shibil (1968), and Todor Dinov & Christo Christov’s film Ikonostasat (The Altarpiece Maker), 1969. The filmmakers quickly realized that their choice to set the story in a bygone era gave them an elegant excuse to circumvent the prevailing ideological dictate, meanwhile allowing them a chance to work on a more existential plain. Zhandov chose Yovkov’s legend Shibil in order to recreate a historical era without having to base the film on an actual event. On the screen, similarly to its literary source, the past was brought back to life only as a colourful setting for staging eternal themes, such as love, freedom, devotion, doom, betrayal, violence and death. The specific stylization of traditional Bulgarian life and the deliberately sought-after poetic nature of its depiction were the next steps in leading Bulgarian cinema beyond ideological boundaries and bringing it back to pure aesthetics. Todor Dinov and Christo Christov were even more resolute in following this course in their film Ikonostasat (The Altarpiece Maker), 1969. I. B. CONTEXTS, CONTACTS AND ARTISTIC EXCHANGE IN THE 1960s AND 1970s Contacts and artistic exchange were also managed and controlled centrally. Looking through the pages of journal Izkustvo in the 60s it is easy to see that Bulgaria’s artistic exchange was with other countries of the Socialist Camp. Modelled by the official institutions, artistic exchange did include countries outside Europe but these were other communist states such as China, Mongolia, and Cuba, as well as ThirdWorld countries with which Bulgaria had good trade relationships such as Algiers, Syria, Tunisia and others depending on the political circumstances over the years. Most of the exhibits visiting Bulgaria from other European countries (from both sides of the Iron Curtain (excluding exhibits from the Soviet Union) represented what was mainly considered as applied arts and industrial design. Here are some examples of that: Polish artistic textiles (1961), French Tapestries in Sofia (1962), Polish Glass and Ceramics (1963), Hungarian Applied Art (1963), Romanian Decorative Art (1964), Polish Applied Art (1965) and many other group or solo exhibitions. This was considered safe in terms of ideological content and for that very reason artistic experimentation found a much more liberal environment here. Along with material covering visiting exhibits, journal Izkustvo also published articles on applied art forums elsewhere: on tapestries at the Arts festival of Warsaw in 1966, on the activities of the International Centre of Ancient and Modern Tapestry Lausanne, on the International Competition for Artistic Ceramics in Faenza in 1965, 1966, 1967 ff, etc. In a piece on Polish tapestry at the Warsaw Festival Georgy Bakardzhiev wrote “effacing the delineation between the categories of fine and applied art”386. The term “tradition” is used in several instances but the author also 386 Бакърджиев, Георги. Впечатления от изкуството на гоблена в Полша. // Изкуство, 1967, № 6, с. 48–49. 386 387 uses the phrase “universal expression and recognition” when referring to the tapestry masters of Poland. The honourable mentions’ list includes the famous visual artist Magdalena Abakanowicz: “the planular solutions in the tapestry of Magdalena Abakanowicz and those of several other artists oust an obsolete concept and thrive victorious in its place.”387 Since the late 60s M. Abakanowicz has been displaying textile sculptures which have won her prizes at the international forums in San Paolo, Vienna, and New York and accolades from the contemporary art scene on the other side of the Iron Curtain. However, these works containing critical comments on the human condition were not covered by the Bulgarian journal. The first Bulgarian artist to take part in the International Biennial in Lausanne was Dimo Balev. He graduated the Academy of Arts in Sofia in 1966 earning his major in the academy’s new Textile Program chaired by Marin Varbanov. In 1967 after successfully defending his graduation thesis, Balev made his way in the selection of the jury of the Third Lausanne Biennial. Unlike the San Paolo, Venice and Paris biennials the Lausanne Biennial was never organized on a national basis. The Bulgarian artist’s piece was entitled Kompozicia v byalo i cherno (A Composition in White and Black), 1966, 210 х 460 cm. This large-format abstract composition impressed the jury with its stern, elegant, yet colourful work drawing different images from the Eastern and Western black- The cover of the Catalogue of the Third International Biennial in Lausanne, 1967, June 10 – October 1. This edition of the Biennial was the first ever featuring a Bulgarian artist. 388 Ibid., p. 49. http://www.lausanne.ch/thematiques/culture-et-patrimoine/histoire-et-patrimoine/ archives-communales/acces-ressources/focus-thematiques/biennales-de-la-tapisserie-citam.html 387 388 388 Dimo Balev, Kompozicia v byalo i cherno (A Composition in White and Black), 1966, 210 х 460 cm, page from the Catalogue of the Third International Biennial in Lausanne, 1967. and-white art tradition as well as with its texture. Two years later, at the Fourth Biennial in 1969, the artist repeated his feat with a piece entitled “Akvarium” (Aquarium), 1968, 265 х 250 cm. The work’s ribbon-like structure was seen as a self-reference to the very technology of weaving but also as a mesh, an obstacle, and a barrier, an image reinforced by its title. Neither of the author’s pieces drew any references to the Bulgarian tradition. M. Varbanov had attended the Lausanne Biennial prior to 1966 on invitation by Jean Lurçat, but his official debut was in 1971 at the fifth edition of the forum with collaboration with Song Huai-Kuei. Composition 2001, 1969, 320 х 160 unfolded in space expressing the monumental power and poetry of weaving. In 1973, again working in a team with Song Huai-Kuei, M. Varbanov submitted his Aporia, 1972, 340 x 225 x 40 cm at the Sixth Lausanne Biennial. This work by the tandem of artists also featured majestic structures and shapes serving as a metaphor for the process of creating fabric. Another Bulgarian artist who made the selection of the international jury of the Lausanne Biennial was Vladimir Ovcharov. His formative path as an artist and his interaction with the West were also related to China. He graduated the Textiles program of Beijing’s Academy of Applied Arts in 1965 under Professor Chai Fei. He has been a professor at the Academy of Arts in Sofia since 1980. He took part in the 12th edition of the Lausanne Biennial in 1985 with the Composition without a Name, 1984, 400 х 800 х 900 cm. Its strands, like the delicate strings of a musical instrument transform from a bunch into a fan over the mirror-like surface of a swimming pool constructing a poetic image of the principles of weaving. 389 Marin Varbanov, Song Varbanova, Composition 2001, 1969, 320 х 160 cm, a page from the Catalogue of the 5th International Biennial in Lausanne in 1971 *** Posters, books and other typographic forms were also less affected by the official requirements for “realism” and “truthfulness” imposed on painters and sculptors. The high degree of conditionality and symbolism in posters and the specifics of the graphical arrangement of books, and the relation between font and illustration were recognized by the ideologues of imagery but not immediately after the political change in the mid 50s. The Polish Poster Exhibition held in Sofia in 1954 was an indicative example of this judging by the first-hand accounts of the art historian Dimitar Avramov in his book entitled Letopis na Edno Dramatichno Desetiletie (A Chronicle of a Dramatic Decade). In his work the author has published large sections of actual shorthand taken during the Marin Varbanov, Song Varbanovа, Aporia, 1972, 340 x 225 x 40 cm. The piece was shown at the 6th International Biennial in Lausanne in 1973. 390 discussions of the exhibition in December of 1954. This event was emblematic of the interest and the uproar related to the juxtaposition of artistic practices in Bulgaria and elsewhere. Posters for cultural events (theatrical performances, films, and concerts, etc.) from the mod 60s onwards became some of Communist Bulgaria’s few artistic products that could be exported abroad (political propaganda posters not included). Journal Izkustvo covered various poster exhibitions visiting Bulgaria such as: Swiss Poster 1964, Cuban Poster 1965, Warsaw Poster 1966 as well as the works of foreign artists invited to participate in the International Youth Poster Exhibition of 1968 held in Sofia. One of the exhibitions that attracted the keenest interest was the Swiss Poster Exhibition of 1964. As evident by the curator’s389 article, the predominant part of the exhibit, which was displayed in many European countries with the help of the Pro Helvetia National Institute consisted of award-winning Swiss posters from 1960, 1961 and 1962. After a brief account of how the poster genre developed in his country, the author discussed the nature of poster imagery, and the need for adopting a set of standards and norms regarding posters’ sizes and formats, how long they were to remain on display in public spaces, the techniques employed in their execution. H. Hasser also wrote that “since commercial posters dominate the streets and shape its aesthetics taste, uplifting them to a higher level is an important task standing before Swiss poster art.”390 In Bulgaria however commercial posters were absent from the urban visual environment as they were used solely at international trade exhibitions. At the First and the Second International Poster Biennial in Warsaw in 1966 and 1968 pieces were organized in three sections: public, cultural, and advertising and informative posters (more often than not these were commercial posters). Authors were arranged in alphabetical order within these sections. In an article in journal Izkustvo D. G. Dimitrov speaks of the “international nature of poster art”391. Most of the awards, as was the case with the first edition of the Biennial, were won by Japanese poster artists. Artists from socialist countries had no experience with commercial posters. The author also talks about current stylistic trends dominating the various domains of the genre. At the end of the article the Bulgarian presentation is described Hasser, Hans / Хасер, Ханс. // Изкуство, 1964, № 7, с. 41–43. Ibid., p. 43. 391 Димитров, Димитър Г. Голямото изкуство на плаката. // Изкуство, 1968, № 10, с. 9 –15. 389 390 391 as unsatisfactory claiming that in comparison with others Bulgarian artist “sound like chamber music” and that they have a lot to work on to establish their work as a “means of mass influence”. The author also goes on to say that “the printing capabilities in Bulgaria are still underdeveloped” and that “many of our cultural posters show a solid degree of influence (by this I take the author to mean borrowing) by foreign artists”392. The art critic also reminds his audience of the different social environments in which poster art on either side of the Iron Curtain exists and namely the absence of commercial competition in communist countries. Artists experienced “the West” mostly while travelling to international artistic forums they were invited to attend. In 1967 a group of Bulgarian poster artists present their works at the International Theatrical poster Exhibition in Munich. Bulgaria’s internationally recognized poster artists of the 60s and 70s are Stefan Kunchev, Ivan Bogdanov, Dimitar Tasev, Asen Stareishinski, Bozhidar Ikonomov, and Ivan Gazdov, among others. *** Book artists seem to have had more opportunities to travel abroad. Some of the international artistic forums they attended over the years include: The International Book Art Exhibition of Leipzig, 1965; the Stefan Kunchev. Logotypes 392 Bozhidar Ikonomov, poster for the film Matriarhat (Matriarchy), 1977 International Biennial of Applied Graphics and Illustration in Brno, 1966, The International Children Book and Illustration Exhibition and Fair of Bologna, 1968; The Bulgarian Book and Illustrations Exhibition in Vienna in 1969. The list of internationally recognized Bulgarian book artists transcends several generations and includes names like Boris Angelushev, Vladimir Paskalev, Ivan Kiosev, Ivan Kirkov, Borislav Stoev, and Ivan Gongalov among others. The interview with the Bulgarian participants at the Bologna forum393 reveals that they assess their own performance as very good in comparison with the work of both other Eastern European artists (Polish, Czechoslovakian, Hungarian) and western colleagues (Swiss, French, English, American) but that no contracts had been signed with publishing houses. The interviewed talk about the need to improve the quality of printing in Bulgaria and note the high print quality of the books by foreign publishing houses represented at the forum. From the distance of time, I found it very interesting how they had observed that illustrated children’s books were divided into two types in line with the market differentiation – large-circulation books intended to satisfy mainstream demand and lowcirculation, high-end luxury books. 393 Творческа среща (интервю с четирима от българските участници). // Изкуство, 1968, № 8, с. 40 –43. Ibid., p. 14. 392 393 Mentioned in the same interview was a Bulgarian artist who had been working for a Milan-based publishing house for two years. So after all, the Iron Curtain was not so “impregnable” in certain cases. Books and posters are where the artistic and the commercial intersect each other and the fundamental differences between the economies of the two worlds have an indelible impact on their characteristic features. *** Industrial design exhibitions, mostly with their items for everyday use, provided a rare glimpse into life on the other side of the Iron Curtain for artists and the general public alike. From the pages of journal Izkustvo we learn about Western European exhibitions in Sofia including: the Italian Industrial Samples Exhibit of 1963, a contrastive exhibit of industrial items including companies from the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, and France in 1967. Articles on exhibitions and art forums in the “other” Europe are also published. In an article dedicated to the so called Ivan Kiosev, Illustrations and Arrangements of Panchatantra. Narodna Mladezh, 1981 Ivan Kirkov, Priklyucheniata na Lisko po More (The Adventures of Lisko at Sea), by Boris Aprilov, artist: Ivan Kirkov, Georgy Bakalov 1968 Contrastive Exhibition, Dimitar Petrov394 wrote about the exhibition of TV sets, radios, tape decks, and record players made in West German, and Holland (Philips, Telefunken, Broun, etc.). Given the fact that electronic equipment was scarce in Bulgaria at the time, displaying items people could only dream about, made by leading world manufacturers at that must have attracted sizeable public. When comparing these products to the ones manufactured domestically, the author makes multiple references to the importance of technological advances and the quality of the materials. The state of Bulgarian manufacturing is assessed as “lacking in execution from the standpoint of technology”395. In terms of the possibilities for incorporating different stylistic solutions into every day-use items, the same article reiterates the conviction that form should stem from function and that seeking stylistic effects for their own sake would lead to the production of “stylized items” which would “stray from the paragons of good design”. The 1960s saw the gradual abandonment of constructivist and functionalist principles in industrially developed societies but in Bulgaria these were still held in high regard. Often seen as interchangeable, they were deemed ideologically correct in the context of the officially imposed utopian vision of how society should develop. Петров, Димитър. Сравнителна изложба на промишлени изделия. // Изкуство, 1968, № 1, с. 42–43. 395 Ibid. 394 394 395 Comparing the material environment in people’s homes here and abroad presented a host of challenges to the communist government. For this reason, by the end of the decade and the beginning of the seventies, when the differences in quality of life had become even more obvious, the social importance of the material environment was becoming an increasingly hot topic. The traffic of graphic art exhibitions to and from the “other” Europe was becoming more and more active. Prints travel easily and exhibitions require far less resources than other types of art. This was the pragmatic reason driving the intensity of the exchange. The other prerequisite was ideological. In the case of Communist Bulgaria, it was accepted that prints offered varying degrees of conditionality, as compared to painting, due to the peculiarities in creating the image. Forgraphic art tone modelling of the object space is not as crucial as in painting due to the multi-stage execution of the graphic cliché and the fact that prints require an intermediary. Graphic art techniques, despite their differences, approuve the fletness of the paper sheet, give a planular quality to colour and the composition as a whole. However, the ideological requirement for image figurativeness remains unchallenged. Going through the press pages we can see that Sofia has hosted a number of intriguing graphic art exhibitions including: Contemporary Hungarian Graphic Art, 1961; Japanese Graphic Artists, 1963; Uruguayan Graphic Artists, 1964; Sichuan Graphic Art from China, 1964, Contemporary Turkish Graphic Art, 1966 and so on. Yet, no mention is made of any contemporary western exhibits. On the other hand, many Bulgarian graphic artists have shown their works beyond the Iron Curtain attending the various forums in person. Solo and group exhibitions have been organized in Copenhagen in 1961, in Modena and Bologna in 1963, in Sydney and Helsinki in 1966, in Copenhagen in 1967, and in Copenhagen, Oslo, and Stockholm in 1968. They were covered in the “Exhibition Calendar – Bulgarian art abroad” and “Others about Us” sections of the journal Izkustvo. The most important opportunities for Bulgarian artists to catch a glimpse of “the others” were undoubtedly the international biennials. In the years following World War II during the Cold War graphic art biennials were especially important. The proliferation of international biennials between the 1950s and 70s was not an accidental development. Graphic works, despite their growing size, were easy to transport. This, combined with the interest of the public toward the technical mastery and ingenuity of graphic prints, the multitude of techniques and materials gave different forums the opportunity to find their own specific focus. Here are some of the exhibitions featuring Bulgarian artists: Lugano, the Graphic Biennial Black and White (1950), Ljubljana (1955), Krakow (1966), Banska Bistritsa – Wood Engraving Biennial (1968), Florence (1968 to 1978), Liege (1969). Some of the Bulgarian artists taking part in those events included Borislav Stoev, Zhana Kosturkova, Anastasia Panayotova, Hristo Neolov, Zlatka Dubova, etc. The Grand Prize of the Graphic Art Biennial in Ljubljana in 1963 was given to Robert Rouschenberg and in accordance with the rules of the Biennial he is granted the opportunity to hold a solo exhibition there in 1965, on the Biennial’s tenth anniversary, one year after his win at the Venice Biennial. It is a curious fact that Rauschenberg’s first international award came in Ljubljana. Both editions of the Ljubljana Biennial (in 1963 and in 1965) were attended by Bulgarian artists including Zl. Dubova, T. Panayotov, and Atanas Neikov to name a few. There they went head to head with illustrious names such as Serge Poliakoff, Carren Apple, and Gerhardt Windt. Bulgarian artists had similar encounters with Western artistic practices in Krakow, Florence and 396 397 Todor Panayotov: Peizazh s Cheren Pat (Dirt Road Landscape), 1966, etching, 55 х 65 cm. elsewhere. Collaborative exhibitions by artists from the two politically divided worlds were organized both to the west and to the east of the Iron Curtain. Bulgaria was represented at five instalments of the Paris Biennial between 1959 and 1969 The Paris Biennial for Young Artists (hereinafter referred to as the Paris Biennial for convenience) was established in 1959 and existed as an art forum for young artists until 1985 when its status was changed fundamentally. Unfortunately this proved to be its last instalment. *** The Bulgarian works displayed at the Paris Biennial were representative of the major trends among Bulgaria’s young generation of authors in the 60s. They formed a liberalized modus of multiple realisms and figurative iterations of pre-academic/folklore visual culture. Bulgarian artists from this generation included Georgy Bozhilov, Todor Panayotov, Ivan Kirkov, Svetlin Rusev, Dimitar Kirov, Ioan Leviev, Encho Pironkov, and Galin Malakchiev to name a few. Later many of them became members of the administration and headed the Union of Bulgarian Artists. Three of the artists which took part in the Biennial, Vanya Decheva, Emil Stoychev, and Lyuben Dimanov, later moved to Paris. Borislav Stoev, Deer Hunters, 1962, colour lithography, 43 х 60 cm. A page from an article on the Third Paris Biennial for Young Artists, Izkustvo, 1963, Issue 10 The leading trends shared by the representatives of Bulgaria’s younger generation of artists were dissimilar not only to those shared by the Western European peers but also to those characteristic of the creative efforts of the youth from Central European Countries from the Communist Block. In the 60s, realisms in Bulgaria were at best following the established traditions of Pre-War Europe making them fundamentally different from those representing the new wave of interest in the concept of Realism which existed in the West and in Central Europe. The absence of any response to the “new realism” in France, for instance, is an example of just that. *** In terms of painting, highest in value according to the ideological hierarchy, several exhibitions by Western European artists had made their way to Bulgaria (mainly in Sofia). In most cases these included works with wide realistic grasp by authors whose ideas were close to those shared by the Communist Party. Contemporary artists were never displayed in Bulgaria and that was true not only of representatives of the artistic scene beyond the Iron Curtain but also of artists from fellow communist countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, who were taking part in international art forums. 398 399 THE 1970s: SOCIALISM WITH A HUMAN FACE? Page from the Chapter Bulgaria, Catalogue of the 6th Biennale of the young artists, Paris, 1969 As D. G. Dimitrov wrote in his journal Izkustvo article entitled Contemporary Polish Painting in 1967396, “The works displayed in Sofia are of realistic nature”. The author also noted the existence of an avantgardist movement in Poland stating that “some of these artists are already considered classics. Albeit not many, they have now earned international recognition”397. None of them was featured in the exhibition. Unlike in those countries, in Bulgaria art-groups and art, alternative to the state controlled one, were missing. I. G. 396 Dimitrov, Dimitar G., The Exhibition of Contemporary Polish Painting, Izkustvo, 1967, Issue 9, page 39–41. 397 Ibid. page 39. 400 The brutal suppression of the Prague Spring and the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the armies of the Warsaw Pact put an end to the widely held illusion that the Soviet Block might tolerate any kind of socialism with a human face. At about the same time, it became apparent that socialist culture could not continue to exist in its state of self-imposed isolation. In the context of the events of 1968, more than ever before, the rulers of the East needed victories on the so called ‘ideological frontline’ of the Cold War, and they did not hesitate to use art as a means for winning international acclaim for the system. Therefore, within the decade of the 70s following the failed Czechoslovakian reform attempts, openings were cracked in the encapsulated system of Bulgarian socialism for an intensified exchange with Western culture. As a matter of principle, the Bulgarian government aimed to foster this process on a one-way track, mostly by promoting selected works by carefully chosen authors so as to forge with the West a ‘liberal’ perception of itself. At the same time, however, cultural engineers did their best to curb western influences on Bulgarian art even when they penetrated local ground from other socialist states – Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and sometimes even East Germany (GDR), where the regime applied a softer approach. At the same time, government officials were aware that Bulgarian artists could not produce ‘convertible works of art’ if they fell behind the leading trends of global art. To fill this information gap, all artistic unions issued a special bulletin intended exclusively for internal circulation among their membership, which outlined the up-to-date trends of artistic exploration overseas. Along with this, The Cinema House organized special viewings of modern western films for artists and cultural activists. The contradictory messages sent to the Bulgarian artists by the Communist government during the 1970s, determined the ambiguous and complex influence that the Prague Spring exerted on the development of arts in Bulgaria. Regardless of the fact that the 1970s can be described as the most 26. Bulgarian 20th Century... 401 KOZIYAT ROG (THE GOAT HORN) AND THE EXISTENTIAL FREEDOM OF MAN Prague Spring, 1968 “liberal” decade under socialism in Bulgaria, due to the controlled liberalization carried out by the Party’s ideologists, the beginning of this period marks another stage of tightening censorship. The cultural engineers of socialism could not easily retreat from using Bulgarian art as a propaganda tool, although they switched to more subtle rhetoric. The mid-40s imperative for the mandatory interpretation of reality from the perspective of communist ideology was quietly transformed and replaced by the ban on expressing even the slightest suspicion about the social justice of a well-established political system, even (or especially!) when it sprang from a most righteous Marxist frame of mind. Therefore, the utmost priority of the system’s censorship in the 70s, was to instrumentalize the arts for spreading the myth of triumphant social justice resulting from the victory of mature socialism. I.B. 402 At the start of the 1970s, short stories from Nikolai Haitov’s collections – Shumki ot Gabar (Hornbeam leaves) (1965) and Divi Razkazi (Wild stories) (1967) – were being adapted for the screen as part of the historical reconstruction movement in the Bulgarian cinema. Haitov himself wrote the screenplays for four of the adaptations: Izpit (The Test) (dir. Georgi Djulgerov), Gola Savest (Clean Conscience) (dir. Milen Nikolov), shown together under the title Sharen Svyat (Colorful World) (1971); Koziyat rog (The Goat Horn) (1972), dir. Metodi Andonov; Darvo bez koren (A Tree without Roots) (1974), dir. Christo Christov, and Mazhki vremena (Manly times) (1977), dir. Eduard Sachariev. In fact, the strong connection between Haitov’s works and the Bulgarian cinema during the 70s led to that period being called the Haitov line. Despite the similarities in the screenplays, the style of each adaptation was specific to its director. Djulgerov, Nikolov, and Sachariev approached the stories by seeking to strike a balance between romance and humor, while Christov created the impossible adaptation drama. Metodi Andonov’s interpretation of Koziyat rog (The Goat Horn) was as a tragedy of identity. Koziyat rog (The Goat Horn) was first shown in cinemas in 1972, after Yuri Ilyenko’s Belaya ptitsa s chornoy otmetinoy (The White Bird Marked with Black) (1971), and before Andrzej Wajda’s Wesele (The Wedding) (1973) and Miklós Jancsó’s Szerelmem, Elektra (Elektra, My Love) (1974). Andonov’s film, however, is not characterized by the nostalgia for what was irrevocably lost, which was typical for historical reconstruction cinema, nor did it use that period’s specific poetic metaphors. On the contrary, Metodi Andonov chose a naturalistic approach in order to stay true to the historical period and communicate the idea that violence had been an ever present part of life in Bulgaria. The enhanced primitivism of the characters holds a dual meaning – on the one hand it was a truthful representation of people’s mentality at the time, and on the other, it gave significance to the natural in man as original, true, and whole. Even 403 though the conflict between Muslims and Christians was depicted in accordance with the traditional archetypes of aggressors and victims, respectively, the film’s message transcends national identity. Under Andonov’s direction, the characters on the screen commit acts of violence without basing them on religious or national identity, but rather their clashes are part of their personal battles for domination and survival. At the time it appeared on the big screen, Ivaylo Znepolski published his review of the film, which had the symptomatic title “The necessary violence, the condemned violence…”. Znepolski interpreted the behavior of Karaivanov (Anton Gorchev) who was trying to turn his daughter Maria (Katya Paskaleva) into a weapon intended for revenge, as a reference to 1970s society in Bulgaria: “At first, his cause is just – we are sympathetic to his strive for revenge. Severe measures are necessary! However, his hatred, rooted in a specific personal tragedy, is directed at life in general. It becomes a world-view which he imposes on others, on the generation after his own […] When understood as a rule of life, violence becomes a double-edged sword: it brings both the destruction of the enemy and one’s self-destruction, the revenge and the condemnation.”398 This was the voice of a highly educated Marxist from the new generation, which not only denounced the violence implemented by their primitive predecessors, but also questioned the basics of the Marxist ideology – that “revolutionary violence” was necessary and justifiable. The director’s choice to set the acts of violence in intense darkness helped to illustrate, with appropriate contrast, Maria’s transformation when she finds love. “The meeting between Maria and the shepherd (the actor Martin Penev) holds the most significance in terms of the effect it has on her defiance towards her violent reality. He is a symbol of an idyllic world – a “paradise lost” […] His presence represents the charm of all that Karaivan has lost, and all he has taken away from his daughter. He is the first person to reveal to her a world of happiness, warmth, and humanity. His presence, even the mere fact of his existence, helps her overcome the struggle she constantly faces, walking the thin line between violence and love, between the death she deals out and the fact that she has fallen in love. When she puts on the stolen traditional dress to go and meet him, she throws away the horn – for her, these two realities are incompatible.”399 398 399 Знеполски, Ивайло. Пътища и пътеки на българското кино..., с. 172. Ibid. 174. 404 Koziyat rog (The Goat Horn), 1972, dir. Metodi Andonov This contrast was one of the main tools the director used: Metodi Andonov used it to illustrate the idea that deep inside each person, there is an indefeasible core (what is known in Christianity as the face of God reflected in every person) which cannot be destroyed by an outside force. The film’s narrative was told by the director with the unwavering conviction that the human spirit holds a sacred place which cannot be influenced by violence. Despite the love story’s tragic outcome, Andonov was steadfast in his belief in the optimism of self-realization – the film’s heroine returns to the most profound aspects of the human nature: the ability to show affection, to love and by doing so she attains her freedom and dies, having claimed her true feminine identity. With this relatively unfamiliar for Bulgarian film audiences interpretation of death, the director delved deeper into territory which had not been explored in Bulgarian cinema up until that point. Before The Goat Horn existential problems were all but absent from Bulgarian filmmaking or were interpreted within the framework set by the Communist ideology. Binka Zhelyazkova’s parable, Privarzaniyat balon (The Tied Up Baloon) (1967), based on a screenplay by Yordan Radichkov, was a notable exception. Viewed at face value, the film’s main theme revolved around the partisans but Zhelyzkova explored it from an existential perspective which was the reason why the film was hidden away. By the end of the 1970s, Radichkov would rewrite the screenplay as a theat405 rical play – Opit za Letene (An Attempt to Fly) (1979). Before the start of that decade any attempt by filmmakers to work with universal human values was halted by censorship on the grounds that they represented “abstract humanism” and the cinematic representation of spiritual themes was unthinkable. According to the principles of social realism, the question of the meaning of life could only be viewed in connection with the Proletariat revolution. Koziyat rog (The Goat Horn) was the first film from that period that protected the existential freedom of man, and upheld the existence of an intrinsic human essence. It is for this reason that Metodi Andonov’s film is such an important part of the Bulgarian film history. Furthermore, Koziyat rog (The Goat Horn) was the first Bulgarian film to attempt to interpret the problem of identity at the point of intersection of the national and the universally human. By connecting these themes to one another and giving a different perspective to their meaning, Metodi Andonov created one of the ultimate achievements in the Bulgarian filmmaking. The four films, based on Haitov’s works, all garnered serious international acclaim – Sharen Svyat (Colorful World) won the Special Jury Award at the Locarno Festival in 1972; Mazhki vremena (Manly times) won the Grand Award at the Tehran International Film Festival in 1977 and at the New Delhi International Film Festival in 1978, the One of the Three Best Films Award, and the Honorary Diploma of FIPRESCI at the Antwerp International Film Festival in 1978; Koziyat rog (The Goat Horn) won the Special Jury Award at the Karlovy Vary International Film Festival in 1972, the Silver Hugo Award at the Chicago International Film Festival in 1973, and the Grand Silver Cup Award at Santarem International Film Festival in 1974. For her performance in the film, Katya Paskaleva won the Best Actress Award at the International Film Festival in Brussels in 1973, but the authorities in Bulgaria refused to issue her a passport so that she could not go and personally accept the award. Despite the film’s international success, it did not get the Golden Rose Award – Bulgaria’s highest feature film honor. At the Festival of Bulgarian Film in 1972, the Golden Rose Award was given to Nakovalnya ili Chuk (Hammer or Anvil) – a biographical film by director Christo Christov depicting the life of Georgi Dimitrov, which was a sure sign of the unwavering view the Party held on the values of socialist art. I. B. 406 REPENTANCE AND CONFLICTS IN THE LITERARY CRITICISM After 9 September 1944, the literary criticism became a dogmatic system of rules embedded in a dull boring work that gave out positive or negative evaluations. This critical paradigm was shaken by Toncho Zhechev, Krastyo Kuyumdzhiev, Zdravko Petrov, and Tsvetan Stoyanov. To them, criticism was an intellectual game; it was an art that had to attract with brilliant phrases, with elegant irony, with the involvement of the reader in the tempting labyrinth of creativity. The formalized distant critical-reader relations were forgotten in the name of a common co-experience of the magic of reading. The critics relied on the signs of meaning under the visible surface of the text and taught the readers to do the same. In the 1970s, the new critics were not arrogant judges who never made mistakes. They allowed themselves to doubt and self-challenge, they developed and changed their theses because their motivations were not empirical but emotional. They imposed the free essayist form of critical expression and thus provoked the rebellion of the dogmatic criticism. And the latter also believed it had a new face. Having accused the spirit of the time, the critics who imperiously imposed the ideology of the socialist realism and politically ruled in the literature made moving confessions: “We were suppressing our tastes voluntarily, with inner conviction. The dogmatic normativeness did not allow artists to develop their unique individualities. It hindered the individual appearance of the critics”400. But this act of repentance by the notorious critic Pencho Danchev was simply a ritual gesture characteristic of the political manipulations during the period. The fact that the empowered critics periodically denied their assessments did not negate the fatal consequences that their texts had on the literary process. Having rejected some dogmatic schemes forcefully imposed at a given socio-cultural stage, they introduced new, ideologically right clichés in the next period. In this case, the pathos was directed to 400 Данчев, П. Критически талант и критически принципи. – Септември, № 5, 1963, с. 221–242. 407 a provocative for the time critical style that boldly demonstrated the subjective, essayistic interpretation of the artistic texts. The articles by K. Kuyumdzhiev Lekaryu, Izlekuvay se Sam (Doctor, Heal Yourself)401 and Z. Petrov’s Nasledstvenite Grehove (Hereditary Sins)402 became emblematic signs of the new critical style. They deconstructed the behavioural models, demasked the fanaticism and the repressive functions not only of P. Danchev but also of all the critics of the 1950s. Their articles highlighted the disrupted communicative links between critical texts and artistic works by imposing normative, schematic assessment methods. For K. Kuyumdzhiev and S. Petrov, literary criticism was self-reflection and not an absurd pursuit of the objective truth. It was kind of a portrait of both the interpreter and the writer created by spectacular verbal signs and intuitive penetration behind the visible surface of the meanings. Critical text was not built up by dogmatic constructs or trivial truths but was a synthesis of psychological insight, subjective interpretation, and emotional expression. It was the space in which the creative image of criticism was exposed. K. Kuyumdzhiev was more extreme in his views and insisted that “intellectualism was hostile to born artists”; that the scientific approach to literature, its situating in the historical context was as harmful as the imposition of an opinion as an absolute truth. This thesis could be seen as a provocative verbal formula seeking extreme opposition but, in it, the occasion for another, essential critical trend characteristic of the next decade was latently set. In the ensuing dispute, the two critical camps were quite unequal. The young remained in the position of accused and the supporters of P. Danchev’s thesis occupied almost all the polemical field. The ideologically framed freedom regulated the prohibition of inconvenient texts. The critics were well aware of the procedures that deprived the opponents of the possibility of public appearance. In that specific case, due to the violation of some taboos imposed, the editorial of Septemvri Journal (one of the official publications of the Union of Bulgarian Writers), on whose pages the discussion took place, was dismissed. In his article Kritichesko Prevaorazhavane i Edna Kratka Istoriya (Critical Re-Arming and a Short History)403, T. Zhechev was the only categorical defender of Z. Petrov and K. Kuyumdzhiev and their thesis that considered critique to be an art. By a motivated comparative analysis of the methods of the dogmatic criticism and the new impressionistic-artistic style, he made the pessimistic but true conclusion that the relapses of the past were too persistent. According to him, they imposed the hermetic closeness of the Bulgarian literature and obstructed the process of “overcoming the remnants of its provincial complexes”. The texts of the neo-dogmatists Vassil Kolevski and Angel Todorov were not only a brilliant illustration of Toncho Zhechev’s thesis, they were symptomatic of the official critical positions in the following decades, too. All methodological deviations from them, whether in the direction of essayism, structuralism, sociolinguistics, receptive aesthetics, were strictly sanctioned. Each critical interpretation was an open communicative study that gave some answers but also asked a number of questions. The implicit subjectivity in it did not exclude the achievement of certain objective truths. They happened when multiple critical discourses intersected. Literary criticism, besides being tasked with the mission to be a mediator in the perception of different cultural-science situations, had to provoke the disentangling not only of the external, visible meanings of the works of art but also of its hidden deeply-coded meanings. That was why the equalization of different critical approaches not only did not pose a threat to the literary process but was also a sign of its multifaceted and original character. E. T. Куюмджиев, К. Лекарю, излекувай се сам. – Септември, № 3, 1965, с. 204. Петров, З. Наследствените грехове. – Септември, № 3, 1965, с. 183. 403 Жечев, Т. Критическо превъоръжаване и една кратка история. – Септември, №1, 1966, с. 150. 401 402 408 409 THE CHALLENGES OF MODERN CRITICAL INTERPRETATIONS In his article Preprochitayki Divi Razkazi404 (Re-reading Wild Stories), Nikolay Georgiev attempted to analyze Nikolay Haytov’s book not only at the level of artistic specificity, i.e. characters, storyline, moral-ethical messages. He did not read the stories just as signs of national colouring and romantic memories of a past time. The critic, influenced by the modern inventions of the structuralism of the 1970s and 1980s, did not suggest any unambiguous, simplified discourse models. He avoided interpretations that led to critical labels as they were unleashed recurrences of dogmatism. N. Georgiev deciphered the multi-layered content of the works and revealed folklore archetypes and persistent mythologemes but not in an ideological-emotional plan but as a system of structural links that made up the book’s storyline. His article suggested a feeling not of co-experience but of an analytical distance. His critical style, without insisting on scientific rigor, avoided the essayist expression. He wanted not to identify himself with the readers but to provoke their interest in revealing the internal mechanisms of the development of the storyline and in deconstructing the artistic space. In the same issue of Literaturen Front, the article by T. Zhechev Divi Razkazi ili Opitomyavane na Misalta (Wild Stories or Taming of Thought)405 was also published. That meeting of opposites theses sought by the editorial was a sign of both formal and controlled dialogism and of changing the critical model that at least externally tried to be structured as an equal dialogue. The conversation about N. Haytov’s book turned into a dispute over the methodology of the critical approach. Indeed strange were the metamorphoses of the essayistic-artistic criticism, until recently accepted as new and provocative. Only a decade later, it took a stand against the current critical concepts, against the application Георгиев, Н. Препрочитайки „Диви разкази“. – Литературен фронт, бр. 24, 19.6. 1973 Жечев, Т. „Диви разкази“ или опитомяване на мисълта. – Литературен фронт, бр. 24, 29.6.1973. of modern scientific approaches to artistic works, against the use of literary terminology. Both T. Zhechev and K. Kuyumdzhiev did not accept that their opponent suggested one of the possible readings of Divi Razkazi, which implied an open dialogue with both their more traditional assessments and future interpretations. The analysis by T. Zhechev in that article remained in the context of the emblematic for his creative work thesis of preserving the national identity from foreign influences. He called for “healthy and fruitful aesthetic conservatism.” K. Kuyumdzhiev’s article Divi Razkazi i Tochnite Nauki (Wild Stories and Exact Sciences)406 was a brilliant polemic model built according to the classical laws of rhetoric. In it, he denied, ridiculedor provoked mistrust of the underlying problems posed by his opponent. K. Kuyumdzhdiev created a specific artistic alloy of facts and fictions, arguments and metaphors, and insisted that N. Georgiev’s article was “a critical disaster, a misunderstanding”. His pathetic speech was intended to categorically but also effectively expose the “scientific approach” through an undeniably original closer look at Divi Razkazi (Wild Stories). His reading was kind of a collage of arguments of a different order: national-psychological, historical, and emotional. He easily mixed cultural strata, reversed the meaning of key concepts from N. Georgiev’s thesis, and, at the same time, precisely constructed and convincingly defended his system of views. The book by N. Haytov was only a reason for the putting for discussion of one ripe problem of the Bulgarian literary studies: the imposing of a different, even alternative to the official, critical approach. That was part of the inevitable dialectic of aesthetic development. If, in the 1950s, dogmatic ideological criteria were applied to artistic works, in the 1960s, criticism had already won its right to artistic freedom and nuanced assessments; in the 1970s and 1980s, it was trying to distance itself from both the ideologemes and the essayist expression in order to impose an objectified scientific analysis of the artistic texts. This critical style, despite the categorical defence it received in the discussion, remained on the periphery of the cultural space. Without being forbidden, it was also not tolerated in the periodic press. The structural approach was not a conservative system of unchanging meanings; it was an intellectual 404 405 410 406 с. 23. Куюмджиев, К. „Диви разкази“ и „точните науки“. – Литературна мисъл, № 2, 1974, 411 challenge to the constraints of the socialist realism. It did not bring a quick glory to the critics who allowed themselves to use it; quite the contrary, they were rather outsiders in the professional hierarchy. Their theoretical inventions applied to classical works of the Bulgarian literature did not correspond to the conjunctural tastes of the time but became the founding signs of the literary interpretations of the 1980s and 1990s. That tendency to open up criticism to the future was still only a fictitious wish in the imposed political control over the literature during the period under review. E. T. 412 THE CRITICIZED ATTEMPT AT REHABILITATION OF THE CULTURAL HISTORY After decades of manipulation and deformation of our cultural tradition, in their books Mladostta na Bagryana (The Youth of Bagryana) and Dni Cherni i Beli (Black and White Days) (published in 1975), Blaga Dimitrova and Yordan Vassilev tried to restore some of the truth, to rehabilitate banned and forgotten personalities, journals, and intellectual circles. Both volumes were met with great readers’ interest but the official criticism forbade the books. The repressive campaign was reminiscent of allegedly passed times since the period of cult of personality in the 1950s. The scenario was the same: secret meetings of the Union of Bulgarian Writers, anonymous articles and an explicit condemnation of the “class-party approach” of the authors, which shifted the values in our historical past and created an “idealized idea of bourgeois art and culture workers”. The books by B. Dimitrova and Y. Vassilev told the long and very interesting life story of Elisaveta Bagryana. The storyline included many documentary facts that revealed cultural events unknown to the readers, showed the dynamics of the aesthetic processes, the free communication of Bulgarian artists with the world science and literature, their brilliant erudition and unselfish cultural mission. That was the first attempt after many years of ideological deformation to restore the authentic spiritual atmosphere of the early 20th century. For the first time after 1944, they allowed themselves to promote an objective creative portrait of Prof. Boyan Penev, to show his original personality of many talents. They denied the false qualifications that were accompanying the name and work of Vladimir Vassilev and, in violation of the imposed bans, highlighted the exclusive role of Zlatorog Journal and its collaborators in the cultural life of the country. With their books, B. Dimitrova and Y. Vassilev destroyed the mythologeme that the proletarian literature was the only valuable legacy of the past and that the socialist realism “saved” the Bulgarian poetry and prose from a long aesthetic vacuum. Without naming it directly, they proved that the political change interrupted an extremely 413 intense and fruitful spiritual life; that, with the denial of the tradition, the literature and the criticism not only lost their true national identity but also the opportunity to commeasure as equivalent in the European and world cultural context. Those were the unforgivable “sins” of the books. The fact that they became an event aggravated their destiny even more. An unwritten but also a not violated rule in the totalitarian societies was: the greater the interest in the works declared to be heretical, the more severe the consequences for their authors. The books by B. Dimitrova and Y. Vassilev were an indication of an emerging problem in the 1970s, which was particularly marked in the 1980s and 1990s. That was the necessity to speak about the past outside the imposed clichés, without a speculative selection of facts, in order to open up space for new knowledge that would correct the official notions of the literary history. The two works provoked that essential but also undesirable opportunity for catharsis by restoring many historical truths. Thus, however, they violated the right of the political system to create an ideal image, erased awkward writers from the collective memory, eliminated works, and forced cultural facts into oblivion. The authors of Mladostta na Bagryana (The Youth of Bagryana) and Dni Cherni i Beli (Black and White Days) made an effort to bring down the protective masks of the authorities by allowing themselves to write about the cultural past with the most substantiated and unauthorized freedom. They abandoned the trivial boring speech to represent the spiritual atmosphere, the aesthetic dynamics, the artistic colouring of the 1920s. But they did not skip the spicy details of the time; they did not miss out on its style as a daily lifestyle and a fashion to outline the complex personal relationships. Not only Bagryana’s life but also the cultural and the political events were superimposed in a colourful kaleidoscope, causing romantic memories and sad nostalgia. That was very clearly seen in the only positive public review of the first volume. In his essay Mladostta na Bagryana (The Youth of Bagryana) broadcasted on radio Free Europe on 15.07.1975, Georgi Markov put the emphasis on the feeling of truth, on the atmosphere of integrity restored by the book. As a respectable quality, he pointed out that the two authors “had done a great deal and had written their book with great love, which was rare for our country. As if they responded with a pure impulse to the pure Bulgaria.” That attempt to bring out purity and truth as essential signs of the artistic approach to cultural history obviously attracted readers tired of clichés and didactics as the book was very soon not available. The authentic biography of the Bulgarian culture turned out to be too dangerous and, therefore, once again had to be cynically manipulated. Respecting the basic principle of the totalitarian societies, i.e. more important are the convenient and not the true facts, the Communist ideology assigned the works of art to be the most important mediator in its socio-cultural communication. The harmony between the authority and the literature actually made senseless the universal mission of the writer to produce the truth about the philosophical, aesthetic, and ideological meanings of the time. Disharmony meant shaking the myth of smooth existence of the system. By tolerating hypocrisy, the totalitarian society provoked the alienation of the artists. It could be caused by fear or passivity but could also take the form of a strong resistance. The system then punisheded, in a most brutal way, everyone who had violated its system of rules and prohibitions. At the phraseological level, it was expressed by the enemy of the people / homeland stigma, which sometimes led to fatal existential consequences. An emblematic example for Bulgaria was the murder of Georgi Markov (11.09.1978). His distant look from outside analyzed the cultural and political reality in Bulgaria from the position of an accuser who personified the responsibility. In this case, not in the space of fiction but in that of existence, the birth of the work Zadochni Reportazhi za Bulgaria (In Absentia Reports of Bulgaria) predetermined the death of its author if we may so paraphrase the famous thought of Roland Bartes. That case was not a precedent but only a tragic confirmation of the already established conclusion that the right to free choice during the period under consideration in our country carried too many risks. 414 415 E. T. THE LITERATURE AS AN APOSTROPHE OF THE IDEOLOGICAL PATTERN In the years of the socialism, the obligatory artistic method abolished aesthetic ambiguity, and the ideological censorship unified the newspapers and journals. The most prominent sign was their names, and the timid inclusion of an artistic text that violated the ideological norms became a cultural event but also a cause for sanctions (for example, the suspension of the Literaturni Novini Newspaper (1961–1964). In the late 1980s, in the so-called period of publicity and reorganization, there was tension between the ideologically true publications and those trying to take full advantage of the new, expanded possibilities of free speech. They were becoming not only an object of increased reader’s interest but also of political discourse. The free speech materialized the truth about the past but also the present; it insisted on objectivity by crossing many points of view. Narodna Kultura, Fakel, and Savremennik became that very space in which the literature and the journalism met as well as the documentaryartistic image of our cultural history and the projections of the future. Their distant predecessor was Literaturna Misal Journal. In 1975, it disturbed the monotonous serenity through a breakthrough in the ideological solidity of the public space. The editorial organized an unconventional conversation about Poetry in 1974 and the Critical Echo of It that respected with its honest and professional analyticism. The circle of participants was too broad: critics were invited of different generations and with various interpretative approaches to literature. The discussion, led by Prof. Stoyan Karolev, was markedly freed from predefined frames and models. The participants in the dialogue insisted on the non-inclusion of the authors and the books in pre-designated hierarchical schemes and avoided unambiguous qualifications of the artistic phenomena. It was really an open communicative situation where they spoke freely and the communication did not look for false oppositions. There were many opinions in the discussion field which, in their approaching or 416 distancing, created the authentic picture of the Bulgarian poetry at that time. The spirit of that conversation was creative as it carried out a fruitful synthesis between concreteness and perspective, the tradition and the present, the theoretical understanding of trends and the current ideo-aesthetic processes. The twelve participants (except Hristo Yordanov) did not feel bound by ideological dogmas. In a more obvious or disguised manner, they criticized typical vicious aspects of the literary life. The lack of self-censorship as well as the overwhelmed fear of political censorship presupposed the outline of the authentic picture of the Bulgarian literature, with the emphasis being put on emblematic books and authors. In the discussion field, along with the prearranged speeches, a number of improvisations were overlapping, which emphasized the freedom of speech aimed not so much at the opposing of more or less known answers but at the formulating of many new questions. The participants had the ability to ask questions and, through them, to question what was established, to produce different strategies to overcome vicious situations and negative phenomena. This exactly was what distinguished the conversation in question from many other literary events that were noisier and more representative but always marked by the sign of the official demagogy. The tolerant and not obliged to comply style, the unchanged in a manipulative way publications gave uniqueness to the discussion. It was felt by the participants themselves and they did not fail to thank the journal that allowed them to make a conscious and free choice in their preferences, to discuss and evaluate according to their own beliefs and aesthetic tastes. In the course of the conversation, public secrets were uttered and strictly protected regulations were violated. And those were: canonizing poets holding high positions in the Union (the Union of Bulgarian Writers) or the party hierarchy; custom positive/negative reviews that triggered praising or criticizing campaigns; complex prohibition procedures that postponed and, sometimes, were the reason for the non-occurrence of poetic/prosaic debuts; the fear of broadening the thematic boundaries and genre experiments. About all those and a number of other power techniques of obedience and dependence, which ultimately aimed at provoking a lasting effect of obedience, spoke Boris Delchev, Atanas Natev, Ivan Sarandev, Atanas Svilenov. It was not accidental that they aimed to defeat them. During that period, the authority strictly sanctioned 27. Bulgarian 20th Century... 417 any apparent or suspected deviation from the class-party positions54. But where there are limitations, resistance also arises. Only the forms in which it manifests are different. Atanas Natev chose the irony and not the critical templates and the absurd in their meaningless slogans: “To start the fire of competition in water construction.” “Today’s poetry books contain one or two poems about the Haidouk Balkan, one or two poems about the fertile native field and the rising rye, and all the other poems deal with what is actually happening or can happen in the rye.” To this “ideological-thematic anaemia” to which the criticism was condescendingly tolerant, he opposed the lyrical apostrophe. By this term, A. Natev affirmed the right of the poetry to revolt against the aesthetic models imposed, to provoke intellectual game, having pushed itself away from the unambiguous visibility of the meanings and taken the risk to enter the dramatic labyrinths of the self-knowledge. As emblematic examples of a lyrical apostrophe, he marked the poetic experiments of Kalina Kovacheva qualified by the critics as mannered ones and the poetry book Kak (How) by Blaga Dimitrova. On the playground of interpretation, A. Natev did not impose the civil poetry – lyrical apostrophe opposition. He only wisely exposed the banality and distanced himself from the critical templates, and was not forgiven for that. In the Literaruren Front’s introductory article – Civil Poetry – Our Great Conquest407–, his speech was paid greatest attention. The text by an anonymous author/ authors (of course, through the literary rumour, the mystery of the authorship was immediately solved), drew direct links – in meaning and consequences – with the so denied but still vivid dogmatism of the 1950s. The term introduced by A. Natev provoked the “sacred” anger of those protecting the purity of the socialist-realistic methodology as the civil socially engaged party poetry could not fit within its narrow frameworks. The claim that he was admirer of a “vague” imagery can, nevertheless, be regarded as a counter-argument of aesthetic order if it was not mere preparation for the essential accusations. Natev was seen as a literary scholar who was “completely corrupted”, “just lost in the methodological postulates of the Western aesthetics.” In that case, the words did not produce meaning; as Sartre said, “they caused destruction and defeat”. One of the unpredicted but very important effects of such campaigns was the noisy promotion of a problem, an author or a work that had become the object of malicious criticism. In societies where the possible freedoms were much less than the bans imposed, engaging in such controversial confrontations played the role of creative advertisement but reflected too badly on one’s personal biography. The attempt to objectively analyze the real situation in the modern Bulgarian poetry surprisingly appeared to threaten the sacred trinity: “class criteria”, “party-mindedness”, and “nationality”. The problematization of the norms, the questioning of the creative criteria, and the power hierarchies built by the formal artistic method implied existential courage to make more successful and not so successful attempts to publish alternative works of art that created an invisible, yet authoritative, literary canon. In the 1980s and 1990s, there were different patterns of creative and personal resistance and our aim is not their comprehensive or chronologically consistent tracking but only the marking of some gestures inevitably laid between the spiritual and physical survival and the intellectual stamina. The poetry of K. Pavlov, Nikolai Kantchev, Binyo Ivanov, Ivan Tsanev, Ekaterina Yosifova, Ivan Teofilov, and Hristo Fotev became a standard for the preservation of human dignity and a measure of artist’s responsibility in a time that was not free. As individuals, they remained unencumbered and unchanged by the pressure of the time as they believed that poetry was a choice in which the dimensions of the personal, as morality and beliefs, were more powerful than the temptations of fame and the disciplinary coercion of ideology and politics. They used complicated allegorical and mythological archetypes and meaningful biblical symbols (symbolic images), ironically weakened the clichés established, spoke without ritual pathetic about the little things, loneliness, pain, and love of a person doomed to doubt and unbelief. E. T. 407 Гражданската поезия – голямото наше завоевание. – Литературен фронт, бр. 43, 23.10.1975. 418 419 POLITICAL PROPAGANDA OR THE ETERNAL IN ART Two Impossible Stories The ideas of historicising/museumifying of art from the time of the communist regime, which have gradually been formed, are of two types. According to one of the types, the history / narrative in the museum has to present, in an exposing manner, what was created in the communist period as a replacement of the notion of “creativity” with a comprehensive ideology of visual propaganda. It is only necessary to display works of art, expressive enough, which do not need any discussion. Paintings and sculptures, shown in joint art exhibitions at the end of the 1940s and the first half of the 1950s, in the context of the undoubtedly totalitarian rule, seem suitable for this purpose. However, such a decision causes some difficulty due to the brevity of the period in comparison with the usual length of an artist’s career. What happened in the work of the creators of those art pieces before and after that period? Some of them were key figures of modern art in Bulgaria in the 1920s and 1930s. This type has another option, namely to present works from the whole period up to 1989: from the field of direct visual propaganda (monumental works, political posters, etc.), or of the thematic works commissioned to the Joint Art Exhibitions. In this case, the difficulty arises from the parallel practices in the work of the same artist, an example of which are the many protagonists of the new wave after the declared de-Stalinization, of the so-called “April generation”: Velichko Minekov, Valentin Starchev, Yoan Leviev, Dimitar Kirov, Svetlin Rusev and others. Which of their works should be exhibited and which should not? According to the second type, the historicising narrative should show certain works from the communist period as artistic achievements, which 420 are valid and “eternal” outside the contexts. In this case, it is expected that the works “will speak for themselves” and will convince today’s public that their creation was possible irrespective of the conditions and circumstances in the specific environment. The examples are works from all artistic types and fields. “The praise” of the artistic achievements as well as “the exposure” of the totalitarian practices outside the contexts – in Bulgaria, the Balkans, in the “Soviet” bloc, and in the West – hinder historical narratives. A view on the historicising and expositional presentation of art from the recent past in the museum can be formed and grounded within the horizon of wide humanitarian discussions, combined with the specific approaches of contemporary art history. The comparisons involve the reader / viewer as a participant, stir their imagination and form their understanding. Not a single one but competing views in an environment which attempts some self-reflection, not a one-way didactics but a close-up study and interpretation in a workshop for ideas can take us out of the vicious circle of the two equally impossible histories. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the “art” from the communist period is often literally, not conceptually, left without a “history”: there were shown albums without texts, exhibitions without a curator’s statement, and monographs on artists out of any context. Studies on art institutions (the Union of Bulgarian Artists; art galleries – the national projects of the Institute of Culture, etc.) have been done in historical monographs and separate articles.408 However, the catalogues of a long series of representative jubilee exhibitions of artists whose career entirely or partially developed during the communist rule as well as museums exhibitions lack such a field of research. The distinctions and interlacing of the social circumstances and the impact of the works have started to be discussed in curators’ 409 exhibitions in the recent years . 408 Avramov, Dimitar. Chronicle of a Dramatic Decade. Bulgarian Art 1955–1965. Sofia. Nauka i izkustvo. 1994; Elenkov, Ivan. Culture Front. – Sofia: Institute for Studies on the Recent Past, 2008; Kalinova, Evgeniya. Bulgarian Culture and the Political Imperative 1944–1989. – Sofia: Pradigma, 2011. In 2002 Chavdar Popov’s book “Totalitarian Art. Ideology, organisation, practice” was published and became part of the curriculum and the bibliography list on this period although it does not discuss the Bulgarian case. 409 See Forms of Resistance 1944–1985. An exhibition and catalogue. Curator Krasimir Iliev. Sofia City Art Gallery, 2016, March – May. 421 It is not uncommon for the same works, which we once saw in another context – in thematic and jubilee joint art exhibitions, reproduced in the press, included in books and albums, creating the desired “history of art”410, to appear today deprived of their histories, as part of a single, uninterrupted narrative of the “eternal in art”. The Archives Today’s views on art from the period of the communist regime in Bulgaria are, by necessity, based on art and non-art archives. The establishment of the Art Archives as separate collections in libraries and in joint archives came as a result of the development of museums and academies as well as of the development of art history as an academic discipline. In Bulgaria, prior to World War II, somewhat small collections of an archive character but without a special autonomous status were made in the National Museum and the Museum of the Art Academy. Personal archives of artists have been submitted to the National Art Gallery over the years but they are not open to researchers. Publicly accessible archives on modern art in Bulgaria are to be found in the Central State Archives. These are personal funds and archives of separate institutions, among which the Fine Arts Academy and the Union of Bulgarian Artists. The institutional archives submitted are mainly from the period up to the 1970s. Personal funds are also stored in the archives of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. In most cases they were given through the Art Studies Institute, today’s Art Studies Institute at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The rest of the archives of different character on which research is based has unregulated origins and is often not described and not processed according to the standards of archivistics. In the 20th century a massive number of contemporary documents poured into the archives in Europe. In Bulgaria, the State Archives were founded during the communist regime, in 1951. After World War II, the dispute and the “fight” for the possession and control over the archives were exacerbated. In Bulgaria, the funds of the Central State Archives, among which those of particular interest for the research of modern art have become partially accessible since the mid 1980s and the regulations governing their use have been liberalized since 1989. Today, the activity of archive institutions involves not only the passive description and storage but also the active search for archive materials. With the growing interest in the artistic works and practices as well as with the development of the methods of their research the volume and the cultural diversity of the archives connected with art expand and the number of researchers using them grows. Today the history of art deals with the social, economic and intellectual environment in which the works of art were created. Studies rely on documentary sources from different fields. For the period in question the institutional archives are of paramount importance (together with the personal archives). In the contextual studies of the artistic practices in the epoch of the communist regime, what is of interest is the archives of different committees responsible for assigning contracts and purchases; of the Culture Department of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party; of the publishers of specialised literature in this field, etc. Hence the impossibility to define the strict borders of the domain of art archives. The regulation of the archives and their accessibility can be a power resource in creating a publicly valid knowledge. The attitude to archives and, in particular, to the artistic archives, together with other types of behaviour today, expresses the public interest (or the lack of such) in the research and the formation of views in this field. Exhibition Art. Joint Art Exhibitions – the Most Prestigious Art Salons 410 Among them is the series of Bulgarski Hudozhnik publishing house. Contemporary Bulgarian Painting, 1969; Contemporary Bulgarian Sculpture, 1971; Contemporary Bulgarian Graphic Art, 1971 and others. The discussion of the artistic practices from the time of the communist rule in Bulgaria requires paying attention to the most prestigious art salons. In ideological terms, the Joint Art Exhibitions (JAE) established the thematic and form and style limits to what was tolerated and accepted as well as the hierarchy in the artistic milieus. A considerable part of 422 423 the JAE over the decades set a theme which formulated the tasks and expectations of the authorities in connection with painting, graphic arts and sculpture, i.e. the arts exhibited in the salons. Among those themes were: Man and Labour, Man and Art, Earth and People, Peace and the Artist, Heroism, Gratitude and Friendship as well as dedications to the anniversaries of the October Revolution from 1917 in Russia and of the congresses of the Bulgarian Communist Party. In the 1970s the number of JAE held in major cities grew. There were also joint exhibitions based on the type and genre of art: water colour, small-scale sculpture and drawing, painting – small-scale, landscape, portrait, etc. In the organisation of the artistic life in the communist period, the exhibition and especially the joint exhibition was the key meeting point for socializing for those involved in arts. Exhibition art or art created for those officially supported and controlled exhibitions had diverse consequences. There was an unprecedented increase in the annual number of exhibitions and the places where they were held. There was also an increase in the number of artists in Bulgaria, especially in the second half of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s. The system of state and public contracts and business trips guaranteed the creation of exhibition art. That art was not targeted at a specific audience either in the country or abroad. However, it is not homogeneous and outside the situation of its creation it requires some differentiation of its significance, which was mostly ephemeral, but it could also go beyond the specific circumstances. If we are to mention some basic artistic characteristics of the works intended for the exhibition halls, we have to mention some missing tendencies too. Since the 1960s, artists have developed their mastery of the means of expression (texture, colour, techniques) in graphic arts, painting and sculpture. A bit later, they acquired different modes of the image rhetorics: metaphors, symbols, metamorphoses, simultaneity, naivism, etc. In their endeavours, artists usually re-worked the modernist experience from the beginning of the 20th century. In Bulgaria, unlike in other East-European countries, there were no practices of socializing the works of conceptual character in any artistic forms or media whatsoever. In 1984, Izkustvo journal published a jubilee issue “40 Years of Socialist Art”411. The wording “socialist art” places all artistic works and practices from the time of the communist regime under a common denominator and unquestionably states the merits of the authorities. Within that period, “socialist art” is a term which manipulatively attributes a similarity and common qualities to all artefacts. Outside Exhibition Art It is hard to imagine those artistic works and practices of Bulgarian artists which did not appear in the exhibitions controlled by the authorities. Today, in some studies, and sometimes in the exhibition halls, we can find works that come as a surprise and change the common views on the period. Where did they meet their audience in a situation lacking in private galleries? Who bought them in a society with no private trade? Or, might these works have remained in the ateliers, accessible only for the artist’s friends? 411 424 Izkustvo. The theme of the issue: 40 Years of Socialist Art, 1984, № 8. 425 The passing time of the Iron Curtain – the second half of the 1980s Nikola Daskalov. Two Compositions. 1957–1958. Private Collection Some of these questions can be answered by the personal narratives of the artists who did not exhibit in the official exhibitions in that period. Among them are Lika Yanko, Kiril Petrov, Vasil Ivanov, Slavka Deneva, and Ivan Georgiev – the Rembrandt. The archives (especially the private ones) are crucial for the formation of wider notions and views. In cases of parallel practices – officially shown and alternative works of the same artist – it is the archives again and the wider contextualization that will make it possible to study closely and interpret the works which hinder the historical narrative. Ziatin Nuriav. Two sculptures from the cycle „Those who stayed at their land“. 1987, basalt. Art Gallery Dobrich In Bulgaria in the second half of the 1980s, there appeared artistic412 manifestations against the modernist aestheticism. Artistic groups and societies outside the Union of Bulgarian Artists were established: DE (Dynamic Aestheticization, 1984, Sofia), The City (1986, Sofia), and Edge (1989, Plovdiv). Among those, The City group was especially well presented in the media. We need to point out that for Bulgaria, which was within the sphere of the Soviet political influence until the fall of the Berlin Wall, the coming of power of Mikhail Gorbachev with his project of “perestroika” had an impact on the relative liberalisation of the artistic life. The trips and contacts changed the artistic predispositions in anticipation of the end of an epoch of forced constraints. Artists from South-Eastern Europe permanently settled in lively cultural centres in the West and gained international popularity. The Greek artist Takis lived and worked in Paris; Janis Kunelis went to Rome. The Bulgarian Christo settled down first in Vienna, then in Paris and finally in New York in 1964, where he worked together with his wife Jeanne-Claude. Paul Neagu from Bucharest settled down in the UK, Marina Abramovich left former Yugoslavia and settled down in Amsterdam. Other artists like Braco Dimitrijević and Gülsün Karamustafa held exhibitions in big art centres without permanently settling down there. Ayşe Erkmen lives and works in Istanbul and Berlin. There are many more examples of the growing mobility of artists from the region. Together with the differences and the peculiarities in this decade in South-Eastern and Eastern Europe there appeared a milieu of supranational artistic contacts and interactions413 The time of the Iron Curtain was passing. I.G. 412 N-forms. Reconstructions and interpretations. Catalogue. Soros Art Centre. – Sofia, 1994. Stefanov, Svilen. Avant-garde and Norm. – Sofia: Agata-А, 2003, p. 35–66. 413 Contexts – European and East-European – are briefly presented by Svilen Stefanov in his book “Innovations in Bulgarian Art from the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century”, in the chapters: “The Influence of the West on the Changes in Art in East-European Countries and Bulgaria”, p. 8–10 and “Changes in the Artistic Status Quo of the Countries in East Europe”, p. 10–14. 426 427 NEW TRENDS IN THE FIELD OF MUSIC Similarly to other socialist countries during the 1960s, the music in Bulgaria at that time was associated with the “defrosting” process and the hope for renewal that overtook the artistic intelligentsia following the April Plenary in 1956. The notion of art, which must be socialist, national, and modern at the same time, reflected in some institutional policies and set horizons, which would, to some extent, determine the development in the sphere of musical art. The relative change in the country’s general climate (though inconsistent, albeit often misleading or even compromising in a number of ways) found expression in the attempts as well as the indisputable achievements in the introduction of new, alternative ideas both in the field of music avant-garde and in the seemingly unpretentious sphere of popular music. As early as in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Oratoriya za Nasheto Vreme (Oratory for Our Times), (1961); the opera Antigona 43 (1963) by L. Pipkov; the IV symphony (1958) by A. Raychev; Concert for a Quartet and a String Orchestra (1963) by M. Goleminov; the opera Yulska Nosht (July Night) by P. Hadzhiev (1964) were created, all of those works seeking a meaningful support in the use of contemporary compositional approaches. The review of chamber and symphonic music in 1959 and the Bulgarian Music Week in 1960, on the other hand, posed questions about the character and perspectives of the musical language and the necessity of expanding the intonation sphere of the Bulgarian music as a natural factor in the pan-European music process. Among the representatives of the younger generation, leading artists with avant-garde ideas in the new Bulgarian music, influenced by conceptual novelties of the European music strands, such as dodecaphonia, atonalism, and aleatory music, were Lazar Nikolov, Konstantin Iliev, Ivan Spasov, Vassil Kazandjiev, Simeon Pironkov, Krassimir Kyurkchiysky, Alexander Raychev. Between the 1950s and 1970s, the music avant-garde in Bulgaria is also an expression of nonconformism in terms of dogmatism and the simplistic interpretation of artistic methods in the creation of music. In the 1960s, the works of L. Nikolov were noticed not only in Bulgaria but also abroad. In fact, he was the first composer whose work sounded at the prestigious Warsaw Autumn Contemporary Music Festival (1962). His Sonata for Flute and Piano (1962), which partly used dodecaphony, revealed an affinity for atonal thinking. L. Nikolov also dealt with aspects of sonoristics. In String Quartet No. 1 Virtuozni Igri (Virtuoso Games), (1964–1965), for example, the composer paid particular attention to the timbre expression. Similar searches were also seen in his one-part Symphony for 13 String Instruments (1965), String Quartet No. 2 Meditatsii (Meditations), (1970–1971), influenced to some extent by the works by D. Ligety, K. Penderecki, and Lutoslawski. Divertimento Concertante (1968, music for chamber orchestra); Prikovaniyat Prometey (The Chained Prometheus), (1969); Pianistichni Otblyasatsi (Pianistic Glares), (1970). Closely connected with the formation of the Bulgarian musical avant-garde was the composer Konstantin Iliev. He wrote two operas and a ballet, cantata-oratorio works; six symphonies and other works for symphony orchestra, 7 Tempi concertati for various instrumental ensembles; four string quartets; brass quintet and other chamber-ensemble and solo music; five songs for voice and piano; choral music for different bands, film and theatre music. The work of Vassil Kazandjiev was connected with the new trends in the Bulgarian music. Author of numerous musical works, including five symphonies, various works for symphony orchestra, music to films and theatrical productions, choir and chamber works. His music looked for the 428 429 Ivan Spasov (1934–1996) Krassimir Kyurkchiysky (1936–2011) In 2003, a monograph was published dedicated to the life and work of the composer Lazar Nikolov breadth of the generous, colourful sound and, often, the challenges of the improvisisonal thinking. Among the pronounced representatives of the avant-garde tendencies in the contemporary Bulgarian music was the composer Ivan Spassov. Extraordinary popular were his female choir songs, with which distinguished Bulgarian choir ensembles won a number of awards in prestigious international competitions. In his choral and instrumental work, the folk melodic and its rich ornamentation and rhythmic diversity were subjected to original authorial transformation through the freedom of aleatoriality, improvisation, and other contemporary composing techniques. His choral songs were among the most representative repertoires of the Bulgarian choirs and formed a new style of performance that received a high Vassil Kazandjiev (b. 1934) 430 international rating. His vocal-orchestral works from the 80’s and 90’s stood out with particular emotional depth of the experience. Like a number of successful colleagues of his, Krassimir Kyurkchiysky studied composition with Pancho Vladigerov. His creative contribution to the new Bulgarian music was not unrelated to his work as a conductor at Filip Kutev State Folk Song and Dance Ensemble and the Folk S Bulgarian choir songs: Pilentse Pee, Govori (A Bird Is Singing, Talking); Bre, Petrunko, the ballet Koziyat Rog (The Goat Horn), Concerto for Piano and Orchestra (1958), (1958), Suite for Cello and Piano (1960), the cantata Paisiy Hilendarski (1962), Symphonia Concertante for Cello and Orchestra, (1963), Balada za Avtoportreta (Self-portret Ballad) (1964), Concerto for Piano and Orchestra (1979), Privetstvena Uvertyura (Welcome Overture), (1980) and others. Remarkable creative achievement was his String Quartet (1959), awarded the Grand Prize for the best composition by foreign author during the Paris Music Weeks (1966). A number of initiatives in the 1960s stimulated the development of popular music in Bulgaria. At the end of 1959, the Bulgarian National Television was launched. In 1960, the Bulgarian National Radio’s pop music orchestra was established. Among the first conductors of the orchestra were Zhul Levy, Emil Georgiev, Milcho Leviev, and in the quite lengthy period between 1965 and 1988 – Vili Kazasyan. The Golden Orpheus International Pop Song Festival was held from the mid-1960s. The Bulgarian State Conservatory opened a faculty for jazz and pop music in 1968. A new policy on legal opportunities for work abroad was also introduced. A number 431 of musicians took advantage of the opportunity to play in clubs, especially in the Scandinavian countries, which, in some way, stimulated the intercultural exchange. Gradually, the areas of pop, jazz, and rock music were profiled. The pop song adopted different intonational and technological influences but remained true, above all, to the pleasant melody, “big voice”, and affinity to the sentimental ballad expression. The singing profiles of Lili Ivanova, Emil Dimitrov, Pasha Hristova, Yordanka Hristova, Boyan Ivanov, Boris Godjunov, Biser Kirov, Mihail Belchev, and Bogdana Karadocheva stood out in the 1960s. An interesting nuance in the pop music was the style of Maria Neikova, inspired by the Rhodope folk song, projected for example in the popular title song Dvama from the film Koziyat Rog (The Goats Horn) (directed by Metodi Antonov, 1972). Among the particularly successful pop singers were also Margarita Hranova, Mimi Ivanova, Orlin Goranov, Georgi Hristov, and others. *** Mihail Belchev and Mariya Neykova during a concert Pancho Vladigerov with his students. Standing (from left to right): Ivan Drenikov, Krassimir Kyurkchiysky, Julia Tsenova, Milko Kolarov, Aleksandar Yosifov, Tsvetan Tsvetanov, Georgi Kostov; sitting: Vassil Kazandjiev, Aleksandar Raychev, Pancho Vladigerov, Pencho Stoyanov. In the 1970s and 1980s, singers such as Camellia Todorova, Evelina Balcheva, and Petya Boyklieva cultivated a taste for jazz vocal subtleties. Also distinguished was the artistic talent of Vassil Naydenov, who adapted in his Bulgarian song repertoire features related to the potential of R&B stylistics. Lili Ivanova 432 28. Bulgarian 20th Century... 433 Their own place in the pop music had vocal groups such as Do, re, my, fa; Studio V, Tonika, Tramvay No. 5, Trayana (with the intriguing acapella arrangements of folk melodies in the spirit of trends related to the art of the vocal formations Swingle Singers and Manhattan Transfer. Among the most productive authors of pop songs in the 1960s were Yosif Tsankov, Toncho Russev, Peter Stupel, Atanas Boyadjiev, Boris Karadimchev, Angel Zaberski, and, later, Alexander Brzitzov, Nayden Andreev, Stefan Diomov, Mitko Shterev, Razvigor Popov, and Haygashod Agasian. The songs of the composer Stefan Dimitrov created in the 1980s and 1990s stood out with particularly original ideas. A qualitatively new development in the 1960s marked the jazz in Bulgaria. A new generation of musicians discovered perspectives in the free music. Among them was Milcho Leviev who stood out with the novelties in the music he was making for years as well as with his views, the result of an open, moving, unencumbered with prejudices and canons creative self-consciousness. “I have always believed that art is freedom, not a prohibition!,” he wrote in a letter to a friend. Words that synthesize the creed of an artist who dared to reject the dictate of stiffening ideologemes, to pave the way for unpredictable spaces in the contemporary musical thinking. It was no coincidence that connoisseurs said, “Milcho is all music! He can play anything, at any time, in any tonality!” All of those words that perceived his charisma and irresistible flight to the play in music generously illuminated with bright humour, exquisite elegance, seemingly boyish negligence, and sophisticated poetics. His uninterrupted invention bore the native breath of the Plovdiv bohemian but also the unspeakable signs of cosmopolitanism in art in the second half of the 20th century. A composer with awakened intuition and communicative aesthetic orientation, a magnetic pianist and improvisator, a leader of musical formations in the country and beyond the ocean, who had recognized the “33/16” life, he, not in vain, embraced and developed the idea of fusion between elements of classics, folklore, and jazz, as if adding a sequential organic touch in the irresistible crossing of the musical languages. His creative personality stood out at a time when jazz was seen in Bulgaria as heresy music and freedom in musical thinking seemed rather a frivolous work for a musician educated by the rules of “strict” art. But his artistic maturity in the 1950s also encountered circumstances beyond the formal prescriptions of “good” music. For example, his communication at the Sofia Conservatoire with Pancho Vladigerov who taught him to compose. Informal lessons were also important: Willis Conover’s jazz news broadcasts on Voice of America Radio, which later on in the 80s dedicated programmes to M. Leviev and his music. Not irrelevant was also the artistic environment in his native Plovdiv, which somehow did not care about the general stagnation at that time, asserted the “taste for life” but also keenly kept the senses awake for the veiled information, especially as regards the contemporary world of contemporary art beyond the Iron curtain. It was no coincidence that that environment, a conduit of free thought and behavioural naturalness, cultivated iconic artists in the field of other arts, too. In the 1960s, the Plovdiv group of artists, among whom Yoan Leviev (brother of M. Leviev), Georgi Bozhilov-Slona, Dimitar Kirov and other prominent painters, set the face of the “new wave” in the visual arts. When in 1970 he left Bulgaria illegally (not unrelated to the disappointments after the failure of the Czech events of 1968), M. Leviev, who had just turned 33, was already a significant, prosperous figure in the Bulgarian music. He had produced a number of works in different genres. His early opuses (Toccatina for Piano, awarded at the International Youth Composition Contest in Vienna in 1959, Sonata for Violin and Piano, 1957, String Quartet in Memory of Hindemith, 1960) marked a 434 435 Cover of album with songs performed by Vassil Naydenov Milcho Leviev (b. 1937) successful perspective on the horizon of chamber music. He wrote mainly theatrical and film music. He also had innovative ideas in the flexible sphere of jazz, realizing that this was not just music but something more: a special mentality, a particular attitude towards the “things of life”. His work became an expression not only of the quest for emancipation of jazz as a symbol of the “forbidden fruit” but also of the thriving then idea of aesthetic and civil nonconformism towards the falsity in life and art. An important piece here was the play-grotesque Antivals (1966). Also indicative was his music to the satirical film series Focus, initiated by Radoy Ralin in 1963, but stopped shortly after two years for “political incorrectness.” In the 1960s, M. Leviev wrote Studia, Blues in 9, Blues in 10, Blues in 12, composed for the Big Band of the Bulgarian Radio and the legendary quartet Jazz Focus 65 – all of these pieces with an original aesthetic direction that pushed even strange aspects of the otherwise traditional interest in the “crooked” rhythms in the Bulgarian folklore, now woven into a new sensibility and a new improvisation music making, rich in surprising ingenious ideas. It was precisely that direction, defined as folkjazz, that did not remain unnoticed at the Montreux Festival in 1967, when the Jazz Focus 65 quartet won the prestigious award of the critics: the first international recognition of the Bulgarian jazz. That exactly direction stimulated his later work with the avant-garde American jazz musician Don Ellis and his orchestra. And the famous Bulgarian Boogie (on the popular theme of Krivo Sadovsko Horo), known in at least some amazing solo and ensemble arrangements, acquired the halo of an emblematic sign of the Bulgarian contribution to the modern jazz. 436 Even only in the context of the Bulgarian experience in the 1960s, M. Leviev’s contribution, both as an author and an energetic leader able to stimulate the individual improvisational potential of the musicians he worked with, was related not only to the immense qualitative jump in the recognition of jazz as a specific type of music. His ideas, backed up with remarkable musical erudition, pushed a trend that continued to build the notion of freedom and adventure spirit in interpretation, enthused with the ease and virtuosity of a short-lived live experience, relied on diverse conventions but also challenged them, mastered styles and professional techniques but also escaped from the regulatory shadow of academic music writing. In the 1970s and 1980s, the music scene across the ocean met him with a number of elite jazz musicians. Don Ellis was like a brother to him and an art associate. He had the pleasure to play with Art Pepper, Billy Cobham, Dave Holland, Roy Haynes, Ray Pizzi, Charlie Hayden, Ray Brown... He made music with Manhattan Transfer, Al Jarreau, Carmen McRae... He co-founded the remarkable fusion quartet Free Flight announced as the band of the year by the Los Angeles Times in 1982. He composed large-scale works: Sympho-Jazz Sketches, Rhapsody Orpheus, Isaac’s Touchstone. He performed numerous tours in the USA, Europe, and Japan. His stunning improvisation solos, whether on a concert scene or in a club, invariably attracted attention with the magnificently played musical finds and the amazing unpredictable reversal of musical ideas. The cover of the album, recorded live during the first concert of Jazz Focus 65 feat. Milcho Leviev (piano), Simeon Shterev (flute), Lyubomir Mitsov (contrabass), Petar Slavov (percussion), 1966 437 Since 1970, for twenty years until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, his music was banned for public performance and broadcasting in Bulgaria. The ban did not drop even after he was allowed to play in Bulgaria at the annual jazz meeting in 1980. But the relationship with his Bulgarian friends, melomans, and followers did not break. His messages reached them informally. His overseas recordings were secretly spread from hand to hand. As the jazz critic Yordan Rupchev wrote, his name became a legend and he became an invisible teacher for many. It was no wonder that later in the 1990s his intensive contacts with Bulgarian musicians opened up new space and new ideas for joint creative projects: Zelenata Kashta (Green House) Cantata for 12 Voices and Jazz Trio, Song of the Clown for Jazz Quintet and a Reader, Quiet Love for Voice and Piano, Patuvane v Dva Svyata for Big Band and Women’s Folk Choir. As for the emergence of rock music in Bulgaria, the story here reminds us that in its relatively short but dynamic route the rock music created a variety of styles. After the boom of the American rock’n’roll in the mid-1950s and especially after the “British invasion” of the early 1960s, the rock music was subjected to new impulses for development, which created new syntheses and directions. Like other musical streams on a world scale, rock was not Cult company in Plovdiv, 1980; Standing (from left to right): Yoan Leviev, Georgi Bozhilov-Slona, Milcho Leviev, Lea Ivanova, Radoy Ralin, Vesselin Nikolov; Seating: Georgi Penkov-Johnny, Ognyan Videv a homogeneous phenomenon but rather a set of changing practices modelled by the time and place of their operation. That, on its part, explained why some critics said that “... the rock era was born around 1956 with the world euphoria around Elvis Presley, reached its peak around 1967 with the Beatles album Sgt. Pepper, and declined around 1976 with the appearance of the Sex Pistols band.”414 Such assertions were justified solely from the point of view of a particular rock narrative (in that case, the one summarizing the Anglo-American development), whose final stage was associated with the decline of the inherent oppositional spirit of rock messages. However, as other researchers claimed, “... the rumours of the death of rock were greatly exaggerated since rock manifestations continued their transformations after 1976 but moved in different directions of the planet, acquiring new meaning in different situations”.415 In that sense, rock passed through the experience of not only a few generations but also through the specifics of various culturally distinct spaces. And while rock was in decline for certain environments (for example in the UK or America), for communities in other regions, it continued to construct alternative sensitivity. As Wicke noted, “... rock in the former GDR in the 1980s seemed to be far more revolutionary than in the United States in the mid-1950s.”416 In that sense, rock, according to Grossberg, “... has not disappeared; it just went somewhere else.”417 An area where rock experienced its peak was Bulgaria in the early 1980s although the history of the Bulgarian rock began much earlier in the early 1960s. The romantic ideas of the counter-culture at that time set roots among the Bulgarian youth, transformed to a large extent in accordance with the “Bulgarian situation”, and were directed against the dominant hegemonies at that time; they, in turn, exercised censorship on music in a number of respects and, rather, on the informal behavioural bias of the forming rock community in Bulgaria. In spite of the oversight, prohibitions, and centralized regulatory measures, the rock bands that emerged at that time got to the fruits of the British rock invasion as well as to the previous rock’n’roll repertoire of the 1950s motivated by the releasing energy perceived, seeking refuge for the teenage Frith, Simon. Music for Pleasure. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988, 1. Negus, Keith. Popular Music in Theory: An Introduction. Hanover and London: Wesleyan University Press, 1996, 139. 416 Wicke, Peter. The Times They are-a-Changing: Rock Music and Political Change in East Germany. – In: Rockin the Boat: Mass Music and Mass Movements (ed. R. Garofalo). Boston: South End Press, 1992, 71. 417 Grossberg, Lowrence. Is Anybody Listening? Does Anybody Care? On the State of Rock. – In: Youth Music and Youth Culture (eds. A. Ross and T. Rose). London: Routledge, 1994, 49. 414 415 438 439 dreams in one not quite known but kindling the senses and imagination music.418 Although the motivations in that kind of inclusion had different nuances in the East and the West, the parallels in that direction were obvious in a number of respects. In other words, the history of the rock music in Bulgaria began not long after its emergence in the West when the British invasion reached Bulgaria in the early 1960s. The band Shturtsite, founded in Sofia in 1967, became the emblem of rock culture in Bulgaria. Against the repertoire restrictions, Shturtsite had its own strategy. In public places, they performed songs by well-known professional composers (e.g. Boris Karadimchev, Atanas Boyadjiev, and Peter Stupel); unofficially, bypassing the official instructions, they played covers of favourite world rock hits. The group achieved its independent position as well as social and artistic maturity in the early 1980s. Smart messages, sometimes presented in the language of Aesop, sounded in the albums Dvadeseti Vek (The 20th Century), Vkusat na Vremeto (The Taste of Time), Konnikat (The Rider), Musketarski Marsh (Musketeer March). A new moment in the general sound of the Bulgarian rock and pop music was the appearance of FSB. In 1976, Balkanton equipped a recording studio, which for its time was one of the most modern in the country. For- The Globe (record cover) matsia Studio Balkanton was established to it as an experimental and studio group that included Rumen Boyadzhiev, Konstantin Tsekov, and Aleksandar Baharov. A little later, Peter Slavov and Ivan Lechev joined them. By directing the search towards new sound spaces, FSB joined the progressive rock line, i.e. the expanding of the usual rock stylistics through the adoption of classical, jazz, and folkloric means of expression. Achievements in that direction were seen in their first album, Non Stop (1979) as well as in the album Kalboto (The Globe) (1980). In the 1980s, the Bulgarian rock stage became the centre of a number of new bands. Along with Shturtsite and FSB, among the most successful were Tangra, Nova Generatsia, Ahat, Class, Control, Revue, and Poduene Blues Band; many of those groups continued to make music over the next decade. The wide variety of rock styles ranging from progressive rock and new wave to heavy metal and punk, was also seen during a number of rock festivals held in the midst of a huge youth audience. C. L. The Taste of Time (record cover) 418 See Levy, Claire. The Influence of British Rock in Bulgaria. – Popular Music (Cambridge University Press), 1992, 11/2. 440 441 NEW THEATRICAL HORIZONS In April 1956, two months only after the 10th congress of the Komunisticheska partija na Savetskija sauz (KPSS; Communist Party of Soviet Union), the April plenum of the Central Commettee of the Balgarska komunisticheska partija (BKP; Bulgarian Cnmmunist Party) took place and it was directed against the cult of personality, including also against Vulko Chervenkov. The schemes were criticized. Thus, one could now speak more freely. The April wind of changes began to blow. The 1960s were marked by a world cultural progress. Already by the end of 1953, the artists started to attempt amending the situation. Among the characters allegories to the party ideologemes on stage began to sneak also the characters in Tri sestri (Three sisters) and Vuicho Vanja (Uncle Vanya) by Anton P. Chekhov, Revizor (The Government Inspector) by Nikolay V. Gogol, Romeo and Juliet, San v ljatna nosht (Midsummer Night’s Dream) and Kral Lir (King Lear) by San v Ljatna nosht (Midsummer Night’s Dream) by W. Shakespeare, director Kr. Mirski, National Theatre, 1957 442 Cyrano de Bergerac by E. Rostan, dir. St. Surchadzhiev, National Theatre, 1960 William Shakespeare, Don Karlos by Friedrich Schiller, Salemskite veshtici (The Salem Witches) by Arthur Miller, Nora and Prizraci (Ghosts) by Henrik Ibsen, Goreshto sarce (An Ardent Heart) and I nai-madrijat si e malko prost (Enough Stupidity in Every Wise Man) by Alexander Ostrovski, Antigone by Sophocles, Idealnijat maj (The Ideal Husband) by Oscar Wilde, Cyrano de Bergerac by Edmond Rostand, etc. By the end of the 1950s, the dictatorship of the party play and the fierce struggle against formalism, stunning the creative imagination, started fading away. Notwithstanding the repressions, the censorship, the efforts for canonization and channelling of arts during the late Stalinism, it looked like artists in the socialist camp manage to preserve their individual creative potential and the desired by the authorities unification and universal model, a certain unified aesthetic system was not created. From the end of the 1950s and during the 1960s, the energies were restored and a certain silent compromise between the authorities and the people was established, whereby all kinds of realistic, naturalistic and modern productions were silently permitted, in case the experimental innovations did not reach too far and observe the political and moral norms, defined by the authorities. Even the humour and the “constructive satire” were accepted. 443 In this period, in the countries with socialist regimes the theatres in the countryside were much more free than the theatres in the capital. Even though the control on these alternative spaces was implemented by means of the restricted public access, gifted directors and actors, namely from the periphery, address their messages to coevals. Indicators in this respect were the Polish theatres Krikot-2 in Krakow, founded in 1955 by Таdeusz Kantor and Theatre of 13 rows in Opole, founded in 1958 by Jerzy Grotowski. These attempts were the first migratory birds, annunciating the defrosting and the spring of the 1960s. These were significant driving forces for a change in the theatre on both sides of the iron curtain, despite the initiation of the erecting of the Berlin Wall in 1961. In Bulgaria, these common moods and trends regarding the world and dimidiated Europe had their consequences. An important factor for the development of the Bulgarian theatre during this period was the setting up of a network of new theatres in the capital, alternative to the creation of the officious National Theatre. In Sofia, Naroden teatr za mladejta (National Theatre for the Youth) founded in 1945, and the Teatr Narodna armija (National Army Theatre), founded in 1950 and became state owned theatre in 1952, were advancing. Of extraordinary importance for the development of the Bulgarian theatre and of the actors’ art was the appearance of the Satirichen teatr (Satirical Theatre) in 1957 and Theatre 199 in 1965, Theatr na poezijata i estradata (Theatre of poetry and pop music) in 1966, renamed in Theatre Sofia in 1969, Theatre Salza i smjah (Tear and Laugh) in 1967, etc. It thus became possible to experiment with new theatrical forms and actors’ techniques in the new venues. The defrosting in the Bulgarian theatre was to a high extent associated with the performances on these theatre stages and productions of some other formations out of the capital, where already by the mid-1950s “likeminded” people be- gan to get together. Proclamators of new quests in theatre were directors like Metodi Andonov, Lyuben Groys, Leon Daniel, Yuliya Ognyanova, Grisha Ostrovski, Sasho Stoynov, Villy Tzankov, Asen Shopov and others. A big impetus in the unblocking of the Bulgarian theatre at the end of the 1950s was made by the so called Burgas group of the young directors Yuliya Ognyanova, Metodi Andonov, Leon Daniel and Villy Tzankov, who worked in the theatre of Burgas (1957–1959) for two seasons and carried out experiments in the field of the theatrical language in their per- formances on contemporary Bulgarian, Soviet and world dramaturgy, such as: Optimistichna tragedia (Optimistic tragedy) by Vsevolod Vishnevsky; Chovekat, koito donese dajd (The Rainmaker) by Richard Nash; Taini (Secrets) by Boyan Danovski and P. Slavinski; Lisicata i grozdeto (The Fox and the Grapes) by Guilherme Figueiredo; Chudak (The Forgotten Man) by Nazum Hikmet; Vsjaka esenna vecher (Every Autumn Evening) by Ivan Peychev; Zaroveno slance (Buried Sun) by Orlin Vasilev; Kashtata na senkite (The House of the Shadows) by Ivan Svezhin (Teofilov); Baranchitza (The Female Drummer) by Afanasii Salinski; Svetat e malak (The World is Small) by Ivan Radoev; Razuznavane (Intelligence) by Lozan Strelkov, etc. After the staging of Rober Merl’s Sizif i smartta (Sisyphus and Death) in 1959, the group was dismissed as unacceptable for the authorities. The directors were accused in formalism, in gliding mainly along the line of external, striking effects and thus coming to rude naturalism on the account of the artistic proclamation of the conceptual design of the play. In the performances, according to the legislators, the two antagonistic classes were presented in an incorrect way as well as political mistakes were omitted. For a short period of time, however, the directors from the Burgas group turned into a symbol of the non-conformism, of the defrosting 444 445 Taini (Secrets) by B. Danovski and P. Slavinski, dirs. Metodi Andonov, Leon Daniel, Yuliya Ognyanova and Villy Tzankov, 1958 in the theatre. They were looking for a new theatrical language, for more communicative relation and spectators’ co-participation, which inevitably affected the development of the stage art and the disclosure of new means of expression. The young actors wanted to keep up with the modern tendencies in the European and world theatre. Another alternative group later on in the 1960s was formed by the actors from the Teatr na poeziata i estradata (Theatre of Poetry and Pop Music) with artistic leader Andrey Chaprazov and director Leon Daniel. The first performance was recital of the Bulgarian Revival poetry Koreni (Roots). The new theatre presented Pushkin’s Malki tragedii (Small Tragedies), Gorky’s Esnafi (The Philistines), etc.. These performances were experimental. The actors recited, danced, sang rock songs. This was oriented towards a change in the public attitude and thinking. This theatre existed for a short time. It was disbanded and some of the actors moved in the newly created theatre Sofia. These manifestations represented a new whiff of freedom and were warmly accepted by the audience. All of this was regarded as new, revolutionary. Malki tragedii (Small Tragedies), after A. Pushkin, dir. Leon Daniel, Teatr na poeziata i estradata (Theatre of Poetry and Pop Music), 1966 446 Apostol Karamitev and Nevena Kokanova in Varshavska melodia (Warsaw melody) by L. Zorin, dir. Dimitrina Gyurova, Theatre “199”, 1967 Not less of importance in the development of the theatre in the 1960s, as opposed to the mass socialist arts, was the development of the small auditorium stage and productions, often after the Western dramaturgy. At the end of the 1960s, such a stage was inaugurated on the IV floor of the National Theatre. A theatre of this kind was also the Theatre 199 (having 199 seats), founded in 1965. This was an open stage, where actors from different theatres could perform for small audiences. A number of actors had significant achievements in this theatre. As a result of the dynamic political and cultural changes in the world scale, theatre gradually transformed. In the 1960s, new messages, different from the imposed postulates, were brought by the following productions: Westside story by A. Lawrents and U. Leman, director Krikor Azaryan; Dvama na lulkata (Two for the Seesaw) by W. Gibson and Tzenata (The Price) by A. Miller, director Mois Beniesh; Burjata (The Tempest) by W. Shakespeare, director Lyuben Groys; Poseshtenieto na starata dama (The Visit) by Fr. Durrenmatt and Hamlet by W. Shakespeare, director Leon Daniel; Smartta na targovskija patnik (The Death of a Salesman) by A. Miller, director Nikolay Lyutskanov; Obarni se s gnjav nazad (Look Back in Anger) by J. Osborne, director Krasimir Spasov; Parnik bez bagaj (Traveler without Luggage) by J. Anouilh, director Filip Filipov; Henry IV by L. Pirandello, director Encho Halachev; Drakonat (The Dragon) by E. Schwarz, director Slavi Shkarov; Za mishkite I horata (Of Mice and Men) by J. Steinbeck, director Asen Shopov, etc. With these productions the theatre could present for 447 the audience a deeper view on the spirit and the anguish of contemporary people, the resistance against the injustice and violence not only on this side, but also on the other side of the iron curtain. In this way the audience managed to be in touch with the quests in the world theatre. In the 1970s, the repertoire became much more diversified. Classical and contemporary plays from the world dramaturgy were staged. Innovative spirit had the performances of Dvamata veronci (The Two Gentlemen of Verona), Romeo and Juliet by W. Shakespeare, Misanthrope by G. Moliére, director L. Groys; Chovekat si e chovek (Man Equals Man) by B. Brecht, director Mladen Kisselov; Polet nad kukuviche gnezdo (One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest) by D. Wasserman and Tramvai jelanie (A Streetcar Named Desire) by Т. Williams, director Krasimir Spasov; Kovarstvo i libov (Intrigue and Love) by Fr. Schiller, director Assen Shopov; Richard III by W. Shakespeare, director Villy Tzankov; Malkijat Mahagony (The Little Mahagonny) by B. Brecht, director Dimiter Gotscheff, etc. New Bulgarian plays were also staged which were directed towards the present days, towards the social problems. Among them were the plays based on dramaturgical works of Konstantin Iliev, Nedyalko Yordanov, Smartta na targovskija patnik (The Death of a Salesman) by Arthur Miller, dir. Nikolay Lyutskanov, National Theatre, 1964 Chovekat si e chovek (Man Equals Man) by B. Brecht, dir. Mladen Kisselov, Naroden teatr za mladejta (National Theatre for Youth), 1974 Georgi Markov, Ivan Peychev, Valeri Petrov, Yordan Radichkov, Ivan Radoev, Radoy Ralin, Nikola Rusev, Stanislav Stratiev, Ivan Teofilov, Stefan Tsanev, etc. Criticism on the social weaknesses of the socialist society were addressed from the stage, which was noticed by normativists. There were even performances that were cancelled before the premiere or later on. Some plays were censored due to different “mistakes”, “defects” and “deviations from the socialist canon”. Among them were: Istinskijat Ivailo (The True Ivaylo; 1962), Procesat protiv bogomilite (The Trial against the Bogomils; 1968–1969) Lubovni bulevardi (Love Boulevards; 1983) by St. Tsanev; Taboo (1965) by St. Tsanev and K. Pavlov; Greshkata na Avel (Avel’s Mistake; 1963) by Е. Маnov; Poetat i planinata (The Poet and the Mountain; 1964) by Iv. Svezhin (Теоfilov); Nie ne vjarvame v shtarkeli (We do not Believe in Storks; 1966) by N. Yordanov; Communists (1969), Az bjah toi (I was Him; 1969) by G. Markov; Dvoen krevat za Adam i Eva (Double bed for Adam and Eve; 1969), Romeo and Juliet and Petrol (1968) by Nikola Rusev; Hiljada metra nad moreto (Thousand Meters above the Sea) by P. Marinkov (1982); Chudo (Miracle;1982) by I. Radoev; Obraz i podobie (Image and Likeness; 1986) by Y. Radichkov, etc.419 419 See Попилиев, Ромео. Цензурата по времето на комунизма, или режимът на забраняване – позволяване. Рива, 2018. 448 29. Bulgarian 20th Century... 449 Kogato rozite tancuvat (When the Roses Dance), Valeri Petrov, dir. Grisha Ostrovski, Satirichen teatr (Satirical Theatre), 1961 During this period, some of the Bulgarian playwrights turned to the roots, to the archetype and wrote plays full of parable, allegoric and fantastic elements. These works to a large degree continued the poetic drama that had occurred in the Bulgarian theatre during the first half of the 20th century with in the works of Anton Strashimirov, Petko Todorov, Georgi Raychev, reflecting the striving for freedom of the individual as well as the yearning for different, magical worlds. In these texts the earth and the space were connected so that the unbridled spirit was driven away from the cruel world and flew in daydream journies. The performances based on plays by Ivan Peychev, Valeri Petrov, Nikola Russev, Yordan Radichkov, Ivan Svezhin (Теоfilov), etc. were filled with allusions, metaphors, and allegoric images.. Yordan Radichkov was one of the most original Bulgarian playwrights during the second half of the 20th century. His plays include fiction, folklore, mythological, biblical and magical elements in a way, in which they remain ununderstood and unclear for party censorship. The performances, based on some of his plays, in which metaphors, miracles, cataclysms and allusions intertwined and sometimes arose suspicions in the normative criticism, and were accused of escaping from the realistic coverage of the socialist reality. However the authorities did not dare to forbid them due to the fear of incompetence and not understanding the weird philosophical and biblical absurd world of Radichkov. In Sumatoha 450 (Commotion; 1967), January (1973), Lazaritsa (1977), Opit za letene (Attempt to Fly; 1979), Obraz i podobie (Image and Likeness; 1986), etc. Radichkov examined the relation between people, time, nature and space, opposed life and death, familiar and unknown, order and chaos, earthly life and extra-terrestrial existence. He used folklore and fiction characters, as well as biblical motives. The performance Sumatoha (Commotion) by Radichkov from 1967 caused a many reactions in the public space, likewise among the party elite. The normativists criticized the play, since the image of the peasant therein was presented as a ferocious, savage, primitive, without exalted thoughts, the characters were distorted, deformed, there were scenes in which one could observe how human dignity was trampled down.420 As a whole, however, the theatrical estate and the spectators welcomed the irresistible enthusiasm and amazement, the internal resistance and joy, provoked by the performance. Through the parable and allegoric staging based on Radichkov plays, the directors expressed their critical attitude towards the communist Sumatoha (Commotion), Y. Radichkov, Satirichen teatr (State Satirical Theatre), dir. Metodi Antonov, 1967 420 Fourth National Review of the Bulgarian theatre and drama. Theatre, No. 10, 1969, p. 5 451 regime. Radichkov was called “Kafka from Sofia” and the “theatrical heretic”, because of his ironic, grotesque, and critical attitude, as well as for his non-conformism and eccentricity. He was violating the official dramaturgical and stage norms and allowed for the building up of poetic and free miracleous world, giving the artists a weapon to oppose the unification and the control. The audience, bored by the grey flow of socialist art from the period of stagnation at the end of the 1940s and the beginning of the 1950s, was eager to get everything that was new, interesting, fascinating, exciting. The theatre for the spectators was a source of ideas, upsurge, reflection of its dreams about a different world. In the conditions of Cold War, with an erected Berlin Wall in the centre, the theatre turned into an island, where the dissidents could resist, could become part of the world culture and expect the crash of an absurd totalitarian empire. J. S. THE VENT SATIRICAL THEATRE With the founding of the Satirical Theatre in Sofia with order No. ХVII-D-997 by the Ministry of Culture from 28.11.1956421, the comedy which was a rare phenomenon in socialist culture in the preceding years, got back on stage. The Satirical Theatre was intended to be of “particular purpose”. Its mission, as stated by the director Mladen Kisselov,” was the bad, the ugly, old, unfit, dead, layered on the bottom or still brooding the water of the rushing life, to be energetically extracted on stage and stigmatized with the sources of the theatre”422. The idea for founding Satirical theatre originated from young people like Dimitar Chavdarov – Chelkash, Valeri Petrov, Radoy Ralin – at this time not yet prominent authors, grouped around the newspaper Sturshel (Hornet). This theatre had to incarnate the public opinion, to be of the kind of the mentioned newspaper – full of humour, criticism, caricature, pointedly contemporary. In November 1952, the director Anastas Mihaylov was invited by the editorial staff of newspaper Sturshel (Hornet) in connection with the undertaken initiative for the creation of satirical stage. At the request of Neycho Popov, a project for the future theatre was outlined, which had to be honest, clean, clear, bright, live and malicious expression of criticism and self-criticism, as well as popularization of the native and the foreign classical humour in the form of miniatures (small forms, light, “portable”). The staff had to comprise young gifted actors with ethical qualities, enthusiasm, with new approach, frank, truthful, fast working, initiative in acting, able to withstand feverish pace of work, selflessness – and certain sacrifice, not random, but selected at the start by graduates. They could be juniors and seniors mainly from the State Drama School and the Music Academy, i.e. students who could find realization in such a theatre. They had to be united by unified spirit, method, approach, 421 Заповед № ХVII-Д-997 на Министерство на културата от 28.11.1956. Централен държавен архив, фонд 1555, опис 1, а. е. 11, лист 62. 422 Брошура „25 години сатиричен театър“, С., Държавен сатиричен театър, 1982, с. 4. 452 453 conceptual-artistic breeding, with new taste, to be clean from the mould of the old fashion bourgeois taste. For such theatre that would be artistically managed and with repertoire that would be specified and determined by the editorial staff in newspaper Sturshel (Hornet), according to its founders, besides the constant staff of actors the following was also needed: salon, permanent orchestra, compère.423 Rehearsals started under the guidance of Anastas Mihaylov. The other members of the team were Neycho Popov, Itshak Fintsi, Hari Toromanov, Leon Konfino, Avram Pinkas, Ivan Rachev, Pavel Dubarev, Grigor Vachkov, Petar Peykov, Dosyu Dosev and others. The prepared staging represented a composition of different scenes. The director Stefan Surchadzhiev was also involved in the work. The performance with title Starshelov teatralen spectakl (Sturshel’s Theatre Spectacle) was set for the beginning of March 1953. The first night performance was somehow symbolically hindered on 5th March by Stalin’s death and it took place some days later – on 16th March on the stage of Theatre Balkan. The performance was a huge success. A number of reviews came out. Something new, something promising appeared in the Bulgarian cultural space. The beginning of the Bulgarian satirical theatre was laid with this staging, which however didn’t last as it was discontinued by the Political Bureau, yet some years passed before its official inauguration. Program and poster Starshelov teatralen spektakl (Sturshel’s Theatre Spectacle) 423 Михайлов, Анастас, Театърът: Изживяно и изстрадано, Вулкан-4, 1994, 141–165. 454 Banja (Bathhouse) by Vl. Mayakovski, dir. Stefan Surchadzhiev, Inauguration of the Darjaven satirichen teatr (State Satirical Theatre), 1957 On April 7th, the theatre opened for the first time in the premises of the branch of the National Theatre Vasil Kirkov (today’s theatre Salza i smjah / Tear and Laugh) in the spring of 1957 with the staging of Stefan Surchadzhiev Banja (Bathhouse) by Vl. Myakovski. In this spectacle the other actors of this generation of signatory comedians in the Bulgarian theatre had already joined the troupe. The performances in the Satirical theatre became popular mainly with the bright performing of the new generation of actors in the theatre, such as Georgi Partsalev, Georgi Kaloyanchev, Grigor Vachkov, Encho Bagarov, Konstantin Kotsev, Leda Taseva, Neycho Popov, Stoyanka Mutafova, Tatyana Lolova, Nevena Kokanova, etc. The following 1950s and 1960s spectacles were emblematic: Banja (Bathhouse; 1957), Darvenitza (Bedbug; 959), Mysteria Bouffe (1967) by Mayakovski; Dvanaisette stola (The Twelve Chairs) after Ilf and Petrov (1958); Predlojenie. Svatba. Ubilei (Proposal. Wedding. Jubilee) by Chekhov (1960); Chichovci (Uncles) by Vazov (1960); Udarjimijat vazhod na Artuto Hi (The Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui) by Brecht (1961); Mihal Mishkoed (Mihal the Mouseeater) by Dobroplodni (1963); Smartta na terelkin (The Death of Tarelkin) by Suhovo-Kobilin (1965); Mnogo shum za nishto (Much Ado About Nothing) by Shakespeare (1965); 455 Revizor (The Government Inspector) by N.V. Gogol, dir. Metodi Andonov, Satirichen teatr (State Satirical Theatre), 1966 Revizor (The Government Inspector) by Gogol (1966), etc. The directors Metodi Andonov, Asen Shopov, Mladen Kisselov, Grisha Ostrovski and others worked in the theatre. One of the highest merits of the Satirical Theatre from this period, especially after the mid-1960s was that it was promoting the contemporary Bulgarian comedy. The inauguration of the new theatre building in 1966 was marked with the staging of Oblichaneto na Venera (Dressing of Venus) by Dobri Zhotev, director Leon Daniel. This was a firework spectacle with music, songs and dances. The first Bulgarian rock-band Bundaratsite plaid live. One of the participants said that this was the bomb of the season. It was always performed in full auditorium. The applauses did not cease. The creators of this spectacle felt that they urged young people towards freedom of the spirit. In fact, this was the message of the play and the music – convey the spirit of rock-and-roll.424 The spectacles of the Satirical Theatre with contemporary Bulgarian plays where a new scenic language was sought for and which enjoyed a strong public reaction include: Kogato rozite tancuvat (When the roses dance), Valeri Petrov (1961); Improvizacii (Improvizations) by Valeri Petrov and Radoy Ralin (1962); Sumatoha (Commotion; 1967), January (1973), Lazaritsa (1977) by Radichkov; Romeo, Juliet and Petrol by Ivan Radoev (1968); Starcheto i strelata (The Old Man and the Arrow) by Nikola Rusev (1969). The plays by Stansilav Stratiev Rimska banja (Roman Bath; 1974); Sako ot velur (Suede Jacket; 1976); Reis (Bus; 1979) became extremely popular. Velikdensko vino (Easter wine; 1978) and Odissei patuva za Itaka (Odysseus Travels to Ithaca; 1985) by Konstantin Iliev; Procesat protiv bogomilite (The Trial Against the Bogomils; 1969) as well as Poslednata nosht na Socrat (The Last Night of Socrates; 1986) by Stefan Tsanev; MataHari (1982) by Nedyalko Yordanov dealt with contemporary problems by means of returning to the past. These timid protests against the authorities encouraged the society to take part through the theatre in the exposing of the disabilities of the contemporary socialist society. Oblichaneto na Venera (Dressing of Venus) by D. Zhotev, dir. Leon Daniel, Darjaven Satirichen teatr (State Satirical Theatre), 1966 Improvizacii (Improvizations), Valeri Petrov and Radoy Ralin, dir. Grisha Ostrovski, Darjaven Satirichen teatr (State Satirical Theatre), 1962 424 Янев, Румен. Вкусът на времето. Щурците – българската рок легенда. С. Парадокс, 2007, с. 23. 456 457 THE PUBLIC ROLE OF MONUMENTAL ARTS Poster for Rimska banja (Roman Bath) by Stanislav Stratiev, dir. Neycho Popov, Artist Lyudmil Chehlarov, Darjaven Satirichen teatr (State Satirical Theatre), 1974 Thanks to this kind of satirical staging, essential deficiencies of the new system were expressed, meeting a broad social resonance and support. This criticism wasn’t usually a direct one. It could be read by the audience “between the lines” of the pronounced text on stage. In the metaphoric and allegoric characters on stage, spectators discovered similar phenomena of the surrounding socialist reality. The Satirical Theatre affirmed its own image. The actors together with the directors were trying to develop a specific bright comedy language, based on parody, hyperbole, absurd, grotesque. At that time there was no other theatre that had a higher, absolute and end point of the political irreconcilability as the Satirical Theatre, disclosed “indirectly” by means of deforming reflection of the social disabilities and the human weaknesses. With the founding of the Satirical Theatre, a unique phenomenon emerged in the cultural nuisance, it appeared at a place, where humour was the main weapon for social criticism, where the people got closer to each other and by means of art were trying to jointly resist the imposed canons. The comedians came out in the spotlights not only in the theatres, but also on the pop music stages, in the cinema theatres and on TV. In the following decades, they become favourites of the audience. J. S. 458 Monuments, murals, and mosaics in public spaces promote the formation of modern communities. Images of gods / goddesses, rulers, chieftains and depictions of famous military victories were commissioned to artists famous with their talents. In modern countries artistic creations in public spaces are an expression of the leading ideology and values that it imposes. Before World War II, in the 1930s, there was a strong interest in public art. In the countries with totalitarian regime the government-sponsored commissiones predominate. Examples of this were the propaganda pieces promoting fascism in Italy, nationalism in Germany, and communism in the USSR. But in other types of societies state-sponsored could be monumental implementations to support various social causes, as well as decorative monumental pieces which were not politically motivated. The Paris World Exposition of 1937 with murals by Fernand Léger, Raoul Dufy, Robert Delaunay, and Sonia Delaunay among others425 was an important event for this type of artistic expression. During the Communist Era, with the establishment of a common ruling ideology, monumental arts in Bulgaria became very important. They were used as tools for reinforcing the status of Communist Party and its all-encompassing power and the undoubted loyalty of the country to the Soviet Block. The reconfiguration of the symbolistic structure of urban centres and other places of historical importance and the creation of spaces for new ritualistic practices became a priority. The public importance and role of monumental art was further confirmed by the establishment of Mural Painting as a stand-alone major at the Bulgarian State Academy of Art in 1947 under the chairmanship of the German-graduate Georgy Bogdanov. An important event for this genre was the introduction of the Mexican muralists to the Bulgarian public. The fame and influence of 425 Kenna, Carol. Mural: Europe, after c. 1930. In: The Dictionary of Art Grove. Oxford University Press, 1996, vol. 22, 331–334. 459 Diego Rivera, David Siqueiros, and Jose Orosco reverberated at their joint exhibition in Sofia in 1955 426 The places, the ideological agenda, the iconography, and the stylistic characteristics of monumental art were regulated by numerous pieces of legislation. The draft concepts for monuments, murals and other works to be installed in public spaces, as well as any contests and tenders were overseen and confirmed by central state committees. Over the decades of communist rule works of monumental art changed in terms of shape, style, scale, and materials. Various themes dominated during the decades driven by slight shifts in the accents of the ideological agenda. However the general principles of reinforcing “the leading role of the Communist Party”, the “indestructible connection to the Soviet Union”, and the central government’s control of the design process in monumental art remained undiminished throughout the whole period. At the start of the decade the image of the leader was central to the ideological agenda. Examples of this include the monuments of Stalin in Dimitrovgrad and Varna of the 1950s, the monument of Lenin in Pernik of 1957 (Sekul Krumov, Architect Nedelcho Paskalev). Established sculptors and architects were engaged to complete the tasks. Dimitrov’s Mausoleum (Architect Georgy Ovcharov, portrait of Dimitrov, mosaic by Ivan Nenov) which was built in 1949 and modelled after Lenin’s mausoleum in Moscow was the largest-scale piece of the time. The numerous monuments dedicated to the Soviet army were another example of a general trend at that time (Stara Zagora, 1949, Sliven, 1952, Plovdov’s monument dubbed Alyosha, 1956, by Vasil Radoslavov) etc.427. In Sofia (1958, Mara Georgieva and Vaska Emanuilova – the Central Group; Ivan Funev, Lyubomir Dalchev, Petar Doychinov, Vasil Zidarov, the painter Boris Angelushev, Architect Danko Mitov, Ivan Vasiliov, Lyuben Neikov, Boris Kapitanov) the monument was unfolded in space to include several distinct elements. Stylistically it followed the paradigm of academic realism which was widely accepted as compliant with the Soviet doctrine of socialist realism. The gallery of communist leaders was truncated in the wake of the denouncement of the personality cult and the images of Stalin and Valko 426 Аврамов, Димитър. Летопис на едно драматично десетилетие. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1994, с. 50–66. 427 The information on Pre-1978 monuments was taken from от Иванова, Венета. Българска монументална скулптура. – София: Български художник, 1978. 460 Dimitrov’s Mausoleum, 1949, Architect Georgy Ovcharov; with participation of Racho Ribarov and Ivan Danchov. Postcard, 1977 Chervenkov were omitted from the repertoire. Georgy Dimitrov was used as the image of the leader of the Bulgarian Communist Party. His monuments in Kazanluk (1956, Dimitar Dinkov, Dimitar Tzonkov, and Zlati Denchev), Dimitrovgrad (1973, Zlati Denchev, Dimitar Dimov, Ivan Kesyakov), Haskovo (1975, Alexander Apostolov, Architect Ivan Nikolov and Nikolay Antonov), an others, follow usually the iconography of upright figure often gesticulating with pathos. Dimitar Blagoev was another historic personality to whom a multitude of monuments were dedicated. Lenin’s Centenary was officially commemorated in 1970 by installing some more monuments dedicated to him, including: Sofia (1971, by the Soviet sculptor Lev Kerbel and Architect Petar Tashev), Sliven (1970, Sekul Krumov, Architect Nedelcho Paskalev), Portrait of Dimitrov at the Mausoleum, 1949 mosaic by the artist Ivan Nenov. Postcard, 1972 461 Stara Zagora (1970, Mara Georgieva), Plovdiv (1970, Lyubomir Dalchev), Ruse (1972, Boris Karadzha, Architect Belcho Petrov and Svetozar Panayotov) to name a few. Monuments to guerrilla fighters abounded in the 60s and sometimes were even expanded into architectural and monumental complexes. Examples of this are the Monument to the Battle of Balvan in the village of Balvan (1963, Sekul Krumov, Architect Vasiliy Tiholov, Konstantin Turpenov and Stefan Mateev). The 60s and 70s saw a world resurgence in monumental painting and other public art forms. On the other side of the Iron Curtain locations and themes were discussed and approved by communities and municipalities in a process consistent with the values of civil society. Here, this was done under the control of the central government. The ideological novelty of the 1960s was representing the communist state as the logical evolution of the Medieval Bulgarian State with its moments of greatness and the fight for religious and political independence of the 19th Century. At a later stage the ‘heritage line’ would be extended all the way back to the kings of Ancient Thrace made famous by their treasures. The idea was to reinforce the narrative of how communism was the next gilded age in Bulgaria’s history and a new peak in its development as a country. The images of khans and kings, men of letters, icon-painters and national independence fighters were appropriated in the repertoire of public monumental sculpture, murals and mosaics. Monumental imagery seemed to be implemented in the designs of each new public building, factory, school, library, hospital, community centre and so on, all reinforcing a single perspective to the country’s historical past, a perspective that was constructed by the powers that be. The late 50s and early 60s saw the start of a large-scale construction of resort complexes. Druzhba, Zlatni Piasatsi (Golden Sands), Slanchev Bryag (Sunny Beach), and Albena on the Black Sea were complemented by numerous mountain hotels and lodges. The rustic traditional Bulgarian buildings were replaced by functional architecture with interior design and monumental integrations in line with the modernist idiom428. Resort spaces provided an opportunity to infuse certain variety in the thematic and figural compositions and even some non-figurative versions from the fringes between the decorative and the abstract. The materials and techniques used were also varied. Other spaces with relatively relaxed ideological dependence were the new sports facilities such as Sofia’s Universiade Hall (1961, Architect Alexander Barov, Ivan Ivanchev, Ivan Tatarov, Doncho Vladishki, Artist Lyubomir Dalchev), the children’s theatres such as the Central Puppet Theatre of Sofia (murals by Encho Pironkov, 1972), and libraries including the “Ivan Vazov” People’s Library in Plovdiv (murals by Todor Panayotov and Lyuben Dimanov, 1974). By the mid-70s the social importance of monumental arts had become even stronger. A Large-Scale Multi-Stage Comprehensive National Program for Aesthetic Appreciation was adopted under the leadership of the Committee on Culture headed by Lyudmila Zhivkova in 1975429. That same year the Committee established the United State Commission for Visual and Applied Arts and Architecture. A comprehensive Central Puppet Theatre, Sofia, murals by Encho Pironkov, 1972 428 Beyer, Elke, Anke Hagemann. Sun, See, Sand… and Architecture. How Bulgaria’s Black Sea coast was turned into a turist product. В: Beyer, Elke, Anke Hagemann and Michael Zinganel, Ed. Seaside Architecture and Urbanism in Bulgaria and Croatia. Berlin, jovis Verlag GmbH, 2013, 57–118. 429 Калинова, Евгения. Българската култура и политическият императив 1944–1989. – София: Парадигма 1, 2011, с. 310–312. 462 463 Home-Monument to the Bulgarian Communist Party at Mount Buzludzha, 1981. Architect Georgi Stoilov and team, https://www.kulturabg.com/ map of the pieces of monumental art in Bulgaria was planned to be compiled to facilitate the process of replacing some of the existing ones and creating new430. The planning for the official celebration of Bulgaria’s 1300 anniversary was started. Driven by increasing government and municipal art budgets431 and the experience gathered by the country’s artists, architectural-monumental projects increased in both number and scale432. The connection between monumental forms and architecture is a subject for discussion where the word “synthesis” is being increasingly reinforced. The 70s were a time when many important government decisions were made and decreed. The decade saw many scientific conferences on architecture, monumental arts, and the artistic synthesis. 430 Еленков, Иван. Културният фронт. – София: Институт за изследване на близкото минало, 2008, с. 396–397. 431 The first, most general draft of the Aesthetgic Appreciation Program was approved in 1974. In the years thereafter it was made more specific and was later implemented in stages. See Еленков, Иван. Културният фронт. – София: Институт за изследване на близкото минало, 2008, с. 279–306. 432 In the 1970s the Bratska Mogila Pantheon (1974, Lyubomir Dalchev, Ana Dalcheva, Petar Atanasov, Architect Vladimir Rangelov and Lyubomir Shinkov) created a complex ritualistic space depicting images from the Russian – Turkish War of 1877–1878 with the participation of Bulgarfian volunteer forces. 464 The late 70s marked the beginning of a large scale reconstruction of the central areas of the capital cities of the various provinces. Monumental arts were a key part of this reconstruction effort. Impressive new building was constructed for the local branches of the Communist Party. The iconography of the images and scenes and the allegories and symbols from Bulgaria’s history and the leading role of the Communist Party were developed by teams of historians, art historians and artists. The home and monument of the Bulgarian Communist Party on Mount Buzludzha inaugurated in 1981 to commemorate the founding congress of the Bulgarian Social-Democratic Party was the largest of these creations. Engaged in its design and implementation were an impressive number of well-established artists433. Today, rendered to ruins, this site, dubbed the “flying saucer”, is the subject of heated debates concerning its re-symbolization and re-appropriation434. The Home-Monument at Buzludzha and the rest of the monuments to the governing ideology from The Home-Monument to the Bulgarian Communist Party at Mount Buzludzha today Photographer Nikola Mihov. Project „Forget your Past” 2009 – 2012 http://www. bulgarianphotographynow.com/Portfolio/forget-your-past 433 Dimitar Boikov, Mihail Benchev, Velichko Minekov, Valentin Starchev, Hristo Stefanov, Ioan Leviev, Vladislav Paskalev, Kuncho Kunev, Ivan Kirkov, Toma Vurbanov, Alexander Terziev, Georgy Trifonov, Ivan Stoilov – Bunkera, Ivan B. Ivanov, Grigor Spiridonov, Dimitar Kirov and Stoimen Stoilov, etc., 434 Михов, Никола. Forget Your Past Монументалните паметници от времето на комунизма. – София: ИК "Жанет 45", 2012. 30. Bulgarian 20th Century... 465 Along with the ideologically driven works, Bulgarian artists of that time created pieces, designed to adorn various public spaces in urban centres resorts and new hotels, which were to become part of the best European practices of that era. They managed to transcend the restrictions of the ideological imperative using the rhetoric of synthesis. In the 70s and 80s the newly acquired artistic skills and the greater choice of techniques for murals (sgraffito, classical fresco techniques), mosaics, stainedglass art, glass sculpture, ceramics, textiles, etc., 436; as well as the larger scale and the variety of locations, created fertile ground for monumental implementations in modernist style which remain still impressive today. The leadings artists of that time include Nikola Bukov, Kolyu Getsov, Ekaterina Getsova, Villiam Getov, Nikolina Dzhelebova, Olia Kolcheva, Ivan Kirkov, to name only a few. Some of these artists, like E. Getsova and K. Getsov got their artistic training abroad - at the Academies of Applied Arts Ivan Kirkov, Pane at Sofia Grand Central Railway Station, 1974–1976 Metal Sculpture, 200 square meters. Removed during the building’s reconstruction in 2014 (Reproduced in the book entitled Contemporary Bulgarian Monumental Art 1956–1986 edited by Hristo Stefano and Maximilian Kirov, Sofia, 1986) Monument of the brothers Assen and Petar (Second Medieval Bulgarian Kingdom), Veliko Tarnovo, 1985. Team: Krum Damyanov, Ivan Slavov, Vladimir Ignatov, Architect Georgi Gechev the communist era need to be re-thought or integrated into museums – an exercise which in and of itself is self-reflective of our society and an indication of the difficulties it is going through. This was a time when ideological assignments included new thematic fields related to science, the “taming of space”, creativity, arts, and care for children‘s talents. There were no strict instructions in terms of form and style, as long as the ideological message remained on point. The crowning example of this approach and practices is the National Palace of Culture in Sofia being a holistic implementation and a synthesis of architecture and monumental art435. Built on an exceedingly large budget NDK was inaugurated in 1981 marking the culmination of the festivities for Bulgaria’s 1300th anniversary and the 12th Congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party. For this project, a great number of artists who were employed in monumental arts at the time were given the benefit of the state’s exceptional financial generosity. 435 Architects: Alexander Barov, Atanas Agura, Vladimir Romenski; Monumental Integrations by over 30 Bulgarfian Artists. 436 Ангелов, Валентин. Металопластика и керамика. Дърворезба и дървопластика. Художествен стенен текстил; Димитрова, Татяна. Стенопис и мозайка. Стъклопластика и витраж. – В: Съвременно българско монументално изкуство 1956–1986. Съст. Стефанов, Христо и Максимилиян Киров. – София: Държавно издателство „Д-р Петър Берон“, 1986, с. 71–105; 108–177. 466 467 THE BLACK SEA RESORTS AND THE IMAGE OF BULGARIA Todor Panayotov and Lyuben Dimanov. Fragment of wallpainting in “Ivan Vazov” People’s Library, Plovdiv, 1974. https://www.google.bg/search?q=Народна+библиотека+Иван+Вазов+Пловдив in Prague, Budapest, and elsewhere. They had the opportunity to develop as artists in an environment with richer information. In our country, in addition to the visiting European applied arts exhibitions, there are journals from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. which the artists could borrow from libraries. These circumstances proved stimulating for artistic talent. In 1986 the achievements of contemporary Bulgarian monumental art were presented in a large-scale exhibition entitled Contemporary Bulgarian Monumental Art 1956–1986 held at Festivalna Hall in Sofia. The building itself (1968, Architect Ivan Tatarov and Doncho Vladishki, sculptures of burned concrete by Galin Malakchiev, Vesa Voinska and Rositsa Todorova) – an impressive creation of the architectural and artistic synthesis, together with the exhibition, were another proof of the importance of monumentalism at this time. Nowadays, the public interest in a chapter of the history of Bulgarian monumental art which has now been completed, calls for the creation of museum exhibits discussing and interpreting particular works both as “pieces of history” and in terms of their contemporary meaning and influence; for museum conceptions considering the present as a modus of thinking and a battleground between various views. I. G. 468 The Bulgarian Black Sea coast has been populated since antiquity and by the beginning of the 21st century the coastline is fully constructed. The Bulgarian Black Sea coast hosts the cities of Varna and Bourgas, Balchik, Shabla, Kavarna, Kranevo, Nessebar, Sozopol, Sveti Vlas, Krapets, Durankulak, Ravda, Obzor, Byala, Shkorpilovtsi, Chernomorets, Tsarevo, Aheloi, Ahtopol, Primorsko, Bulgarevo, Kiten, Pomorie, Lozenets, Sinemorets, Varvara, Kamen Briag, Rezovo, Tyulenovo and Emona, as well as a great number of smaller settlements and complexes. The active, planned development of Bulgarian coastal tourism starts during the second half of the 20th century. The structures of the “Balkantourist” tourist company, established in 1948, serve as the basis of all projects and adopted recreational and entertainment practices in the country. Construction works on the Black Sea coast begin in the 1950s. Plans for Sunny Beach, Drujba (now “St. Constantine and Helena”), Albena, Rusalka Nessebar and Sozopol are in preparation; buildings and the infrastructure are being built. The chief designer of the Golden A plan of Zlatni Pyasatsi, 1956437 437 Ганев, Георги. Новият черноморски летовищен комплекс „Балкантурист“ в местността „Златни пясъци“ край град Сталин. // Архитектура, 1956, бр. 4. 469 Slunchev Briag438 Sands resort was the 1916 Sofia born architect Georgi Ganev439. He had graduated architecture in Dresden in 1939 and in the 1950s headed of a team at the CAPO (GLAVPROEKT).440 “... The major and most important development factor for the resort was, undoubtedly, the extraordinarily rich natural environment... It happened so that the designers became collaborators of nature”, writes Ganev in his memoirs441. By the middle of the century, the development of resorts was seen as a kind of “business tourism”, involving large groups of holidaymakers residing in functionally specialized independent buildings and areas. During this period, the mixed “hotel-restaurant” building typology is not frequently met. The function of hotels is confined to getting a healthy night`s sleep and the common daily use of the so-called “living rooms” which were no more than shared halls located on the floors or adjacent to the reception desk. Food and entertainment have no place there and are to be enjoyed in specially dedicated buildings – often in the immediately vicinity within the entire complex. By the middle of the century the opportunities, offered by the Black Sea coastline, had become known outside the country too. As the Russian architect Samoilova commented in 1960: “...The best works in the countries of people`s democracy – such as the magnificent resorts in Bulgaria called “Golden Sands” and “Sunny Beach” or the Romanian “Eforie” – successfully combine functional expediency, technical perfection and extraordinary visual attractiveness”442. And in the very title of his 1962 “New York Times” article, Paul Underwood describes Bulgaria as being the “Florida on the Black Sea”443. Over the following decades most of the coastal strip territories possessing the required territorial and environmental features have been built and their settlement structures continue to be developed to this day. Part of the distinction of the Bulgarian Black Sea complexes is the expansion and improvement of the prophylactic and health procedures provided for the tourists in addition to the the entertainment formats. Night entertainment centers are characteristic with their impressive design and individual (sometimes luxurious) specifics. The major focus is placed on festive events and the general, holiday atmosphere. Sunny Beach, for example, stages the annual music festival which since 1967 became known as the “Golden Orpheus”. Initially, it is hosted by the building of the variety bar designed by the architects Mikhail Sokolovski and Evgeni Zidarov (1965) but at a later stage it was shifted to the open air theater (1969), designed by the architect Vl. Radoslavov. In one or another form, the musical event is attended by popular foreign artists like Gilbert Becaud, Gianni Morandi, Al Bano, Julio Iglesias, Hotel Globus, a 1958 project designed by the architect Nikola Nikolov444 438 Стоилов, Георги, Ангел Шарлиев Архитектурата на нашите черноморски курорти: Бургаско крайбрежие. – София: Техника, 1975, с. 143. 439 Ганев, Георги. Новият черноморски летовищен комплекс „Балкантурист“ в местността „Златни пясъци“ край град Сталин. // Архитектура, 1956, бр. 4. 440 Мандева, Венета и Любомир Владков. Златният курорт на България. – Варна: Бряг Принт ЕАД, 1997, с. 36–38. 441 Пак там. 442 За някои черти на социалистическия стил в архитектурата на страните с народна демокрация. // Архитектура, София, 1960, № 7, с. 21–22. 443 Underwood, Paul, New York Times, March 11, 1962, Section Resorts And Travel, Page XX22, Column. 444 Стоилов, Георги, Ангел Шарлиев. Архитектурата на нашите черноморски курорти: Бургаско крайбрежие – София: Техника, 1975, с. 60. 470 471 Alla Pugachova and many others. On its part, the resort “Golden Sands” gains additional prominence with the “Golden Sands” auto rally held on its territory. The beauty contest “Miss Bulgaria” is organized in the Albena complex and a number of other seaside villages have set up youth camps, meetings and work brigades as well as various international events. During the 70s and early 80s all of these resorts are already widely popular and are visited by family holidaymakers and tourist groups. According to the marketing trends of the period (together with the theatrical and publishing formations, factories and enterprises), the complexes “Sunny Beach” and “Albena” also receive their printed logos. In this particular case, they are the work of one of our most noted painters – Stefan Kanchev. In addition, some of the most popular and beloved Bulgarian movies are filmed in the sea resorts and villages. Such, for example, are such the emblematic productions like the 1970 “The Moby Dick Five” directed by Grisha Ostrovski and Todor Stoyanov (script by Boris Aprilov); “With children at sea” (1972) by the authors Mormarevi Brothers and director Dimitar Petrov; “A no-name orchestra” (1982), directed by Ludmil Kirkov and based on a screenplay written by Stanislav Stratiev. In summary, despite the complexity of the overall situation and the specific applications the scale of the socialist activities in the sphere of recreational construction works is truly remarkable. Leisure zones, hotels, chalets, tourist sites and holiday complexes are centrally planned, built and intended for specific purposes – both along the Black sea coast and in suitable mountain and other attractive locations. Despite the number of turbulent changes and the excessive volume of the building works, typical of the Black Sea territories, the architectural solutions and the taste implicated in their construction can be felt to this day. In addition, the holiday complexes reveal a specific, somewhat positive aspect of Bulgaria’s image during the years of communist rule. It is precisely during the socialist period that the expression (paradoxical to a degree) “recreational activity” appears to denote the various departments and administrative units responsible for organizing the working people`s holidays. Although centrally organized, spending the holiday at sea is socially accessible to the masses and the beauty and pleasure of the holiday lifestyle have become legendary among the people. S. T. 472 TECHNOLOGIES AND MACHINE AESTHETICS It is often said that the October 4, 1957 launching of the first artificial satellite on Earth marks the beginning of the “cosmic era”. Of course, during the cold war years there are a number of other important dates: the first human in outer space (Yuri Gagarin on April 12, 1961), or the landing on the moon (Neil Armstrong – July 20, 1969) are also important. The world drive to explore (and master) the cosmos is a factor influencing many aspects of life throughout the 20th century: a register of specific scientific quests, the development of high technology, the creation of fantastic images in art – literature, theater, cinema, etc.. During the second half of the century certain trends in design and architecture in Bulgaria begin to appear and they relate to the new technological developments Taking shape at different points in time they vary in material forms and develop in several separate directions: • they serve the newly-established industrial and technological spheres; • they introduce industrial processes in the construction sector (in design and construction); • they are an expression of certain aesthetic reflexes. During the 1950s most of the factory projects placed for public discussion in the journal Architecture are related to the light industry (meat processing combines and commercial buildings) and to the mining industry (the Kremikovtzi metallurgical plant which was then being designed). During the 1960s, the focus shifts to the profiling and professionalization of the industrial activities as well as on its wider exposure to the public. It is then that the Maritza East power plants (1962), Ruse East (1964), TPP Varna and Sliven (1969) were built. The “Technical and scientific creativity of youth” (or the TNTM) movement was launched, the newspaper “Orbita” appears and the building of the “Electronika” plant is being erected in Sofia. The next decade sees the commissioning for exploitation of the “Kozlodui” nuclear power plant (1974)445. 445 АЕЦ Козлодуй ЕАД, Начало, За централата, История, 2008 http://www.kznpp.org/ index.php?lang=bg&p=about_aec&p1=company_history (visited on 21.06.2018). 473 During this time period many Bulgarian specialists are actively engaged in various assignments abroad and in a number of African and Asian countries industrial complexes, dams, road networks and water facilities are being designed along with some public buildings and city centers. After the middle of the century the industrial buildings have a strictly rational outer appearance and the preferred materials for their construction are glass, metal and concrete in combination with the typical stone and aluminum linings. The same type of machine aesthetics becomes typical of many public and administrative buildings. In connection with the COMECON political decisions taken in 1967, a state owned economic association named “Computing, Recording and Organizational Technonolgies” (DSO IZOT, Bul.) is established in Bulgaria. In the 1970s and 1980s the focus is placed on building hightech industrial buildings and scientific centers. In 1973, a “Peripheral equipment plant” was opened in Stara Zagora which was later to become the “Disk Storage Devices Plant” (ZDZU, Bul.). Facilities for the manufacturing of electronic elements and auxiliary products were set up in Botevgrad, Pravets and Plovdiv. At the same time the approach to industrialized design and the construction of buildings leads to the appearance of new architectural Model of the ENERGOPROEKT building, 1964, designed by the architect Metodi Pisarski et.al.446 The building of the “Elektronika” plant printed on the cover of the “Radio, television and electronics” magazine, ed. 9 – 1985447 variations and the solutions related to them. Bulgarian architecture is strongly influenced by the centralized system of governance and as a result – and in addition to the different forms of uniform projects – the trend to massive panel constructions is becoming the fashion of the day (the first panel manufacturing plant, the DK № 1, was commissioned for exploitation in 1963 and by the late 1980s there were nearly 30 such “home” manufacturing plants in the country). Unlike the analysis of construction technologies, until the very end of the 70s the monographs and albums devoted to the Bulgarian architecture rarely contain any recommendations and descriptions concerning the The “Pravets 82” PC in a school in Russia448 446 Конкурс – Сребърен плакет „Кольо Фичето“. Конкурсен проект N:1, Проект за проектантски институт „Енергопроект“. // Архитектура, 1964, № 3, с. 28. 447 Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RTE_9_1985_front_ cover.jpg, (посетен на 1.11.2018) 448 Wikimedia Commons: «Переславская неделя» / В. С. Спиридонов / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA 3.0 (посетен на 1.11.2018) 474 475 A residential building for newlyweds (the OS-68-Gl program)449 designing process as such. In the materials collected for the national review named “Bulgarian socialist architecture – a 30 year anniversary” (1975), Borislav Stoyanov`s article entitled “Novel design and construction methods” speaks of the possible application of a machine – or a computer – in the architectural designing process. “Research on the application of electronic computing equipment in architectural design has been conducted at the Institute of construction cybernetics as early as 1968”, he writes and goes on to explain that “…programs have been compiled for the optimization of planned solutions for residential areas and single-storey industrial buildings based on small built-up areas; for the automatic determination of the volume of finishing works in the panel blocks of flats and a system of programs for solving the housing problem in the People‘s Republic of Bulgaria”. A specialized international scientific and technical conference is held ten years later with subject matter entitled “Contemporary organization, methods and design tools” (1985). Most of the reports presented at the event focus on the automation of the designing process and the use of computer technologies as well as the prognostication of the future trends. The honored painter and engineer Konfino recommends the directing of the designing process towards “...the sophistication of the design technology itself by using the available electronic computing equipment to the maximum possible degree..”. Guidelines for the use of electronic computing equipment can be found in the reports related to territorial planning as well as the construction engineering specialties. According to the architect L. Konstantinova from KNIPIAT “Glavproekt”, the most promising and novel method for developing project documentation is the catalog-type design in its three variants: “visual”, “model” and “automated”. The first Bulgarian computer journal was published in 1985 and it was named “The computer and you”. The department of “Automation of engineering labour” in VIAS was officially established in 1987450, and by the early 1990s computer resources became a compulsory part of the academic training in the sphere of architecture and design. Many specialists now focused their attention on exterior and interior solutions for buildings which can be designed on a computer. Over time, and in addition to the direct application of improved technical capabilities, some secondary aesthetic reflexes must also be taken into account when considering the involvement of technology and in the architectural sphere. Unlike modernism, metabolism and brutalism turn out to be ideologically neutral terms and during 1970s and 1980s they manage to gain considerable popularity (in spite of being often misused or employed as substitutes for other, more generalized but controversial phenomena). While metabolism considers dynamic changes in the environment and seeks the forms of energy exchange in architectural structures, brutalism emphasizes the ethics of minimal interference in the volume of technological possibilities through the exterior expressions of raw concrete. In Bulgaria there are no unconditional (categorical) architectural solutions following these two trends, but much of the designing activities from the late 1960s and until the end of the 1980s are strongly marked by their concepts. The “New Otani” hotel, A project for a district “Computer” youth club in Burgas, 1986, architect Vladimir Minkov451 449 Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BlockOs-68-Gl_3.JPG (посетен на 1.11.2018) 450 УАСГ, За университета, История, Висш институт по архитектура и строителство (ВИАС), (1977–1992). 451 Минков, Владимир. Окръжен младежки клуб „Компютър“ в Бургас. // Архитектура, 1986, № 10, с. 21. 476 477 which was designed by the Japanese architect Kisho Kurokawa and which was built in Sofia between 1975 -1979, is often thought of as being the most obvious expression of the spirit of metabolism. By the mid seventies the visible concrete structures of some large residential and sports buildings (executed in regional forms and proportions) already express the local transformations of brutalism. Although sometime later the visible concrete is lined, the aim to resize the silhouette, the construction and the spaces remains in vogue. It is not until the late 1980s that one may notice attempts at finding an individual “hi-tech” style in Bulgaria (due to the growing world interest in technology). Initially, its expressions are sporadic and accompanied by numerous stylistic borrowings from other aesthetic trends. By the last decade of the 20th century, however, the preferences for this style become clearly visible. The TV tower in Boris`s park, 1959, Sofia, designed by Lyuben Popodonev452 The TV tower on mount Vitosha, “Kopitoto”, 1986, designed by Lyuben Popodonev and Stefan Tilev453 S. T. The fashion “Rila” complex in the city of Tolbuhin, 1986, designed by the architect Gospodin Mihailov454 452 Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sofia_Old_TV_Tower_ edit-2.jpg (посетен на 1.11.2018) 453 Wikimedia Commons, Preslav, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kopitoto.JPG (посетен на 1.11.2018) 454 Михайлов, Господин. Моден комплекс „Рила“ в град Толбухин. // Архитектура, 1986, № 2. 478 479 SYNTHESIS OF THE ARTS WITH FINE ARTS In 1978 the special “Ordinance No. 20 on the financing, designing, building and preserving the products from the artistic synthesis of architecture with the fine arts” was enforced in Bulgaria. Based on its provisions, the national legislative framework regulates a tendency which is popular within the architectural and artistic circles. In itself, the practice of assigning a “task” and “placing orders” is not a novelty in the design and construction processes but during the days of socialist rule there was no alternative for such assignments: “The sites, products of the artistic synthesis of architecture with the fine arts, are built on the basis of national programs” one may read in Article 3 of the said Ordinance No 20, with the addition that “...The sites which are not included in the national programs shall be assessed and built as exceptions and in compliance with the requirements specified in the ordinance”. From today‘s point of view, the very fact of the endorsement of this ordinance indicates to the strict centralized interference in the creative process and its role in predetermining the type and content of the final products. During the period in question, the programs for construction sites of national importance are approved by the Council of Ministers and those of local importance – by the Committee on culture (today the Ministry of Culture) and the Committee on architecture and urban development. Tying the arts with political power is also confirmed via the structures of the party – the Central committee of the Party has now set up a Commission A synthesis of the arts on the wall of kindergarden № 49 “Radost” in Sofia on science, culture and education which in 1979 is headed by Lyudmila Zhivkova. The objects of art, included in architectural sites, are typically not considered on their own but rather as a part of the overall structure. “The presence of a work of art in a voluminous and spacial composition undoubtedly enriches its artistic image”, writes Alexander Dorosiev in 1975. “The issue here is to correctly and purposefully use the specific potential expressiveness of this new art involved in the architectural composition in order to achieve a new quality; to saturate and enrich the conceptual content of the artistic image”, he goes on to say455. And to emphasize the educational importance of architecture and its elements Dorosiev recalls the short slogan of the first labor brigades: “We are building a road and the road is building us”. The attention directed to and the increased control of the products of architecture, the arts and culture in general (and their synthesis) is only one side of the issue. On the other side is the realization that possibilities have appeared for the realization of large scale multimodal projects intended to serve the needs of the numerous celebrations and anniversaries ordered by the state. Presentations of selected artistic events and the construction of sites are also organized for far lesser occasions and anniversaries, although in some cases the selection of the activities and the volume of the construction works is impressive. Chain-type scenarios are realized in several locations, one such example being the 1976 celebrations of the anniversary of the April uprising. The text mentions two more frequently discussed cases: the building of the park complex “Kambanite” and the construction of the National Palace of Culture (NDK, Bul.). Despite the apparent ideological foundations, their elements are generally of high quality of execution and a clearly visible architectural and artistic value. The “Kambanite” monument was built as a part of the international children‘s assembly “Flag of peace” (1979). Its underlying concept includes the building of a foundation for the mounting of gifts – larger and smaller bells from dozens of different countries. The complex is in keeping with the motto of the assembly, which is “Unity, creativity and beauty” and is a truly authentic image of the then popular monumental architecture with elements of brutalism. 455 Доросиев, Александър. Синтезът на архитектурата с другите изкуства. – В Сборник от материали на националния преглед „Българска социалистическа архитектура“. – София: САБ, ЦНИПЕТУГА, 1975, с. 104–105. 480 31. Bulgarian 20th Century... 481 The “Kambanite” monument, 1979, designed by the sculptor Krum Damyanov and the architects Blahoi Atanasov and Georgi Genchev The construction of the National Palace of Culture (1981) is a part of the program set up for celebrating the founding of the state in 681 AD named “Bulgaria 1300”. A number of committees and supplementary administrative organizations were specially established for the event. Palaces (or “homes”) of culture have been built in Bulgaria as early as the end of World War II. The 50s, with their neoclassical decorations, are the source of the connections with the styles of the “personality cult” period but also the borrowings from the eclectic architecture of the big community cultural centers (“reading rooms”) and the elegant theatre buildings, created in Bulgaria between the two world wars (in spite of their similarity of function and scope of activities they cannot replace the community centers which are still being built). During the 70s and 80s of the 20th century the monumental “Stalinist” exterior and interior solutions were finally abandoned and the newly erected buildings demonstrate a decidedly simplified, modernistic appearance. Other administrative building typologies as “party`s homes” and “municipal councils”, follow the same stylistic trend. The synthesis of the arts continues its existence as an element of most buildings commissioned for public use with an additional touch of frequently national and/or ideological accentuations. The construction of the National palace of culture (the NDK) began in 1978 and the scale of the building and its adjacent spaces underlines, yet again, the enormous ambition driving the project. In addition to state and public funds, voluntary labor and other inputs are also invested: for example, the value of one day of gratuitous labor granted by the capital`s citizens. The design of the building is the work of numerous teams led by the architect Alexander 482 Barov and the constructor and engineer Bogdan Atanasov, while the frontal square and the green areas of the complex were elaborated by the architects Atanas Agura and Valentina Atanasova456. The building was officially opened 1981 by Todor Zhivkov himself and was to be named “Sofia”. After the death of Lyudmila Zhivkova (a few months later), the National palace of culture (NDK) was renamed in her honor (as a token of her participation in supporting the underlying concept of the complex) and retained her name until 1989. Among the authors of the works incorporated in the complex in the form of artistic syntheses are Dechko Uzunov, Marin Varbanov, Svetlin Rusev, Pavel Koichev, Teofan Sokerov, Anton Donchev. The halls and lobbies of the National palace of culture have staged various events and attractions: a theatre and cinema, music shows and painting exhibitions, a book market, a congress center, numerous trade fairs, etc. It is maybe because of the many cultural functions that during the 1980s the NDK is often called Sofia`s “cultural agora”. A branch of the National palace of culture – and once again to be named after Lyudmila Zhivkova – was built in Varna (1986) under the project of the architect Kosyo Hristov457. Until the end of the 80s, the center in the Black sea capital, the “Univesiada” hall in Sofia458 and the National palace of culture were a unified administrative entity – host of significant social events. While retaining some of its original functions, the sports hall in the capital city was later privatized. Today, the festival and congress center in Varna stages festivals such as “The Golden rose”, “Love is Madness”, “Summer in Varna” and many others. While the synthesis of the arts in and outside of the National palace of culture is moderate in nature and more in tune with the major functional purposes of the building, in the case of the mount Buzludja memorial house it steers the entire logic of the architectural construction and completely overlays any spatial suggestions (both in and outside). Perhaps it is just because of this that after the change of the political regime such imagery is often left to the whims of time and to the elements despite their 456 НДК 2018. История, http://ndk.bg/%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81/% D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F (visited on 28.06.2018) 457 ФКЦ-Варна, За нас, История, https://fccvarna.bg/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81.html (visited on 28.06.2018). 458 Построена по проект на Ал. Баров, Д. Владишки, Ив. Татаров, Ив. Иванчев и др. през 1961 г., във връзка с домакинството на София на Световните студентски летни игри „Универсиада 61“. 483 THEATRICAL QUESTS WITH THE WIND OF CHANGES The Phoenix logo of the National Palace of Culture was created by the artist Stefan Kanchev historical and architectural value. It is known that outside of the country – in some former totalitarian states – the so-called “buildings of hatred” are being built to represent the times of oppression (prisons, military and police stations, etc.) or the state authorities of the time. In Bulgaria, however, the objects of such hatred during the transition period have turned out to be the buildings symbolizing the functions of the communist party. The lack of sheer historical time does not allow for a comprehensive assessment of the architectural concepts and the completed construction projects of importance during the socialist era nor does it permit the performance of an evaluation of the choice and development of the various trends in the construction industry. The fact is that the ideological specifics of the regime impose a definite imprint on all aspects of the architectural production activity as well as on the forms of investment, training and design. The process of constructing (buildings and cities, synthesized complexes, moral values or the features of the social texture in general) is constantly present in social life although it has to pass through numerous heterogeneous metamorphoses and reflections. At the same time, construction practices in general do respond – albeit with variable success – to a number of world challenges: utilization of the available urban areas, development and profiling of the contemporary construction and technological solutions, zonal organization and specialization of the spaces, modernistic stylistic reflections, etc. S. T. 484 After the so called “period of stagnation” of the “developed socialism”, covering the period from the end-1960s to the mid-1980s, started discussion about the necessity of a change in all spheres of the social activity in the countries with socialist regimes. The second half of the 1980s is known as the period of “the perestroika”, which led to the disintegration of the socialist system and irreversible social-political, economic and cultural changes worldwide. The invocation for initiation of measures for overcoming the inertia of some “stagnant phenomena in social life”, about the need of “acceleration of the social-economic development”, for “rendering more publicity as a flawlessly operating system” as well as for “reconstruction of the spiritual sphere” came as instructions from the government.459 The Perestroika was initiated by the party elite and more particularly by its godfather Mikhail Gorbachev, who became secretary general of the Komunisticheska partija na Savetskija Sauz (KPSS; Communist Party of Soviet Union) in March 1985. In his report “About the summoning of the sequential 27th congress of the KPSS and assignments, associated with its preparation and conducting” of the April plenum of the Central Committee of KPSS on April 23rd 1985, for the first time he mentioned the concept about “perestroika” and the fact that “each reconstruction of the economic mechanism, is well known, starts with the reconstruction of the consciousness, with denial of the imposed stereotypes of the thinking and the practices with the clear understanding of the new assignments”460. Several of the following events, such as the XXVII congress of KPSS in 1986 and the Plenum of KPSS in January 1987, including also the administratively imposed transformations in the spiritual sphere as 459 Горбачов, Михаил. Доклад Генерального секретаря ЦК КПСС М.С.Горбачева „О созыве очередного XXVII съезда КПСС и задачах, связанных с его подготовкой и проведением“. Правда, 24 април 1985, № 114. http://historyru.com/docs/rulers/gorbachev/ gorbachev-doc-3.html#/overview (visited on 09.09.2018). 460 Ibid. 485 Protocol No. 218 from a session of the Secretariat of the CC of CPSS. Absolutely secret 461 for example the foundation of the Souz teatralnih obshtestv (Union of the Theatrical Societies) in 1986, indicative of the important social role, existing in the Soviet theatre, were catalyst of the scale reforms in the social-political and cultural life not only in the Soviet Union. The will for a change of the social order became increasingly difficult to control in the countries from Central and Eastern Europe. On 28th and 29th July 1987, plenum of the Central Committee of the Balgarska komunisticheska partija (BKP; Bulgarian Communist Party) took place, where ideas were discussed related to the implementation of radical reforms and liberalisation in Bulgaria, laid down in the foundations of the so called “July concept”. On the following National Party Conference of the BCP in January 1988 as well as the Plenum of the Central Committee of BKP which took place on 19th and 20th July 1988, problems were discussed concerning not only the imperative conducting of economic reforms, envisaging the privatisation of the ownership and setting up of private entrepreneurship, but also the reorganization in the spiritual sphere. In her report on the reforming of the theatre, the actress Vancha Doycheva in her capacity of representative of the Union of Bulgarian Actors, in the spirit of the new populist idea for decentralisation, also discussed “the active exchange of the spiritual values shall bring art in the most suitable form to each village and neighbourhood, to each heart, in order to turn into vital necessity for each citizen of our country willing to be its worthy representative...” 462 The report pointed out that the increased spiritual necessities caused the need of creation of new flexible theatre formations and studios of likeminded with common objective and new tasks in the quest of creative risk and bold experiment. Another instance associated with the necessity of raising the role of the Union of Bulgarian Actors was pointed out, which a month earlier, on the Union’s IX plenum, took the decision for reorganisation of theatre work. On a session from 26th July 1988 the Politburo of Central Committee of Balgarska komunistcheska partia (BKP; Bulgarian Communist Party) accepted the common positive assessment of the results from the work of the plenum of the Central Committee of BKP with regards to the reorganisation of the spiritual sphere, made by comrade Todor Zhivkov and his instructions on the approach with the accomplishment of the decisions of the plenum.463 In his speech on the reforms in the field of art, Todor Zhivkov commented on Vancha Doycheva’s report about the theatres, who was elected the following year to be the chairman of the he Union of Bulgarian Actors. In this report, the Secretary General of the CC of BKP paved the way for the line for reorganisation of the theatrical work: “The spectacle is created by the actors and the directors and not by the hierarchy, which is created from top to bottom and from bottom to top. The people go to the theatre not because of the building where they will watch Vancha Doycheva’s report on the Plenum of Central Cmmittee of the Balgarska komunistcheska partia (Bulgarian Communist Party), 19.07.1988464 Выписка из протокола № 218 заседания Секретариата ЦК КПСС от 14 января, 1986. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/rus/text_files/Perestroika/1986.01.14.pdf (посетен на 09.09.2018) 462 Стенографски протокол. Пленум на ЦК на БКП, 19–20 юли 1988 г., с. 66–74, ЦДА, Фонд 1Б; опис 65; архивна единица 88. http://politburo.archives.bg/bg/2013-04-24-11-0924/1980-1989/3283-––––––-19--20--1988-–-i (visited on 09.09.2018). 463 Протокол „А“ № 119 от 26 юли 1988 от заседанието на Политбюро на ЦК на БКП. http://prehod.omda.bg/page.php?tittle=ПРОТОКОЛ_А_№_119,_26_юли_1988_г.&IDMenu=58 5&IDArticle=1256 (visited on 09.09.2018). 464 Стенографски протокол. Пленум на ЦК на БКП, 19–20 юли 1988 г., с. 66–74, ЦДА, Фонд 1Б; опис 65; архивна единица 88, л. 66–74. http://politburo.archives.bg/bg/2013-04-24-1109-24/1980-1989/3283-––––––-19--20--1988-–-i (visited on 09.09.2018). 486 487 461 the performance, but they go to see art. And art is created by living people – by actors and directors and not by the hierarchy. Therefore, an opportunity should be provided for the actors to be selected as well as to take part in this reorganisation. They should be told that: there, that is what the state can give, it cannot give you more and you should sit and decide how to implement all that. There are at least three drama theatres in each district. Will there be any reorganisation or not really? If we are to make reorganisation – we have to make it.”465 The post-stagnant stirring in the spirit of the new time, associated with the striving for demolition of the “iron curtain” and the democratization of the society in the Bulgarian theatre, had already begun at the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s. These processes became possible thanks to the purposeful efforts of the party leadership to channelise the irrepressible theatrical processes and tendencies subject to control. “Complex analyses of the problems and directions for development in the theatre in the light of the Decision of the Politburo of Central Committee of BKP for developing the theatre work” was elaborated in 1980 by the Komitet za kultura (Committee for Culture). The decision for development in the theatre work in the country was already made by Politburo in 1972, but the program for its implementation was significantly delayed.466 Protocol “А” No. 557 from the session of Politburo of CC of BCP from 11th July 1972, sheet 2 465 Изказване на Тодор Живков. Протокол „А“ № 119 от 26 юли 1988 от заседанието на Политбюро на ЦК на БКП. http://prehod.omda.bg/page.php?tittle=ПРОТОКОЛ_А_№_119,_26_юли_1988_г.&IDMen u=585&IDArticle=1256 (visited on 11.09.2018). 466 Протокол „А“ № 557 от заседанието на Политбюро на ЦК на БКП от 11 юли 1972 г., ЦДА, фонд 1, опис 35, архивна единица 3304, лист 73-84. http://politburo.archives.bg/bg/201304-24-11-12-48/dokumenti/1970-1979/1169-–-557--11--1972-– (visited on 11.09.2018). 488 The document stated the necessity for measures, related to the improvement of the repertoire with respect to the audience interest with inclusion of more contemporary West European plays as well as from the world dramaturgy, created by the literature bureaus. Attention was drawn on the necessity of increasing the role of criticism and theatrical science. In the long run, the possibility for section Theatre of the Institute for Art Studies in the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (BAS) to grow up to distinct Theatrical institute with National Theatrical Museum with BAS was mentioned. The possibilities for creation of experimental scenes were discussed, as well as the setting up of theatres with more specific orientation, both as theatres intended for small audience, coffee-theatres, cabaret show bars and new formations: laboratories, workshops, studios, where the principle of solidarity would be leading. One of the missions was associated with the expansion of the theatre network. With respect to the international cooperation the need from expansion of the contacts with countries like: England, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Sweden, Unite States of America was pointed out. Accomplishment of participation of Bulgarian spectacles was planned for the Theatre of nations, on the festivals in Avignon and Nice, Dublin and Edinburg, Hamburg, Manheim and Bochum, West Berlin, Belgrade (Belgrade International Theatre Festival, BITEF), the Athens Festival, the Theatrical Review in Madrid, etc.467 These program objectives, on the one hand, were implemented to some extent as an initiative “from above”. The repertoire was diversified. New laboratories, workshops, show bars, chamber stage, etc. started to emerge. In the next years, the Bulgarian actors began travelling abroad on tours and participating in festivals in countries behind the “iron curtain”. In 1982, Bulgaria was hosting the Theatre of Nations. With a particular interest on behalf of the theatrical circles the festival Theatre in a Suitcase in 1987 and 1989 was welcomed. On the other hand, the document attempted reformation of the already started processes in the Bulgarian theatre. Such an unexpected compliance of the party elite with the striving of the artists encourage them in their further quests. 467 Комплексен анализ на проблемите и насоките за развитие в театъра в светлината на Решението на Политбюро на ЦК на БКП за развитие на театралното дело“ на Комитет за култура. 1980, 91–111. Cited after Николова, Румяна. Модел на функциониране на българския театър в периода 1956–1989 година. Институт за изследване на изкуствата, 2018, 116–120 (Archive of Institute of Art Studies – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences). 489 Some of the theatre actors were, however, disappointed by the hypocrisy and duplicity of the authorities with regards to the carrying out of the reforms in the Bulgarian theatre and thus left the country forever. The bright figures from the period include Dimitar Gochev, who emigrated to turn into one of leading directors in the future united Germany. He worked in different theatres in the country and in the capital. In 1982, he staged Philoctetes by Heiner Müller in theatre Sofia. In this staging, the team sought for wordless intensive resistance against violence of the words. This is the last production of D. Gochev in Bulgaria, who left for Germany in 1985 and staged in Cologne, Dusseldorf, Hamburg, Hanover, Bochum, Basel, Gratz, Vienna, etc. After two unsuccessful attempts due to the devastating criticism on behalf of the censorship for the creation of Bulgarian rock-opera by the band Zlatni struni (Golden Strings) of Mishevi brothers Trakiiska grobnica (Thracian Tomb; 1975–1976) and the band May, Sreshti s Rama (Rendezvous with Rama; 1981) after A. Clarke, in 1983 for the first time it was possible to present to the spectators an original Bulgarian rock-opera Ricarjat si ljaga rano (The Knight Goes to Bed Early). The parable spectacle for the doom of a mindless kingdom saw an incredible success, but it was cancelled for political reasons after the 5th performance. It was prepared by a group of students in Vissh institut za teatralno izkustvo (Higher Institute for Theatre Art) as graduation work of the director Ognyan Kupenov. It was performed in the alternative space of the lobby of the institute. The author of the music and the libretto was arch. Ivo Venkov, who emigrated to the USA in 1987. Philoctetes by Heiner Müller, dir. Dimitar Gochev, theatre Sofia, 1982 490 Ranata Woyzeck (The Wound Woyzeck by Bühner, Müller and Hyoldrlin, dir. Ivan Stanev, theatre Sofia, 1988 In 1983, the rock-musical Lubovni bulevardi (Love Boulevards) by the playwright Stefan Tsanev and the composer Yuri Stupel in the Mladejki teatr (Youth Theatre), was also cancelled. Yuri Stupel emigrated to Greece. In 1984, the director Ivan Stanev gathered a group of actors in Lovech on the principle of the laboratory theatre. The following spectacles with avant-garde orientation were staged: Lubovta kam trite portokala (The Love for Three Oranges) by Carlo Gozzi, 1984 and Alhimija na skrabta (Alchemy of sorrow), collage after Chekhov, Bergman, Baudelaire, Cortázar, Horvath, Ionesco, Wittgenstein, Becket and others, 1986. It was cancelled even before the premiere. In 1988, Ivan Stanev staged Ranata Woyzeck (The Wound Woyzeck) by Bühner, Müller and Hyoderllin in theatre Sofia. In 1988, during a tour of the performance he emigrated to Germany. In the 1980s many actors from different generations tried to elevate the level of Bulgarian culture to the level of the world contemporary samples in the theatre. Emblematic staging of world and contemporary Bulgarian dramaturgy in the spirit of awakening and will for changes were some of the spectacles of the affirmed directors, such as: Medea by Euripides, Dvamata veronci (Two Gentlemen from Verona) and Mnogo shum za nishto (Much Ado About Nothing) by W. Shakespeare, director Lyuben Groys; Hamlet by W. Shakespeare, director Villy Tzankov; Delo (The Case) by А. SuhovoKobilin, Samoubiecat (Suicide) by N. Erdman, Kalbovidna malnija (Fireball) by Iv. Radoev, director Krikor Azaryan; King John by Fr. Durrenmatt, Poslednata nosht na Sokrat (The last Night of Socrates) by St. Tsanev, director Nikolay Polyakov; V ochakvane na Godo (Waiting 491 Hamlet, W. Shakespeare, dir. Villy Tzankov, Theatre Sofia, 1982 for Godot) by S.Becket, Cherveno vino za sbogom (Farewell Red Wine) by K. Iliev, director Leon Daniel; San (Dream) by Iv. Radoev and Jivotat – tova sa dve jeni (Life – These Are Two Women) by St. Tsanev, director Mladen Kisselov; Drag i robat (Drag and the Slave) by N. Rusev, director Krasimir Spasovов; Tainata vecherja na djakona Levski (The Secret Dinner of Deacon Levski) by St. Tsanev, director Asen Shopov, etc. The director who played an important role in the quest of a new stage language was Slavi Shkarov. He worked predominantly in Drama Theatre – Ruse. In the second half of the 1980s, S. Shkarov as guest-director in Drama theatre “Stefan Kirov” – Sliven made several productions as Mata Hari by N. Yordanov, Prag (Threshold) by Dudarev, Revizor (The Government Inspector) by N.V.Gogol and Molier i Sazakljatieto na licemerite (Moliére or the Cabal of Hypocrites) by Bulgakov. They were distinguished by strong energy and rebellious spirit. The young actors appointed in the theatre took part in the above mentioned productions, who became leading figures in a number of alternative formations and troupes in the next decade. During this period, in the capital, new theatrical formations started their activities, such as Kameren Studien teatr Sfumato (Chamber studio theatre, later on – Theatre workshop Sfumato), founded by Margarita Mladenova and Ivan Dobchev, literature theatre Vazrazhdane (Revival) by Andrey Kaludov, Atelier 313 with manager Rashko Mladenov. Velyo Goranov was the head of the pantomime theatre Dvijenie (Movement). In different theatres around the country: Burgas, Varna, Vratsa, Dobrich, Pazardzhik, Razgrad, Ruse, Sliven, Smolyan, etc. groups of people of the same views were formed. Young directors and actors gathered, looking for a new theatrical language. Some of the most memorable performances were products of the directors, who have started their theatre activity in the 1970s, as Ivan Dobchev, Plamen Markov, Zdravko Mitkov, Margarita Mladenova, Bina Haralampieva and others. New theatrical quests could be felt in: Odissei patuva za Itaca (Odysseus Travels to Ithaca) and Bosilek za Draginko Amadeus by P. Shaffer, dir. Slavi Shkarov, Drama Theatre – Ruse, 1983 Moliére i Sazakljatieto na licemerite (Moliére or the Cabal of Hypocrites) by M. Bulgakov, dir. Slavi Shkarov, Drama Theatre – Sliven, 1987 492 493 Bosilek za Draginko (Basil for Draginko) by К. Iliev, dir. Ivan Dobchev, Dramatichno-kuklen teatr – Haskovo, 1986 (Basil for Draginko) by K. Iliev, Balkanski sindrom (Balkan Syndrome) by St. Stratiev (director Iv. Dobchev); Podrobnosti ot peizaja (Details from the Landscape) by St. Stratiev, Noshtno sajitelstv (Night Cohabitation) by M. Minkov; Prozorecat (The Window) by K. Iliev (director Pl. Markov); Morsko sinjo (Marine Blue) by V. Petrov, Nie, vrabchetata (We, the Sparrows) by Y. Radichkov (director M. Mladenova); Kopche za san (Sleep Button) by V. Petrova (director Z. Mitkov); Praznikat (The Holiday) by N. Haytov (director Bina Haralampieva) etc.468 Significant part of the productions of the Vissh institute za teatralno izkustvo (VITIZ; Higher Institute for Theatre Art) graduates in the 1980s, like the ones of the directors Boyko Bogdanov, Vuzkresiya Vihurova, Phantasmagorii after Е. Т. Hoffman, dir. Stefan Moskov, Rhodopski Dramatichen Theatr – Smolyan, 1986 Jertva na dalga (Victims of Duty) by E. Ionesco, dir. Boyko Bogdanov, Drama Theatre – Razgrad, 1986 Stoyan Kambarev, Stefan Moskov, etc. were indicative of the new reformist spirit. In their performances they unleashed the actors’ element in consistency with pulse of time. The young artists made their first theatrical experiments in the performances: Jertva na Dalga (Victims of Duty) by E. Ionesco (director Boyko Bogdanov); Phantasmagorii by Е. Т. Hoffman (director Stefan Moskov); Njakoi mogat, drugi – ne (Some can, others – cannot) after M.Minkov (director T. Moskov and L. Kapon); Dzun after Е. Haritonov (director Vazkresia Vihurova); O, Shtastlivi dni (Оh, Happy Days) by S. Becket (director St. Kambarev), etc. Part of these directors were attracting on the principle of the studio and laboratory work, enthusiastic and radical, gifted actors, playwrights, stage designers, musicians. In this way the basic nuclei for future theatrical alternative formations were created, originating at the end of the 1980sand the beginning of the 1990s with the occurrence of the democratic changes. In 1989, the Berlin Wall, symbol of the split of Europe in two halves, was destructed. This opened a new page in the political and cultural history of Bulgaria, called transition period. 468 See Николова, Камелия. Режисьорът в българския театър: от социалистическия реализъм до постмодернизма. С., 2015, НАЦИД, № Нд 020180072 J. S. 494 495 PART THREE Challenges in Time of Transition (1989–2000) 496 32. Bulgarian 20th Century... 497 NEW THEATRICAL DIRECTIONS The Velvet Revolution The irreversible social, political, and economic changes which started in the mid-eighties of the 20th century in Central and Eastern Europe reached their symbolic climax in November of 1989 with the fall of the Berlin wall. The events that followed lead to the collapse of the Socialist bloc and caused an abrupt change in the political, economic, and cultural map of Europe. The following decade was characterized by changes in state policy aimed at reforming all areas, democratization of society, transition to market economy, decentralization of culture and new public attitudes. The artists in all European countries, with ex-communist regimes, faced serious challenges. On November 9th, 1989 the General Secretary of the Bulgarian Communist Party, Todor Zhivkov resigned, under pressure from Moscow. On the following day, during the November 10th Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party he was officially dismissed from the position he had held for 35 years. The so-called velvet revolution of the transition to democracy and market economy began The fall of the Berlin wall, 09.11.1989 498 499 in Bulgaria. In the following months, people went out in the squares. After the first free political rally, held on November 18th, 1989 in the square in front of St. Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, the demonstrations, speeches and concerts in the streets went on for a long time. On January 15th, 1990 the National Assembly voted in favour of the abolition of Article 1 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria of 1971 which read: (1) The People’s Republic of Bulgaria is a socialist state of the working people from the cities and the villages, led by the Working Class; (2) The Bulgarian Communist Party is the leading force of the society and the state; (3) The Bulgarian Communist Party leads and manages the building of a developed socialist society in the People’s Republic of Bulgaria, in close brotherly cooperation with the Bulgarian Agrarian People’s Union. According to the new Article 1, of the Constitution of the same year, Bulgaria became a democratic, parliamentary state ruled by law.469 The first free democratic elections were held on June The first free rally in the square in front of St. Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, 18.11.1989470 10th and June 17th, 1990. These processes caused a swirl of energy, inspired by the desire for changes and bringing the spirit of reform to all areas of public life, including the theatre. Attempts at Reforms in the Theatre In the spring of 1990 an extraordinary congress of the Union of Bulgarian Artists was held, with the agenda of appointing new management, adopting new Statute of the Union and discussing the necessity of reforms in theatre. An express empirical sociological research on “The crisis in the theatre and the future prospects in front of the Union of Bulgarian Artists” was carried out in the country’s theatres before the congress. The report contained the conclusion that “the lack of clear understanding of the necessity for change and of the opportunities for carrying it out, draws the outlines of a particular disorientation”.471 Major issues were discussed at the congress, regarding the necessity of privatization of theatres and the creation of cooperative-, trade union-, private- and other types of theatres, and the introduction of market rules of financing theatrical activities, outside the state budget. A proposal was made to establish a theatre labour market. Changes in theatrical education were discussed, as well as the introduction of new educational formats and the opening of alternative theatrical institutions of higher education. The task of preparing a draft law for the theatre, to be submitted to the National Assembly, was attributed to the Union of Bulgarian Artists. The draft law was prepared but was never discussed in the National Assembly’s plenary hall.472 On February 18th, 1991 the Council of Ministers adopted Decree № 23 on the Improvement of the activities of non-profit organizations in the area of culture.473 The Decree affirmed that state and municipal organizations (in- 469 Конституция на Република България, чл. 1. (Изм., ДВ, бр. 29 от 1990 г., бр. 94 от 1990 г.). http://www.constcourt.bg/bg/LegalBasis (visited on 02.02.2018). 470 Снимка: Стефан Тихов, Пресфото БТА, http://www.omda.bg/page.php?tittle=Mitingite &IDMenu=290&IDArticle=227 (visited on 20.08.2018). 471 Архив на САБ: Доклад за резултатите от експресно емпирично социологическо изследване „Кризата в театъра и перспективите пред Съюза на артистите в България“, 03. 1990, с. 3. Cited after Йорданов, Николай. Театралната реформа: двадесет и пет години стигат! Бр. 15, 201 1http://homoludens.bg/articles/teatralna-reforma-dvadeset-i-pet-go/#_ftnref13 (visited on 02.03.2018). 472 See Йорданов, Николай. Театралната реформа: двадесет и пет години стигат! Бр. 15, 2011 http://homoludens.bg/articles/teatralna-reforma-dvadeset-i-pet-go/#_ftnref13 (visited on 02.03.2018). 473 Постановление № 23 на Министерския съвет от 18 февруари 1991 г. за усъвършенстване дейността на организациите с нестопанска цел в областта на културата. // Държавен вестник, бр. 16, 26.02.1991. https://www.ciela.net/svobodna-zona-darjaven-vestnik/document/-1088675328/issue/1066/ postanovlenie-%E2%84%96-23-na-ministerskiya-savet-ot-18-fevruari-1991-g-za-usavarshenstvuvanedeynostta-na-organizatsiite-s-nestopanska-tsel-v-oblastta-na-kulturata (visited on 01.05.2018). 500 501 cluding theatres) should autonomously determine their goals, tasks, structure, and required personnel according to their particular subject of activity, and that the state, without interfering in the creative artistic processes and while respecting the autonomy of both individual artists and art groups, should support and regulate the activities of the organizations through state budget financing, special programs for the purpose, projects, etc. on competitive basis and by applying specific tax-, credit-, price- and tariff policy. Also, such organizations might be financed by municipal council budgets, through revenue from their own activities, on behalf of foundations, companies and other business organizations, by bank credit, sponsorship, donations, etc.474 It provided freedom and greater economic independence to theatres in the conditions of free market economy, without the need to become entirely self-supported. In 1993 the National Centre for Theatre was established at the Ministry of Culture. The ministry prepared a “Program for the development of theatrical activity” which was subjected to a wide public discussion in 1997. The program contained provisions on the distribution of state aid for theatre activities on a competitive basis and allowed for the participation of state, municipal, and private formations. The future differentiation of repertoire theatres and hosting stages was also defined at the time. A merger was proposed between drama and puppet theatres in some cities.475 In the following years, the Law for the Protection and Development of Culture was elaborated, which constituted the legal framework in the area of culture, referring to all arts, including the theatre.476 This law abrogated the Decree on Theatres, previously in force since 1949.477 The National Fund “Culture” was established in 1999 with the aim to provide financial support based on competition, including for theatrical activities. The raging economic crisis, which caused hyperinflation towards the end of the 1990s, presented a major obstacle for the radical reforms being carried out in the theatre. The decentralization of theatrical activities which started during the transition period, the growth of the private sector and the introduction of the project approach to financing, in line with the development of the market economy, carried over to the new 21st century. The Repertory Theatre Model and its Alternatives Ibid., чл. 3, 4 и 5. Йорданов, Николай. Театралната реформа: двадесет и пет години стигат! Бр. 15, 2011. http:// homoludens.bg/articles/teatralna-reforma-dvadeset-i-pet-go/#_ftnref13 (visited on 20.03.2018). 476 Закон за закрила и развитие на културата. // Държавен вестник, бр. 50, 1.06.1999, https://www.ciela.net/svobodna-zona-darjaven-vestnik/document/2134664704/issue/400/zakonza-zakrila-i-razvitie-na-kulturata (посетен на 20.02.2018). 477 Ibid. Преходни и Заключителни разпоредби. § 8. In the 1990s the directors, who had paved the way for radical changes in the Bulgarian theatre during the first half of the 1980s, continued their artistic quests during the last decade of the 20th century, on the stages of both state and municipal theatres. Immediately after the changes, the National Theatre, despite the years of crisis, was not lacking in good performances, under a gradual process of modernization of the repertoire model featuring well-established directors and guest directors, typical of the second half of the 1980s. Among these performances were: Obraz i podobie (Image and Likeness) by Y. Radichkov, directed by Mladen Kisselov; Dvanadeset razgneveni maje (Twelve Angry Men) by R. Rose and Tzenata (The Price) by A. Miller, directed by Leon Daniel; Kaminata (The Fireplace) by M. Minkov, directed by Krikor Azaryan; Vassa Zheleznova – 1910 by M. Gorky and Anatole by Arthur Schnitzler, directed by Krasimir Spasov; Endgame by S. Beckett, Spomeni za edna revolucia (Memories of a Revolution) by G. Buhner and H. Muller and Velikdenski vino (Easter Wine) by K. Iliev, directed by Ivan Dobchev; Lorenzaccio by A. de Musset, V polite na Vitosha (At the Foot of the Vitosha Mountain) by P. K. Yavorov, and Nirvana by K. Iliev, directed by M. Mladenova; Portierat (The Caretaker) and Kuhnenskijat asansjor (The Dumb Waiter) by H. Pinter, directed by Plamen Markov; Venecianskijat targovec (The Merchant of Venice) by W. Shakespeare, directed by Zdravko Mitkov, etc. Immediately after the changes, the management of the National Theatre took measures to revive its activities. In 1990 its longtime manager, Diko Fuchadzhiev, was dismissed and for the subsequent nine years his position was assigned to the theatre scholar Prof. Vasil Stefanov. Actors from the previous generation such as Yuri Angelov, Antoni Genov, Stefan Danailov, Marius Donkin, Maria Kavardzikova, Velko Kanev, Georgi Mamalev, Anton Radichev, Naum Shopov, Marin Yanev were joined by the young actors Atanas Atanassov, Andrey Batashov, Reni Vrangova, Radena Valkanova, Valentin Ganev, Paraskeva Dzukelova, Teodor Elmazov, Radost Kostova, Krastio Lafazanov, Plamen Peev, Vladimir Penev, Snezhina Petrova, Petar (Chocho) Popyordanov and others. In the middle of the 1990s, talented directors from the younger generation became part of the National Theatre. 502 503 474 475 Theatre Poster by Stefan Despodov for the stage performance Vassa Zheleznova – 1910 by M. Gorky, dir. by Krasimir Spasov; The National Theatre, 1993 The revival of the theatre during this period is associated with the staging of plays such as Mjara za mjara (Measure for Measure) by W. Shakespeare, Marquis de Sade by M. Yukio and Kavkazkijat tebeshiren krag (The Caucasian Chalk Circle) by B. Brecht, directed by Galin Stoev; Das Käthchen von Heilbronn by Heinrich von Kleist, Essenna gradina (The Autumn Garden) by Lillian Hellman, Chichovtsi (Uncles) by Ivan Vazov and Toz, koyto poluchava plesnitsi (He, Who Gets Slapped) by L. Andreev, directed by Borislav Chakrinov. Alexander Morfov, a graduate of the puppet theatre directing class of Yulia Ognyanova, contributed greatly for establishing the new image of the theatre with his spectacular performances. The plays Don Quixote after M. de Cervantes, Valshebna nosht (Miraculous Night) by S. Beckett, S. Mrozek, Eugene Ionesco, San v ljatna nosht (Midsummer Night’s Dream) and Burjata (The Tempest) by W. Shakespeare, Na danoto (The Lower Depths) by M. Gorky, were all box office successes in the second half of the 1990s. Morfov’s work is characterized by its conditionality. It gets free from the commonly accepted perspective by breaking canon; it explores extremes and paradoxes; it is exceptionally imaginative, often using gags, clowning and actors’ improvisations. Teamwork is the core principle in his plays. Morfov himself has said: “I have always dreamt of creating an orchestra which is able to improvise so well, that it would not need a composer, as the musicians will be the actual composers”.478 The market economy offered opportunities for the development of the art labor market and for the financing of a number of theatre initiatives on a project basis. A number of open stages appeared. Many artists became freelancers, working for different theatres across the country. Chamberand mono-performances were held frequently. Among these were Contract by S. Mrozek, directed by Velyo Goranov and starring father and son actors Naum and Hristo Shopov at Theatre 199; Skitnitza (Bag Lady) by Poster by Stefan Despodov for the play San v ljatna nosht (Midsummer Night’s Dream) by W. Shakespeare, dir. Alexander Morfov, The National Theatre, 1995 Poster by Stefan Despodov for the play Mjara za mjara (Measure for Measure) by W. Shakespeare, dir. Galin Stoev, The National Theatre, 1994 478 Александър Морфов https://www.morfov.com/nachalo (visited on 20.06.2018); Морфов, Александър. Винаги съм намирал крайностите за интересни https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a3 d806_37179726632541009e912224a7ce04a9.pdf (visited on 20.06.2018) 504 505 Sex, narkotici i rochendrol (Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll) by Eric Bogosian featuring Ivaylo Hristov, Doni (Dobrin Vekilov) and Kotseto-Kalki (Kostadin Georgiev), Teatr Balgarska armija (Bulgarian Army Theatre) Jean-Claude van Itallie starring Katia Paskaleva, directed by Krastan Diankov, at the Satirical Theatre; Emigranti (Emigrants) by S. Mrozek featuring Malin Krastev and Yani Jozov, directed by Stefan Mavrodiev at the Mladejki teatr (Youth Theatre), etc. At the very beginning of the transition period, the unleashed energy which was wiping away the taboos, lead to the performance of Sex, narkotici i rochendrol (Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll) by Eric Bogosian starring Ivaylo Hristov, Doni (Dobrin Vekilov) and Kotseto-Kalki (Kostadin Georgiev) at Bulgarian Army Theatre. The performance represents the outlook on life of the modern, free new man with his fears, dilemmas and presentiments. The playwright Eric Bogosian himself commented with regard to his work, one of the main questions asked by him via his character: “Nowadays, in 1991, the question is: How can I possibly be irresponsible and take responsibility at the same time?” 479 The play has been performed on stage for over 25 years now. Two years later Andrey Batashov offered his monologue interpretation of the same play, directed by Snezhina Tankovska. A year later the same team and theatre brought to life another monodrama by Eric Bogosian – S glava v stenata (Pounding Nails in the Floor with my Forehead). During the 1990s, in a time of turbulent changes and financial and spiritual crisis, performances of plays by absurdist playwrights gained extreme popularity – Alfred Jarry, Daniil Kharms, Nikolai Erdman, Samuel Beckett, Eugène Ionesco, Jean Genet, Sławomir Mrożek, Harold Pinter, Václav Havel and others. Actors and directors from different theatres were attracted to Beckett’s experimental monologue works. The audience became familiar with the plays of this representative of the theatre of the absurd through the performances of: Poslednata lenta na Krap (Krapp’s Last Tape) directed by Krikor Azaryan and starring Naum Shopov; O, shtastlivi dni (O, HappyDays) directed by Zdravko Mitkov and featuring Slavka Slavova and Sava Hashamov, at the National Theatre. A few months later the same play was put on stage by director Grisha Ostrovski at the Satirical Theatre with the participation of Tatyana Lolova and Peter Peykov. A particular phenomenon at the turn of the century was the actor Marius Kurkinski (Ivaylo Stoyanov). Possessing an exceptional psycho-phys ical acting technique, he became a master of dynamic role transformation. During the 1990s he presented his mono-performance works: Don Juan after Jean Baptiste Moliere at the Mladejki teatr (Youth Theatre); Pesen na pesnite (The Song of Songs) (based on excerpts from the Bible) and Damata s kuchenceto (The Lady with the Dog) after Sex, narkotici i rochendrol (Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll) by Eric Bogosian with Andrey Batashov, dir. Snezhina Tankovska, Theatre 199, 1993 479 Богосян, Ерик. Цит. по Театър „Българска армия“. „Секс, наркотици и рокендрол“ http://www.tba.art.bg/секс-наркотици-рокендрол___40 (visited on 02.08.2018). 506 507 A. Chekhov at the National Palace of Culture by Marius Kurkinski; Evangelieto na Matea (The Gospel of Matthew) and Obiknoven Chovek (The Innermost Man) by A. Platonov, Foundation Koncepcia za teatr (Concept for the Theatre). Another unmatched, phenomenal performance is that of Schinel (The Overcoat) by N. Gogol presented by Nina Dimitrova and Vasil VasilevZueka from Credo Theatre, usually performed on the stage of Theatre 199. The performance has toured the world and has received many awards; it has been on stage for more than a quarter of a century now. During the 1990s puppet-theatre actors conquered the stages of drama theatres, including the stage of the National Theatre, mainly in the plays directed by Alexander Morfov. The basic concepts of puppetry, such as playing with objects, improvisation, gags, clown techniques, appealed to the new audience who saw the theatre as a place where one could shed the everyday stress away, to have some fun, to laugh and to dream for a while. The artistic search, at this time, was in the field of psychologycal theatre, laboratory work, entering the depths of the unconscious, of the archetypes typical of the modern world. Damata s kuchenceto (The Lady with the Dog) after A. Chekhov, Marius Kurkinski, National Palace of Culture, 1996 508 Shinel (The Overcoat) by N. Gogol, Credo Theatre Alongside these, major characteristic features of the newly born theatre of the transition, was the postmodern play with citations, the intertextuality, the unleashing of the theatrical fantasy, the breaking of canon, the desire to make a parody of everything considered old, outdated, ugly or useless. A number of young directors started their careers during this period by presenting experimental postmodern and neo-avant-garde performances in the spirit of the new times, in different theatres, mainly in the capital, with a few exceptions. Memorable plays from this period include: Chekhov Review after A. Chekhov, directed by Ivan Panteleev; Sluginite (The Maids) by Jean Genet, directed by Yavor Gardev, Opasni vrazki (Dangerous Liaisons) by Ch. De Laclos, directed by Desi Shpatova, Samoubietzat (The Suicide) by N. Erdman, directed by Nedyalko Delchev; Hamlet by W. Shakespeare, Jenitba (Marriage) by N. Gogol, directed by Lilia Arabadzieva and other plays. Towards the end of the century the theatrical life in the capital was very dynamic. A number of formations appeared during the period. Some of them survived for a limited time in the conditions of the economic crisis. Others continued their activity also into the new century. 509 Hamlet by W. Shakespeare, dir. Lilia Arabadzieva, Sliven Drama Theatre, 1998 New Theatrical Formations The decentralization of theatrical activities as well as the desire for change at the end of the 1980s resulted in the establishing of new theatrical formations and groups of like-minded artists who provided various theatrical experiments. In 1989 Kameren studien teatr Sfumato (Sfumato Chamber Studio Theatre), founded by Margarita Mladenova and Ivan Dobchev started the Chekhov Program. Initially located at the National Palace of Culture, the theatre was later invited to present its performances on the Kamerna scena na chetvartija etaj (Chamber Stage on the Fourth Floor) of the stateowned National Theatre. It was renamed Teatralna Rabotilnica Sfumato (Sfumato Theatrical Workshop) and carried out laboratory theatrical experiments within different programs: Yovkov, Radichkov, Myths, Archetypes. Sfumato continues its work on various programs to this day. The main idea of Sfumato actors and artistic directors is to make an in-depth analysis of the work of a particular author, before it is presented on stage. The mission of the theatre reads: “At Sfumato we do not postulate and do not like categorical statements. We trust our senses, the memory of our cells and challenge the Poet in every spectator. The language 510 of Sfumato cannot be learned in a formal manner. The Theatre workshop is not exactly a theatre, but rather a path that needs to be walked – a path which brings theatre back to its roots, to its initial function as a spiritual rite by which man challenges the enigma of existence and searches for the truth; a theatre of the spirit, which is trying to transform Chaos into Cosmos”.480 An essential stage of the work process is constituted by the preliminary expeditions. These form the initial stage of every project and are aimed at collecting scientific and factual material on the subject, in cooperation with a vast circle of experts – poets, philosophers, philologists, theo logians, psychologists, etc. The syncretism of the artistic process, the bond between the empirical and the theory is restored in this way. The theatrical performance becomes a “mutually enriching experience between science and art and protects artists from becoming simply craftsmen.481 Among the emblematic performances directed by Ivan Dobchev and Margarita Mladenova, both together and individually, are: Chaika (The Seagull), P.S., Vuicho Vanjo (Uncle Vanya) and Tri Sestri (Three Sisters) after A. Chekhov, Grehat Kutsar (The Sin Called Kutsar) and Grehat Zlatil (The Sin Called Zlatil) after Y. Yovkov, Padaneto na Ikar (The Fall of Icarus) and Luda Treva (Mad Grass) after Y. Radichkov. The troupe consists mainly of young artists, Chavdar Monov, Petar Peykov, Vladimir Penev, Zoreta Nikolova, Deliana Hadziyankova, Tanya Shahova, Svetlana Yancheva among them. Poster by Stefan Despodov for the performance P.S. after Chekhov’s Chaika (The Seagull), National Palace of Culture, Chamber hall 12, Chamber Studio Theatre Sfumato, dir. Margarita Mladenova, 1991 480 Театрална работилница „Сфумато“. Мисия http://sfumato.info/мисия_117_124 (visited on 05.08.2018). 481 Ibid., http://sfumato.info/история_117_125 (visited on 05.08.2018). 511 Malak gradski teatr Zad Kanala (Little City Theatre Off the Channel) in the 1990s Special attention was also given to other Bulgarian authors such as Ekaterina Tomova (Dzendem Han/Dzendem Inn) and Boyan Papazov (Dumi kam B./Words to B.). Meanwhile directors from other theatres were also invited to present performances on stage, Yavor Gardev among them, who directed Sanjat na Odissey (The Dream of Odysseus) after the works of H. Müller., J. Brodsky, G. Tenev and K. Merdzanski and Quartet after H. Müller. The theatre went on tours abroad during the 1990s. The first festival invitation came from the autumn Festival in Paris, France in 1991. It was followed by guest performances in Poland, Germany, Luxemburg, Austria, Macedonia and Romania. In the autumn of 1990 a group of reform-minded theatre artists, unsatisfied with the routine, the lack of reforms and the economic and cultural policy of the municipal theatre they worked for, as well as its choice of repertoire, split and established a new formation, using the premises of the theatre Trudov front (Labour Front) off the channel. Among its actors in the subsequent years were Ilka Zafirova, Todor Kolev, Nikolay Kostadinov, Antoniya Malinova, Hristo Mutafchiev, Ivan Petrushinov, Iliya Raev, Maria Sapundzhieva, Aneta Sotirova, Itshak Fintsy, Rusi Chanev and others. This new municipal theatre was named Malak gradski teatr Zad kanala (Little City Theatre Off the Channel). Its logo features two smiling Poduene frog-princes off-the-channel. The crowns they carry on their backs resemble the crown in the shape of Sofia’s fortress from the capital’s coat of arms, created in 1900 by painter Haralampi Tachev. The first director of the theatre, Borislav Chakrinov, recalls: “Our decision to leave was motivated by the desire to show a model of a Bulgarian theatre which can be economically viable under the conditions of an economic crisis; a theatre of high artistic values which remains efficient in economic terms. I believe we have proven ourselves in artistic terms. In financial terms I dare say that our theatre is at least 20–30 512 times more efficient right now than any other theatre in the capital with a normal repertoire. Unlike most theatres, we have performances every day, from Tuesday to Sunday. On Mondays we offer movies, on Wednesdays – jazz sessions. And the best thing about it is that in the last couple of years we managed to build our own circle of friends.”482 The first two performances held at the theatre were of plays characterized by their rebellious spirit and avant-garde scandalous nature, targeting the existing norms and conventional thinking in both society and art. These were Arthur Schnitzler’s Horovod (La Ronde) – a play stigmatized at the beginning of the 20th century for pornographically-sexual Freudian connotations, and avant-garde burlesque satire of the authorities; Tatko Ubu (Ubu Roi) by Alfred Jarry, creator of the philosophical and literary branch of pataphysics as the “science of imaginary solutions”. The performance was directed by Borislav Chakrinov. It was a personification of the Bulgarian “dodecaphony”483, chaos and confusion in the beginning of the 1990s. In the autumn of 1991 the theatre performed Tatko Ubu (Ubu Roi) at the Georges Pompidou Centre in Paris. These performances by Sfumato Tatko Ubu (Ubu Roi) by Alfred Jarry, director Borislav Chakrinov, Malak Gradski Teatr Zad kanala (Little City Theatre Off the Channel), 1990 482 Калинкова, Пенка. Интервю с Борислав Чакринов, Континент, 07.1992. Cited after Малък градски театър „Зад канала“. За нас. https://zadkanala.bg/za-nas (visited on 05.06.2018). 483 A method of composing atonal music, devised by A. Schoenberg. The musical substance and the form development are based on 12 different notes of the chromatic scale, sounded in a particular sequence. The term is associated with expressionism, anti-melodism, disharmony, dissonance, atonality. 33. Bulgarian 20th Century... 513 Zavrashtane u doma (The Homecoming) by Harold Pinter, director Stoyan Kambarev Malak Gradski Teatr Zad kanala (Little City Theatre Off the Channel), 1991 and Off-the-Channel artists were the first by Bulgarian professional theatres at world festivals after the fall of the Berlin wall. The guest performances of Bulgarian theatres on the West European stages of various theatrical forums after the collapse of the iron curtain were a sign of the strive towards a new, free, and democratic Europe. The enthusiasm of the group of rebels and their desire to present performances which openly criticize the social ills, determined the choice of plays from the classical, modern and postdramatic repertoire, such as: Revizor (The Government Inspector) by N. Gogol and Zavrashtane u doma (The Homecoming) by Harold Pinter, directed by Stoyan Kambarev, Pleshivata pevica (The Bald Soprano) by one of the major representatives of the theatre of the absurd, Eugene Ionesco, directed by Elena Tsikova; Tanya-Tanya by Olya Mukhina, directed by Yavor Gardev as a postmodern replica to A. Chekhov. Performances charged with strong criticism were those after the works of Bulgarian authors – Balgarskijat model (The Bulgarian Model) which is “the opposite to everything else”, presented by Stanislav Stratiev, Mladen Mladenov, Borislav Chakrinov, Stoyan Kambarev; the musical uydurmas484 Snaha (Daughter in Law) by Anton Strashimirov and Slaveikovtzi after Petko Slaveikov and Pencho Slaveikov’s works, directed by Boyko Bogdanov, etc. A true neo-avant-garde act was the opening of Experimentalno teatralno studio Elisaveta Bam (Elisaveta Bam Experimental Theatre Studio). The 484 Uydurma – a specially devised, made-up, invented, fabricated version. 514 idea of the director Boyko Bogdanov was shared by the theatre critic Veronika Blagova, who in the summer of 1989 brought together like-minded artists and left for the village of Bulgarevo, to live together and to invent something absurd in the style of Harms485, which would stir the spirits. Among the participants in the Studio were Jordan Bikov, Mikhail Milchev, Maya Ostoich, Nikolay Urumov, Sasha Hristova, Kiril Tsonev, Elena Shivacheva. The premiere performance of Elisaveta Bam was in September 1990 in Hall 49 of teatr Sofia, which after the divorce with the actors who formed Malak Gradski Teatr Zad kanala (Little City Theatre Off the Channel), was opened for experimentation. During its existence until 1994 and in 1997 the troupe performed on different stages. The performance of the troupe in the early 1990s at various international festivals and during tours (Grenoble, Turin, Vienna, Bratislava) provokes a real furor with the actuality of the problems presented after the fall of the Berlin wall and with its avant-garde new theatrical language. In the words of Bogdanov himself, the aesthetic platform of the studio was “blah-blah”, love, eclectics, sadness and mocking, self-irony and demiurge486, mixing of epochs and genres… and most of all – the audience and artists are placed on an equal level, mixed together and not divided in “stage and hall for the audience”. In a single… big room of mutual thea tre… A room of the secrets of … mutual theatre… and the outrageously impudent Figurative thinking”.487 Elizaveta Bam after Daniil Harms Vremeto e vremenno (Time is Temporary) dir. Boyko Bogdanov, 1991 485 Daniil Harms is one of the founders of an avant-garde group of poets in Leningrad – Obedinenie realnovo izkustva (OBERIU) / Real Art Union, in the end of the 1920s. 486 Demiurge – deriving from the Greek words for ‘people’ and ‘deed’, the respective noun means ‘inventing’, ‘making’. 487 Богданов, Бойко. „Елизавета Бам“ I и II. За трупата. https://elizavetabam.wordpress. com/за-трупата/ (visited on 15.07.2018). 515 Its author and director was Stefan (Teddy) Moskov, a graduate of the puppetry directing class of Yulia Ognianova. In 1992 the TV series Ulicata (The Street) went on air. It was full of gags and sketches, improvised by the actors. The main characters were the ordinary man, the clerk, the failure, the drunk, the pseudo-intellectual, the arrogant nouveau riche of the time, the boss, etc. The show represented a caricature of the dynamically changing Bulgarian society after 1989. The main topics were related to the lost values, the vulgarization of art and culture, the nostalgia for the past, the mistakes made, the busy everyday life, the stress, the role of media and advertising, etc. Teddy Moskov put on stage other performances with the participation of troupe members, such as Marmalad (Jam), a title associated with the musical term jam-session and Maistorat i Margarita (The Master and Margarita) after M. Bulgakov at the Teatr Balgarska Armia (Bulgarian Army Theatre). Meanwhile the actors and the directors of the new formation toured the repertoire theatres of the capital and the country. Some of them later started work for state-sponsored art institutions. Nii? De (Us? So / No? Where), dir. Boyko Bogdanov, Teatr Sofia, 1993 Boyko Bogdanov experimented in the performances of Vremeto e vremenno (Time is Temporary), Sbogom Lenin (Adieu, Lenin), Goljamoto pluskane (The Great Eating), Da! Da! Na Dada! (Yes! Yes! To Dada!) and the stage plays Anthropomisanthropos after Moliere, Camus, Sartre; Nii? De (Us? So / No? Where), Sbogom, Mozart (Adieu, Mozart). In 1998 he became the artistic director of Nov dramatichen teatr Salza i smjah (New Drama Theatre Tear and Laughter) where he continued the challenge with a new team. The troupe entered the new century with the author’s trilogy with the emblematic title XX vek (20th century): Gledaloto ili vechnata balkanska krachma (The Watching Place or the Eternal Balkan Pub), Chakaloto ili vechnata balkanska gara (The Waiting Place or the Eternal Balkan Railway Station) and Mechtaloto (The Dreaming Place). Another formation, which became very popular, was the private La Strada theatre. The inspiration behind it were the actors Maya Novosleska, Krastyo Lafazanov, Borislav Stoilov, Valentin Tanev, Valeri Malchev, Hristo Garbov, Toncho Tokmakchiev, Nikolai Dodov and other, while many other actors took part in the comedy TV show Ulicata (The Street). 516 Ulicata (The Street), dir. Stefan Moskov, La Strada,1992 517 Alternative Theatre Acting Schools The new times required a new type of actors. An important step in the search for diversity and new theatrical expressions was the decentralization of education and the establishment institutions of higher education, alternative to the High Institute of Theatre Arts. Such acting schools came into existence at the very beginning of the 1990s. The Theatre Department of New Bulgarian University was founded in 1991 by the director Vuzkresia Viharova. It started with the idea of the experimental project Bit (Lifestyle) based on excerpts from the research of Ivan Hadjiiski in the 1930s in the field of national psychology – Lifestyle and Mentality of the Bulgarian People and An Optimistic Theory about the Bulgarian People.488 V. Viharova recalls that at the start of the project it was not clear whether it was a matter of theatre or of a spiritual journey by a group of rebel performers in search of new spaces and expression techniques.489 Bit (Lifestyle) after Ivan Hadjiiski, dir. Vazkresia Viharova and Zarko Uzunov, Theatre Department of New Bulgarian University Mendelson za ubiici (Mendelssohn for Killers) after The Threepenny Opera by B. Brecht, director Elena Baeva, Theatre College Luben Groys, 1993–1994 488 Хаджийски, Иван. Избрани съчинения в три тома. Том I. Бит и душевност на нашия народ. – София: ЛИК Издания, 2002. 489 Манева, Доротея. Възкресия Вихърова: Театърът е живот в нетипични параметри. Публични пространства. 28.08.2014 http://www.night.bg/blog/?p=6329 (visited on 07.08.2018). The project gradually evolved into an educational program for training actors and was included as a module in acting in the program of New Bulgarian University. By taking part in the program Bit (Lifestyle) the future actors experienced work in progress, whose goal was to build skills in the area of the psycho-physical theatre. By structurally transforming Bulgarian folk dances and rituals, they learned behavioural patterns. Meanwhile V. Viharova and her newly-trained students established the Ucheben teatr (Study Theatre) at New Bulgarian University. It became an autonomous structure in 2000. The performances held there are typical of the physical theatre and are directed mainly by Viharova, in cooperation with architect Zarko Uzunov. Among the co-productions of the student theatre at New Bulgarian University and other formations in the 1990s were: Ludata na doma (The Mad Woman in the House) after J. Cocteau, Az i ti (Toi et moi) by P. Géraldy, Presidentkite (Die Präsidentinnen) by W. Schwab, Indzhe by Y. Yovkov, Vishnevi sestri (The Cherry Sisters) by M. Green, Domat na Bernarda Alba (The House of Bernarda Alba) after F. Lorca and other plays. Another school which began to offer more conventional and universal actors’ training during the 1990s was the private Theatre College Luben Groys. It was established in the autumn of 1991, due to the efforts of Elena Baeva and Nadezda Seykova – both professors at the High Institute of Thea- 518 519 tre Arts who decided to leave their university career and create an alternative acting school. The first class graduated in 1994. The official decision of the National Assembly regarding the approval of the college opening, however, was taken more than ten years later, on February 13th, 2002.490 With time, theatrical specialties were included in the educational programs of different universities in the country – in Plovdiv, Blagoevgrad, Varna, etc. The theatre of the transition period is characterized by: attempts to carry out theatrical reforms and establish alternative theatrical formations and acting schools; to provide greater mobility for artists; the emergence of chamber- and mono-performances, searches in the field of neo-theatrical psychologism, rebellion of the theatre neo-avant-garde, carnavalism and festival invasion of puppetry artists and directors, experiments in the area of the physical, postmodern and postdramatic491 theatre. All these tendencies continue developing further in the new century.492 NO MORE CENSORSHIP: MUSIC IN the 1990s The democratic changes after November the 10th, 1989, seemed to stimulate the sense of freedom in art, especially in those areas which had been traditionally a subject of ideological control and censorship during the years of totalitarian rule. In the field of music, at least, such events, quite diverse in their nature, related primarily to the artistic avant-garde of the 20th century, but also to the youth underground culture as well as to some heatedly discussed popular music developments touched by the regional Balkan flavor. J. S. Contemporary Music in Focus 490 Решение за откриване на частно висше училище – самостоятелен колеж с наименование театрален колеж „Любен Гройс“ със седалище София, Държавен вестник, бр. 20, 22.02.2002. https://www.ciela.net/svobodna-zona-darjaven-vestnik/document/-12047871/issue/ 2953/reshenie-za-otkrivane-na-chastno-visshe-uchilishte-–-samostoyatelen-kolezh-snaimenovanie-teatralen-kolezh- (visited on 03.08.2018). 491 The term ‘postdramatic theatre’ was created by Hans-Thies Lehman to define characteristic tendencies in the neo-avant-garde theatre after the end of the 1960s. 492 Театралната практика в края на 90-те. „Концепции България“, Сдружение „Антракт“, 1999; Дечева, Виолета. Театърът на 90-те. // Реплика от ложата идруги текстове. – София: СОНМ, 2001; Николова, Камелия. Режисьорът в българския театър: от социалистическия реализъм до постмодернизма. – София, 2015, НАЦИД, № Нд 020180072; Йорданов, Николай. Театърът в България 1989–2015. София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, Фондация „Homo Ludens“, 2016. At the beginning of the 1990s Georgi Tutev, a composer and representative of the Bulgarian musical avant-garde, established a Society for new music named Musica Viva. The Society aimed to promote achievements of contemporary Bulgarian and world musical culture, which had been somewhat neglected in the previous years by the official circles of the Union of Bulgarian Composers. More than forty concerts were organized during the very first year of the music society’s existence, offering premiere performances of a number of modern Bulgarian and foreign music works. Music by Pierre Boulez, Konstantin Iliev, Stockhausen, André Boucourechliev, Webern and Ilya Zelenka was performed during the first concert, held on April the 27th, 1991. A few years later, in 1993, the Society initiated the New Music Festival. This event hosted the presentation of works by composers from different generations, who significantly influenced Bulgarian musical art developments during the last decade of the 20th century. Particular inputs in this direction were made by outstanding figures such as Simeon Pironkov, Georgi Tutev, Vasil Kazandzhiev, Lazar Nikolov, Stefan Dragostinov, Georgi Arnaudov, Roumen Balyozov, Russi Tarmakov, Bozhidar Spasov, 520 521 Yulia Tsenova, Dragomir Yosifov, Adrian Pervazov, and Yasen Vodenicharov, among many others. The founding of Musica Viva Society and New Music Festival meant as well an intention in terms of systematically educating new audiences, open for avant-garde ideas in the world of contemporary musical culture. However, in the context of the newly established decentralized cultural politics which rejected the dictate of any ideological considerations in the name of freedom in art, on one hand, and on the other, took advantage of the free market economy developments, the processes observed in the field of popular music turned to be much more dynamic, unpredictable as well as controversial. The Change through the Eyes of Underground Youth Culture At the beginning of the 1990s Kollio Gillana (Nikolay Yordanov), lead vocalist of the rock band “Control”, somewhat unexpectedly surprised the public space with Nai-shtastlivia den (The Happiest Day) – a song which troubled the more traditionally tuned ear.493 The song imitated but also inverted in a comic way retro-musical lexis in the spirit of conventional pop-music structures from the 1960s and no less conventional, unassuming melodramatic lyrics. The absurd way in which the song expresses its central message (“… and here comes the happiest day – when you will be far away”) reveals an ironic view, as if in front of a curved mirror (not as much satirizing as laugh-inducing) which demonstrates a cheerful personal attitude towards the tearful world of the melodramatic experience. Many would recognize the signs of particular decline of the sublime romantics, stimulated by the changing social and artistic values in the years following 1989. Others might note the signs of a mentality which does not see “the strength of feelings” in black and white, and does not measure them according to the decibels of the noisy, showy tearfulness and the moralizing aspect of the melodrama, deeply rooted in music at least since the times of Verdi’s operas and the classical operetta. Although it provided a certain aes493 thetic alternative, at least in reference to the prevailing perceptions observed in Bulgaria at the time, this type of mentality does not overshadow the popularity of traditional clichés in interpreting the love theme – especially considering the well known passion for the “happy end” formula in movies or the sentiment towards a key song phrase such as “all dreams come true”, or the nostalgia for stylistics which dominated the not-so-distant past, typical of the song repertoire of emblematic singers such as Lili Ivanova and Emil Dimitrov. Moreover, the “bitter-sweet” emotion (if we could use this euphemism to denote melodrama) is indicative in terms of people’s psychology, observed in various musical traditions. Such a sentiment, dressed in particular stylistics, seems to be more often associated with the music of the East – even though the idea in this direction has its parallels in the context of different cultures, of different communities. The “bitter-sweet” emotion is specifically blended also in much of the music created in Western Europe under the influence of, say, the aesthetics of the 19th century romanticism. Not to mention many of the musical traditions of Bulgarians, especially in the field of everyday vernacular culture. Seen through the eyes of the youth underground from the beginning of the 1990s, however, the parody gestures of Control arrived at the right time and in the right place. Indicative of a consistently applied parody approach are also the albums Boom (1990), Lele, kako! (1992), Luboff (1994). Having been an expression of overall musical and behavioral atti-tude, characteristic of almost all of the band’s songs, this approach has Cover of the album Lele kako! (1993) The song is included in the album Lele kako! (Sofia Music Enterprises, 1992). 522 523 obviously shows the accumulation of certain values related not only to Western models under the punk stylistics, but also to the specific projections of informal communication and non-conformism, previously cultivated during the 1980s in a number of rock songs by bands like Shturcite, Tangra and FSB. Seen in the context of the cultural situation in Bulgaria, the inverted interpretation of melodrama was substantially developed not by chance in the music of the youth underground in the beginning of the 1990s, who were oriented towards topical rock music trends of the time – especially in terms of the particular verbal creativity within the punk stylistics which, as a rule, searched for the biting, non-conformist, sometimes even anarchical metaphoric language of irony and double-meaning. Without romanticizing the halo of rock-music as a carrier of alternative ideas, it is worth remembering that such developments reflected the specific history of rock music in Bulgaria. Having been a subject of ideological sanctions and restrictions under the conditions of the centralized cultural policy in the years preceding 1989, rock music in Bulgaria has now acquired a different public status, stimulated to a certain extent by “the wind of change” and the inceptive democratic processes in the country. Rock musicians found themselves in the focus of public attention, their voices sounded over the crowds gathered in the squares during political rallies. Milena and the band Review were spreading socially engaging messages, Vasko Krapkata with Poduene Blues Band was riding the liberalizing wave coming from the Mississipi Delta, while Let It Be by the Beatles, which was not allowed for national broadcasting until then, dominated the public sound spaces, acquiring new rebellious connotations. This environment, new to Bulgarian rock, stimulated in a new manner the affinity towards playfulness, was perceived as a peculiar symbiosis between aesthetic, social and political perspectives. A manifestation of this were, for example, the songs by Review from their album Ha-ha (Unison, 1991), and particularly the song Oholen jivot (Affluent Life), written by Milena Slavova and Vasil Gyurov. The cultivating of a taste for this kind of metaphoric expression reveals specific musical and behavioral accumulations in the context of the youth culture which several years later, in the late 1990s, culminated in a different manner in the shrewd rhymes of the boys from the band Upsurt, who played around with funny lyrics, jokes, self-irony, and the paradox – in the spirit of the globalized, but still local interpretation of affinity towards the 524 Milena Slavova, rock singer informal, uncensored, aggressive vocabulary, associated with the hip-hop culture.494 Balkan Ethno-wave in the Global World In 1995, when the American magazine Newsweek declared that the Bulgarian master kaval player Theodosii Spassov had created a new musical genre that was seen as representing a particular direction in the field of contemporary jazz, the dominant soundscape in Bulgaria was already showing signs of a revitalized tradition in local vernacular music. Musicians drew freely on the tangled regional skein of local Balkan roots, but also from a wide spectrum of globalized sounds projected onto the field of contemporary popular music. At approximately the same time, astounded Westerners were struck by the whirlwind tempi, complex metric and rhythmic patterns, passionate tunes and unusual (for the Western ear) timbres and modal structures heard beyond the Balkans as early as the eighties, say, for example, in the playing of Ivo Papasov495 and his orchestra Trakia496. A good example in this sense is the album Chekai malko/Wait a minute (Free Agents, 2001). Bulgarian master clarinetist of Turkish-Rom origins, innovator of local wedding music. 496 Papasov formed Trakia orchestra in 1974. Joe Boyd, producer of the albums Orpheus Ascending (1989) and Balkanology (1991), had a fundamental role in the popularization of Ivo Papasov and Trakia outside Bulgaria. The albums were issued by the British company Hannibal Records. 494 495 525 The West had begun to talk about the legendary performers of Bulgarian wedding music, described as a new phenomenon that “in the 1980s transformed the East-European musical terrain with its mighty blend, woven from Balkan folk, spiced with jazz, rock, Gypsy, Turkish, and Indian music.”497 There is no doubt that the Western world had noticed the alternative impulses in the new ethnomusic from Bulgaria, touched as if by the wild blast and somehow irrational waft coming from those zones which, in the words of Richard Middleton, were formally abused but subconsciously desired in post-Renaissance Europe.498 Connected mainly to the traditions of rural folk and urban vernacular music, such zones remind us in a particular way of the Other in Europe, as well as of that Dionysian sensitivity presently observed in the ubiquitous mosaic of non-standard phenomena teeming along unknown paths in the variegated context of the global postmodern situation. At the end of the 20th century, it appears that the West, shedding layered taboos and simplifying cultural interpretations, is looking for new stimuli in the notions of “roots” and “authenticity.” Weariness with the mimicry of rational and somehow sterile strategies in the creation of musical artifacts or boredom with the slick brilliance of the refined expression of pop culture has activated a taste for difference, for those not quite known but inspiring cultural spaces connected with the symbolic and enigmatic nature of regional traditions that ignite the imagination, although not always at a conscious level. Even the growing global interest in the peculiar literary world of Marquez499 and Radičkov500 or in the non-standard musical journeys of Ibrahim Ferrer, Ivo Papasov, Boban Marković and Goran Bregović can be seen as symptomatic. Apparently, the Western world has become more curious about the characteristic energies of regional cultures. Similar attitudes, it seems, are unfolding under that logic of general cultural processes which gave rise to such transborder phenomena as, say, world music.501 The global craze for regional cultures created new prospects for the already innovative sounds of Bulgarian wedding music. Fitting, in a sense, the famous postmodern motto “Think globally, act locally!,” it is these sounds that feed, to a great degree, the contours of the new wave in Bulgarian jazz, as well as colouring other non-traditional genre trends in the field of Bulgarian popular music that emerged in the beginning of the 1990s. It is worth noting, however, that the flourishing of local ethnomusic, based strongly on multi-ethnic fusions between regional Balkan sounds, was perceived at that time as a peculiar novelty in the soundspace, not only by Westerners but also by Bulgarians. The paradoxes in the dynamic between concepts of “self” and “other” had pushed identification processes in such a way that, at the end of the 1980s, the sound profile of popular music within Bulgaria—at least the one that dominated the public media space and influenced an essential part of the Bulgarian musical mainstream— was related more to the vocabulary of a pro-Western oriented, modernizing Theodosii Spassov, folk and jazz kaval player 497 Adapted from Carol Silverman’s publicity notes for the US tour of Yuri Yunakov, Ivo Papazov, Salif Ali and Neško Nešev and from their album Together Again, issued in 2005 by the American record company Traditional Crossroads, which specializes in world music. 498 See Middleton, Richard. Musical Belongings. – In: Western Music and Its Others: Difference, Representation, and Appropriation in Music (eds. Georgina Born and David Hesmondhalgh). University of California Press, 2000, p. 61. 499 Gabriel García Márquez, Columbian Nobel-prize winning novelist noted for his style of magical realism. 500 Jordan Radičkov (1929–2004), Bulgarian writer who also wrote novels infused with magical realism. 501 Although world music is sometimes realized as a condescending nod of the modern West to the “exotic” nature of its “Others,” it is a phenomenon that hints in a particular way at the decline of the “big narratives” and the upsurge of “small” ones. Placing fragments of heterogeneous musical traditions in new relations with global popular culture, the trend of world music proves to be a chance for non-Western musicians to be noticed outside their regional environments and to be included more effectively among the most recent phenomena in the world of contemporary music. 526 527 sound lexicon than to the traditional vernacular language of the local self. Despite ideological restrictions, the result of centralized cultural politics that ran for nearly half a century, the leading trends in the development of pop, rock and jazz in Bulgaria during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s revealed an insatiable striving toward the acquisition of just such modernizing intonational orientations. In a sense, the view toward dynamically changing global fads prompted tendencies that reformulated local concepts of “everyday music,” especially those which had a bearing on the attitudes and preferences of the generations formed in the context of urbanized Bulgaria during the second half of the twentieth century. In this way the local self, understood as a polyphonic set that ranged over musical traditions of different local ethnic communities, was for a long time pushed out to the periphery of the public space, mostly because of its Balkan flavor and of complicated sociopsychological connotations dominated by negative signs and the allusion of “backwardness” and because of the dogmatic understanding concerning the “civilization choice” which pervaded the some circles within Bulgarian culture. Directing our attention toward folk as a process, such a point of view brings with it a particular perspective. Although already distant from the semantics of the ritual-ceremonial tradition, the folk idiomatic, felt now more as a convention for a given artistic expressiveness, finds its place in the contemporary world. The most natural environment in this regard is the non-formalized sphere of life, long neglected in the public space of the Bulgarian situation. This is especially true for those of its niches in which the link between the intimate and communal experience is difficult to subject to external sanctions or forms of centralized control. Such a niche in the Bulgarian case turns out to be the peculiar cultural territory of the village wedding, a space in which, during the 1970s and 1980s, the sentiment toward folkloric tradition lived in the context of changed current conditions. Split between “past” and “present,” between “traditional” and “modern,” between “rural” and “urban,” the cultural space of the village wedding outlines a new stage in the inescapable process of modernization, as well as in the revitalized contours of that eclectic feeling for semiruralsemiurban living that to a certain degree has accompanied Bulgarian culture at least from the time of Diko Iliev.502 In this sense, the wedding orchestras’ boom during the 1980s is not accidental. The existing vacuum in the sphere of locally-oriented vernacular music as well as the new sociocultural situation stimulated liberating impulses in the function of folk music, defined at that time usually as “wrong” and “distorted.” It is also not accidental that wedding playing, that other folk music, is realized as a kind of underground—that is, as a tendency that has turned from the orthodox, from the “right” path, and from hidebound notions of the preservation of the folkloric heritage. Formed under the strong impact of the romantic idea concerning the existence of “pure” folklore, the Bulgarian, eager-to-become-modern and Westernized, correlates wedding-music more with the concept of some kind of local “home-grown” exotic, understood in conjunction with the valued marks of cultural backwardness and ignorant primitivism. Even during the 1990s, when the dominant notions in the wide vernacular sphere and the already partially deregulated media space were largely influenced by the intonations and innovative artistic approach developed in wedding music, the majority continued to perceive the characteristic accents of this updated Balkan expressivity, rich as it was in specific and generous intonations of “Eastern” sensuality, as a “foreignism” in the vocabulary of Bulgarian music. In a sense, such an attitude is a reflection of public polemics, still undertaken in the mid-1980s, on the countenance of wedding music, which at that time was experiencing a powerful new development. The proponents of these public polemics criticized the “anarchism” that had swept through the folk instrumental tradition, that is, an artistic freedom sublimating a set of spontaneously arising innovations including a line of ostentatious, uncontainable virtuosity and improvisational approaches that crossed ethnodialects from different regions and also fused intonations with a far from local origin. Defined also as a particular form of non-conformism,503 this “folk in opposition” revealed the course of irreversible processes, as well as the potential of a liberated artistic self-reflection which imitated but also added new elements to the previously existing conventions alluding to “pre-modern” archetypes and traditional “rural” music. And if the revival of the self-other – or, in other words, the return to the self-but-already-other – starts from the boom 502 Diko Iliev – Bulgarian musician and composer (1898–1985), who based his compositions on motifs from the folk music of Northwest Bulgaria. One of his most famous pieces is Dunavsko horo. 503 See Кауфман, Димитрина. Съвременните сватбарски оркестри като „дисидентски“ формации. // Български фолклор, 1995, № 6, 49–57. 528 34. Bulgarian 20th Century... 529 of wedding orchestras, the subsequent reflections of this development reach a far wider genre zone. Observed in the revitalized, locally-colored modifications of the concepts of pop, rock and jazz, these reflections touch far more than just the non-standard folkjazz kaval of Theodosii Spassov, the vocal experiments of Yildiz Ibrahimova (Balkanatolia 1997), the jazz compositions of the group Zig Zag Trio (Ralchev, Yuseinov, Yankulov) (When The Bees Are Gathering Honey 2000), or of the ensemble Bulgara (Bear’s Wedding 2005). They stretch to the episodic folk-interpretations of rock musicians like, for example, the young men of Er maluk (Bulgari 1992) and the group Control (1991), as well as to the funny cover-versions of emblematic pop and rock hits interpreted “in the Gypsy manner” by Gypsy Aver (1993–94). Looking still more widely, such reflections also dominate in the growing repertoire connected with the festival “Pirin folk” (that started with an original orientation mainly toward the Macedonian folkloric dialects), in the ensuing “orientalization” of increasing numbers of pop-folk singers and instrumentalists in the 1990s, and in the artistic attitudes sublimated in the dimensions of polysemic fusion presented, for example, by ensembles like Cuckoo Band. The wedding orchestras initiate characteristic nuances of a current, topical intonational milieu that combines the essence of at least two lines, two continuities, two sociocultural logics, all seemingly incompatible or at least independent of each other. Viewed historically, these two lines are at first glance in opposition to each other, as they embody respectively concepts of a tie with “premodern” and “postmodern” attitudes in cultural self-awareness. The one line, understood as “premodern,” we perceive in the dynamics of Balkan folk, especially as it relates to developments in those of its parts whose roots lead toward the tradition in vernacular playing known as chalgija504 – a tradition which, at least from the middle of the nineteenth century, is connected with the prolonged, specifically Balkan transition from a rural to an urban way of life. The other line, which arose in the postmodern context of Western culture, leads toward the cosmopolitan profile of the phenomenon world music. Although an offspring of Western pop culture, world music turns out to be one of the paradoxical stimuli in the turn toward the “local other,” which plays the role of a valued mirror, the role of the other, of the “external” view. The global mode of the folk-revival, sublimated in the amorphous nature of world music, inspires new, prestigious connotations vis-à-vis the semantics of regional vernacular vocabularies of various origins, including also those of a pan-Balkan lexical stock that had entered the vernacular traditions of the Balkan cultures. As noted by Gajtandžiev, no one is a prophet in his or her own place: “Life had to impose its own demands in order to correct some stereotypes, in order to reassess familiar views... and maybe it really was necessary for the Misterijata na bulgarskite glasove (The Mystery of the Bulgarian Voices)505 to intrude into the British pop charts, for the Trio Bŭlgarka to be photographed with George Harrison, for Joe Boyd, Kate Bush and others of their compatriots to display an interest in our folklore and, mainly, in the possibility that it might be successfully ‘implanted’ in one or another style of popular music, in order to change the public atmosphere...”.506 And there is something else. Such an examination through the eyes of the “other” stimulates that possibility of drawing nearer in the modern world, which in a series of relations correlates and connects the creative energies of subjects from different geographic and cultural zones in the direction of certain tendencies in music, as well as of a kind of musical cosmopolitanism. Regardless of the way in which we look for the motivations for the revival of the local self, the phenomenon undoubtedly renews the link and dialog with “memory,” with that aspect of Bulgarian musical culture that acknowledges the tangled skein of its Balkan origins. Besaides, the phenomenon also questions traditional social-psychological attitudes concerning “Bulgarianess”, understood as a flat ideolgeme or as a frozen, static, non-dynamic category. The revitalized intonational environment that took shape during the 1990s integrates the experience of different local ethnoses and unfolds beyond the concept of an isolated music of a defined minority group. In this sense it does not carry the marks of some narrowly differentiated ethnic or socially determined affiliation. Premised to a certain extent by the new sociocultural situation, which had liberalized Bulgarian culture 504 It is worth noting that the tradition of chalgija, developed originally mostly by traveling musicians of Gypsy and Jewish origin, also stands at the foundation of the music designated with the name Klezmer, one of the widely discerned folk musical trends of the twentieth century Jewish Diaspora. 505 Usually known by its French name, Les mystères des voix Bulgares. This was the name given to the Bulgarian State Radio and Television Female Vocal Choir (founded in 1952), by Marcel Cellier, Swiss record producer, when he released the choir’s first album in the West in 1975. 506 Гайтанджиев, Генчо. Популярната музика – про? контра? – София: Народна просвета, 1990, с. 122. 530 531 in terms of a more apparent legitimization of minority ethnic groups, it acquires characteristics of an “omnipresent mark,” and in reality places its stamp over diverse spaces inhabited by heterogeneous social communities. They say that everything new is simply well-forgotten old, hidden in the folds of the collective memory. The metaphoric sense of this popular saying brings us to the understanding that the world is big and yet small; that time is long but also short; that the cultural phenomena springing here and there are unique and at the same time similar, and that the eternal exchange of cultural information back and forth in time is at the ground of the “new old events”. When referred to the processes in ethno-music, such a viewpoint illustrates the logic and dynamics of the re-signifying of the past – in as much as this type of music suggests an already gained experience, collective memory already differentiated, syntheses already sublimed in the music making of a particular community. Yet, is the panorama of the “new old events” from the end of the 20th century actually a hint of nostalgia? Or does it mean that the relationship between tradition and modernity is brought to life in a new perspective – in a manner, related to the values and meanings they have accumulated, defined by some ethnomusicologists as post-rural folk movements,507 and Bulgarian scholars traditionally define as urban folklore? Do such developments shape the contours of a particular neo-folklore, motivated by an essentially pluralistic vision regarding the “roots”; a vision that leads to the awareness of the variety of communal traditions and their natural and inevitable interweaving? In the mid-1990s the folklorist T. Iv. Zhivkov spoke not just of renewal processes in the area of wedding music but rather of a notable folkloric boom which had pervaded various levels of Bulgarian popular culture. The author underlined that the new folk song “turned inside out the notion of some people of folklore as antiquity and questioned the premature forecasts of the collapse of Bulgarian culture”.508 By providing arguments in favor of the idea of folklore as a changing necessity, the author drew a parallel to the wise words of Rayna Katsarova, said decades earlier and turning attention to the recognition of the view that “the music and dance heritage of the Bulgarian people has experienced influences of diverse character …”.509 Referred to also as a chronicle of the transition period, the new folk song turned to be a particular mirror that reflected the “new times” and inspired, speaking generally, two relatively distinct aesthetic tendencies. The one is related to quasi-realism and the commercial language of the “magazine gloss”, of the “soap opera”, of a particular escapism in which the utopia is held captive by the aggression of the new pragmatic values. It almost by rule exposes clichéd images of the female seductress. The other tendency, on the contrary, seeks creative arguments – mainly in the area of the comical, humorous notons, in the irony and self-irony whose hidden line usually parody the new social myths. A major contribution to the cultivation of this second tendency was made by Cuckoo Band. Perceived namely as a specific reflection of topical events and processes “in times of transition”, the music of Cuckoo Band is to a great extent a testimony to the new cultural situation which during the 1990s stimulated not only the social and political but also the artistic liberalization, offering multiple options in the context of an artistic culture otherwise overloaded by a plethora of information. Among the emblematic examples to be noted is the diptych Do Chicago i… nazad (To Chicago and… back) (included in the album Nyama ne iskam, BMC, 1999), a peculiar musical replica to the travel notes of Aleko Konstantinov, published in 1893 after his returning from the World Fair held in Chicago of that same year. Why is it that 106 years after the occurrence of this literary event in Bulgarian life, the musicians of Cuckoo Band decide to play around with the words of this famous title in Bulgarian literature? Is it in search of some self-serving association with the clearly expressed humor of the literary work? Or is it for this particular aspect of the writer’s talent which engraved his name in the public memory as the master of satire and parody? Or is it the story of the novel, told by means of lavish self-irony and turning the readers’ attention to a rather typical phenomenon of those times (and probably of our times as well?...): a self-reflection of “the planetary provincialist”, gaping in surprise at the miracles of the big, civilized world? Or is it because of the distant association with the “uncivilized” Bulgaria from the end of the 19th century? Whatever the reason, the dia- 507 See Slobin, Mark. Subcultural Sounds: Micromusics of the West. Hanover: Wesleayn University Press, 1993, p. 68. 508 Живков, Тодор, Ив. Фолклорният бум. // Фолк панаир, 2/94, с. 6. 509 Стайнов, Петко; Кацарова, Райна; Кръстев, Венелин. Енциклопедия на българската музикална култура. – София: Институт за музика – БАН, 1967, с. 61. 532 533 logue with Aleko Konstantinov’s work is a humoristic hint about the identity dilemmas which occupied the mind of Bulgarians in the transition years. This peculiar “game of identities” is also present in the jazz-improvisations of Yildiz Ibrahimova in the album Balkanatolia (Virginia Records, 1997).510 The music of the album challenges static notions concerning the “self” and the “other”. The minority ethnic background of Yildiz does not overshadow the “Bulgarian” in her, despite the bitter experience during the years of the so called “revival process”511. This “double identity”, familiar to people belonging to minority groups in the context of a given national culture, enhances the message of the album. The search here is for the non-verbal metaphor, through musical interaction, juxtaposition and fusion of Turkish and Bulgarian folk tunes. The similarities in terms of melody are obvious, while the differences regard mainly the stylistic nuances in the sound extraction, the specific approaches to the melismatic intonation. The encounter between the “Turkish” and the “Bulgarian” in -a seemingly pure musical plan can be recognized in the piece Pravo Horo. It is clearly expressed aso in the composition Dilerim bari Hudadan, built on the Rumelian folk song of the same name (performed in Turkish) as the starting point for the further developing free improvisation. The logically expected reprise in the end of the composition does not exhibit the initially performed melody, but the Bulgarian one (sung in Bulgarian) Lale li si, zyumbyul li si... (Are You Tulip, Are You Hyacinth...) – as if to suggest that there is no false reprise; that the opening and the closing themes work with a melody material which for centuries has been springing from the common roots of music asscociated with different Balkan ethnicities. The idea to juxtapose old Turkish and Bulgarian folklore through the means of free improvisation is also an expression of the intention of reliev ing one historically motivated tension between two ethnic groups whose music traditions are related in many terms. “To me, as a Bulgarian citizen of Turkish origin, it was natural to look for the common features in a land which everyone tries to separate.” By these words on the album’s cover, Y. Ibrahimova synthesizes the idea concerning the lack of grounds for isolationism, particularism, extreme nationalism and the small-minded focusing on the “self” – categories of identity which aquire new meanings in the context of the globalizing world. C. L. The Cover of Balkanatolia (1997) 510 The records in the album were realized in 1997 with the participation of Yildiz Ibrahimova (vocal), Vasil Parmakov (key boards), Veselin Veselinov (electric bass), Ivo Papasov (clarinet), Stoyan Yankulov (drums), Tahir Aydogdu (quanun), Ylidan Dirik (oud), Okey Temiz (percussions). 511 In the second half of the 1980s, during the so-called “revival process”, Yildiz Ibrahimova was forced to change her name – at that time she was known by the name Susana Erova. 534 535 BULGARIAN LITERATURE SINCE 1989 Taking 1989 as a milestone in modern history of Bulgaria marks the end of a stage in the political and social life, but it was also a turning point for literature. The repudiation of ideological clichés, the elimination of the aesthetic limitations, provoked the establishment of new authors, poetics, and languages in poetry, prose, and drama, as well as the unprecedented reading of the history of literature. Forgotten or forbidden individuals, works, and events were recalled. Through the emancipation from the limitations of ideological norms and the repression of political censorship in Bulgarian literature, new aesthetic tendencies were formed, which tolerated the artistic experiments and thematic provocations. Vigorously receding from the values of the socialist realism canon at the end of the twentieth century, it was a complex conglomerate of styles and plots of ambiguous artistic value. Literature was topical and socially sensible, but also reconsidering its history, recognizing its connection with forbidden or forgotten authors and works, rather than with the classical authors traditionally included in the Glas – Independant Journal for Literature and Journalism, No. 2, 1989 536 sovereign space of the literary canon. The political change provoked interest in unknown literary narratives, theoretical and critical interpretations and extravagant creative expressions. This, mostly useful, but in some of its manifestations comical, striving to make up for the time lost, produced both bright creative gestures and moderate changes in the literary field. It began transforming not only as poetics, style, language, plots, characters, genres, but also in institutional and social terms. Opportunities for free publishing, the emergence of new periodicals and creative communities altered the cultural context – free from restrictions and taboos, tolerating the gestures of denial, but also of remorse. Literature was firmly driven away from its closed, elite self-sufficiency; it was seeking alternative forms of public realization. This is the time of literary festivals, the blooming of poetry, prose, criticism, and literary translations, of topical readings introduced into the educational system, of the altered social status and the public role of intellectuals. The aesthetic and ideological changes reflected from the change of the permanent circle of collaborators of the periodicals on culture and the changed names (Literary Front was renamed to Literary Forum, September was renamed to Chronicle, and Popular Culture was renamed to Culture), to the alternative creative formations and the publication of a wide variety of new papers and journals. In the mid-1990s, the anti-communist writers left the official Writers’ Union and formed the Bulgarian Writers’ Union. The Literaturen vestnik played an important part in the history of democratic periodical press. The publication unified young poets, writers, and critics, tolerating their avant-garde postmodern attitude. Plamak, the Panorama, Savremennik, Fakel, and More were all journals of varied success, depending on their financial security, which continued their existence without changing their titles. In the thematic-anthology issues they posed problems related to the literary translations, the critical interpretation of modern theoretical approaches, and presented marginal or forbidden areas of literary history. The extreme volume of literary production, the thematic challenges and the abundant opportunities for immediate contact with the readers changed the functions of operative criticism, and the mission of literary studies – a.k.a. new readings. During this period, literary criticism ceased to value and analytically evaluated both individual works and entire literary domains that were unfamiliar at the time. The literary-critical deconstruction of processes 537 and phenomena, which were in fact very dynamic and mutually exclusive, replaced the so-called periodic critical reviews with market charts and media popularity. The current criticism became more of a mediator between the writer and the general public and sometimes skilfully used popular clichés to wilfully act as an advertiser. This, of course, was a natural reaction to the strict ideological control that had recently prevailed in literature, which turned literary critics to judges, depriving them of the rights of professional and objective interpreters of artistic phenomena. The comprehensive research work of Rosalia Likova, Nikola Georgiev, Svetlozar Igov, Mikhail Nedelchev, Vihren Chernokozhev, Valeri Stefanov, Aleksandar Kyosev, Milena Kirova, Miglena Nikolchina, among others, was significant for the value consideration of the literary process in this period, as well as the later literary criticism and theoretical research of the generation, that actively developed the 1990s literature: Plamen Doynov, Boyko Penchev, Plamen Antov, Boris Minkov, Edvin Sugarev, Ani Ilkov, etc. Remorse was a crucial element of literary studies because of the manipulatively deformed facts, the forbidden works and the forgotten authors from the history of Bulgarian spirituality in the 20th century. Literary critics assumed the task to outline the credible and objective image of Bulgarian literature. The journals Literaturna misal, Ezik i literatura, Balgarski ezik i literatura, Letopisi, Literatura etc. were of great importance in this respect. The memory of the emblematic issues that formed the classical dimensions of the national literature materialized in the revival of the journal titles – Strelets, Hyperion, Nov zlatorog – but despite their aesthetic eclecticism, they didn’t last long. Only Vezni journal enjoyed long years of publishing thanks to its pragmatic adaptability to the market norms of modern times. The Ah, Maria and Seasons journals offered an alternative in terms of the artistic platform and ambition for elitism, but unfortunately only existed for a short while. Serious articles, which analysed the literary history and the then current cultural process, were published in the Vek 21 newspaper and Demokraticheski pregled journal. The vigorous growth of literary periodicals, their style diversity, stated in avant-garde manifests, in texts with conservative literary-historical programs, was undoubtedly a sign of taking full advantage of the opportunities of democracy, of free, dialectical but polemical imposition, development and disappearance of artistic processes in the end of the 20th century. It was precisely these that marked the restoration of the rights denied to literature and literary science in terms of making an ideologeme-free choice. The challenges of new technology implied the creation of previously unknown forms of intellectual communication. Electronic publications and websites (such as Georgi Chobanov’s LiterNet and Martin Mitov’s The Word, etc.) moved literature to a socio-cultural field, which was to become more and more influential in the next decades. Political changes provoked a massive wave not only to illuminate taboo areas of literary history, but also to a moral re-evaluation of conscious or forced existential and creative compromises. This trend mostly found an artistic realization (more honest or more manipulated) in the blossoming forth of the memoir and the documentary literature. Through the prism of the subjective memory or the daily chronicle of time recorded in diaries, the Bulgarian writers built the complex mosaic of the totalitarian period. Subjectively experienced, but also full of documentary facts, the memorial artistic space brought some credible knowledge, but also vivid information about the political and cultural life of the recent past. The posthumously 538 539 Literaturen vestnik No. 1, 1991 published Dnevntsi ot razlichni godini by Emilian Stanev and Dnevnik by one of the leading literary critics in the years of the social realism – Boris Delchev – were accepted with great interest, but also with extensive discussions. The fictionally written memories of Vera Mutafchieva Bivalitsi (True Stories), Georgi Danailov Dokolkoto si spomnyam (As Far As I Remember), Konstantin Iliev Porazhenieto (The Defeat) also attracted interest. Peter Alipiev created an original chronology of that period through ironic recognition in anecdotes in Bez malko Tirtei (Almost Tyrtaeus). By examining archives and documents, Emil Dimitrov, Bozhidar Kunchev, Mikhail Nedelchev, Tsveta Trifonova, Vihren Chernokozhev made valuable research of strictly protected political zones of cultural life or ideological mythologized personalities from the years of totalitarianism. The books investigating the murder of the writer Georgi Markov played a significant part in outlining the tragic marks left by the Communist regime on the literary life. One of the first books of that kind was Hristo Stoyanov’s Ubiyte Skitnik (Kill the Wanderer). Emigrant fate – a curse or a chance. This is one of the sustainable subjects in the 1990s cultural space. The return of Bulgarian emigrating intellectuals was more than an important milestone in their lives. Literature attempted to illuminate and reason the political secrets of totalitarian times, narrated by the books of writers, journalists, emigrants from different generations. With their sophisticated style and slightly archaic vocabulary, the books by Stefan Popov, Stefan Gruev, Peter Uvaliev, Hristo Ognianov, restored both the sense of sacredness of the national, in spite of the vicissitudes of life, and the original meaning of patriotism – not as a hollow and loud slogan, but as a conscious mission of the intellectual. In the plots of their publicist, essayistic, memorial works, most often memories and political analyses, historical realities, and vivid psychological observations intertwined. In the fictional domain of artistic texts and in the autobiographical stories of Marran Gosov, Dimitar Bochev, Atanas Slavov, Lyubomir Kanov, Iliya Troyanov and many others, the memories of the traumatic scars left by the events in our country but also in the foreign social and cultural environment were supplemented by current political comments, philosophical interpretations of impossible existential choices and national chances. The complex synthesis between the memoir, the documentary, and the artistic made of emigrants’ books an authentic proof of the Bulgarian 20th century. They provided a possible reading of political events that had changed the messages and the mission of literature. Undoubtedly, the most important act of remorse was Georgi Markov’s official return to Bulgarian literature – his crime stories, novelettes, and dramas, especially Zadochni reportazhi (In Absentia Reports). The latter, in particular, showed most vividly and to the bitter end the model of the totalitarian system, which manipulated and killed. They embedded the will for truth and memory, for the expected change and the much-needed spiritual catharsis in the 1990s. Besides the active translation of literary texts filling the gaps of knowledge about the current trends in the development of humanitarian science, an important, not so autobiographical, but socially significant element was the placement of the works of Julia Kristeva and Tzvetan Todorov – scientists of world recognition – in the Bulgarian cultural context. The end of the century marked the beginning of their return and their increasing presence in the national spiritual space in the following decades. 540 541 Most – Almanac forExperimental Poetry, No.4, 1989 The works of bright creative individuals (Blaga Dimitrova, Konstantin Pavlov, Radoy Ralin, Boris Hristov, Ivaylo Petrov, Ivan Teofilov, etc.), written before and after the change, outlined the signs of the difficult path of Bulgarian literature from the closed, ideologically burdened context of socialist realism to the aesthetic challenges and artistic experiments of modern times. This boundary time-space, which separated freedom from non-freedom in literature, had many different connotations. One of them was the truth about the past. In the novels of Viktor Paskov, Zlatomir Zlatanov, Vladislav Todorov, this truth were rather filled with symbols and images suggesting the tragedy and the permanent traumas of the memory of totalitarian time, than with documentary credibility. A characteristic feature of the period was the division of literature. Once controlled, edited, and censored, it suddenly faced the challenges of the free market and the lack of sustainable artistic criteria. This largely obliterated the boundaries and equalized high and low, mass and elite, trivial and valuable in the culture of transition. Changing the aesthetic paradigm turned the cynical manner of expression, the brutal stories about the crimes of the new heroes of time, their ties to state structures, to a market bestseller. The public interest, reflected in the large circulation and the media popularity of the yellow stories, narrated with dubious artistic qualities, could also be seen as a gesture of rebellion against the ideologues of socialist realism. Unfortunately, the events from the next decade showed that mass culture imposed a very poor taste, constantly changing aesthetic and moral values. These apparent contrasts were most clearly marked, following the pendulum between the intellectual, ironic and aesthetic plots in prose (Chavdar Tsenov, Lyubomir Milchev, Boris Minkov) and the boulevard one, as well as in the works of Hristo Kalchev, some of the novels of Alexander Tomov, Vlado Daverov, ets. The transformations in poetics, the new thematic fields, broke the matrix of classical literary styles. In prose, the tradition was parodied by spectacular word play (Lyudmil Stanev), the contemporary social reality was interpreted through the prism of the comedy (Alek Popov, Stefan Kisyov) or the tragedy (Deyan Enev, Palmi Ranchev). A phenomenon of this period was also Ani Ilkov’s poetry, demythologizing sacral concepts and images. The new poets were recognized as followers of Konstantin Pavlov, Nikolay Kanchev, Binyo Ivanov. They emphasized both the prestige of these authors as individuals, who stood their ground, and the influence of their works on the establishment of modern poetic paradigms. It was difficult to form a steady trend in literary life since 1989. It was dynamically changing and fragmentary. It comprised several creative generations, who were united in intellectual communities and were opposing in alternative periodicals. Yet, we could say that the postmodernism in Bulgarian post-totalitarian literature was the dominating trend. In the beginning, it was manifested as a sort of rebellion against ideological constraints and aesthetic clichés in art. New circles of writers and experts in literature were formed, united by common aesthetic ideas and political beliefs, which, through manifestos, parody anthologies, original poetry and prose, modern literary interpretations and long forgotten or forbidden literary and historical texts, not only restored the authentic face of Bulgarian literature, but also outlined the leading trends in the 1990s. The syncretism was one feature of the Bulgarian postmodern prose. It learned and recreated many models – national and foreign – creating a complex mosaic of quotes, used with elegance and aesthetic refinement. The novels by Georgi Gospodinov, Milen Ruskov, Zlatomir Zlatanov turned historical plots or actual social problems to a scene, where the author and the characters played fictional and real narrative etudes. They cre- 542 543 Savremennik, No. 1, 1990 ated an open, provocative plot space, sending messages and motivating the reader to reflection and self-knowledge. The Bulgarian postmodern literature revived the power of the words to create with the intellectual pleasure of the liberated imagination and the language, unconstrained in its associative provocations. Throughout the 20th century, women, who were creating literature in Bulgaria played a key role in cultural life. They took active public positions and expressed their creative talent in all genres. But in various literary and historical stages their creativity was subordinated to various causes and ideologies – from the achievement of political equality, through social and everyday emancipation to creative equality. In the 1990s, the socalled women’s writing was in line with the current problems of feminism. Female authors had a subtler, but more painful sensitivity to the moral and ethical transformations of that time, to the unregulated chaos causing the collapse of values, but also to the creative temptations offered by the new thematic fields and the ban-free artistic experiments. Female authors tried to subdue the time to words and use it to create a new order, be it a fictional one. The novels and stories of Emilia Dvorianova, Maria Stankova, Teodora Dimova, Albena Stambolova, Zdravka Evtimova were different, both in poetic and in stylistic terms. In general, female authors harmoniously combined philosophical, biblical, and existential themes and used them to analyse the models of women’s identity, the psychological dimensions of love, solitude and alienation, intimate and social spaces of women. Mirela Ivanova, Silvia Choleva, Virginia Zaharieva, Amelia Licheva, Miglena Nikolchina, etc., also established distinguished poetical style. They created the poetic image of a modern woman seeking her identity and asserting her right to existential choice and sexual liberty. The presentation of emblematic events and authors marked the symptomatic processes in the modern Bulgarian culture of the transition, situated in problematic and controversial artistic contexts. In this complex, dynamically changing environment, their chronological order and factual exhaustiveness weren’t that crucial, but rather the aesthetic provocation and the strong social resonance of literary processes, unfamiliar at the time. They included the rebel of the new time, imposing a free creative expression, denying the ideologemes of the socialism and the pedestal attitude towards the literary canon. The generation of the 1990s was not afraid to destroy traditional myths and create new mythologemes, to impose alternative genres and to strive for scandalous cre544 ative appearances. The closed, chamber self-sufficiency of literature was denied in the name of publicity, the show and the multimedia effects. The fruitful symbiosis between literature, theatre, music, and visual arts was what created the polyphony of languages and styles as a collision between clichés and avant-garde. The original synthesis of means of expression and spectacular visual realizations of speech was characteristic of the poetic Petak 13 (Friday 13) performances, very popular at the time. In these performances, Mirela Ivanova and Boyko Lambovski skilfully played their verses in front of huge audiences and using precise and spectacular theatrical techniques, by overlaying many roles and masks, they actually managed to adroitly distinguish the poet and the actor. Avtorski literaturen teatar (The Literary Authors’ Theatre) was another interesting cultural phenomenon of the 1990s. The improvisation, the parody, the meaninglessness, but also the revival of sustainable cultural symbols, consistently and courageously performed by G. Gospodinov, P. Doynov, B. Penchev and J. Eftimov, marked the codes of a different poetics. The originality of this syncretism between theatre and literature indicated the persistent provocations of reconsidering the past, of changing the values of the present; it implied the popularity of these performances by giving them the statute of some sort of a corrective to the traditional, too conservative or ideologically deformed concept of literature. In the context of political changes, these were considered an alternative aesthetic position, signs on the complex path in the validation of the Bulgarian literature, seeking its new identity. The determined transformation of the perception of the author was typical of this period of sudden estrangement from triviality. The author was no longer a mysterious and self-sufficient person, he/she was a writer, but also an actor, a publisher of his/her works, a person of a clear aesthetic and political position. Our national culture was again free to match European models, albeit much later, in other aesthetic and social and cultural contexts. Authors no longer strived for mediation to present their works to the public. They used traditional paper issues as an occasion to perform various forms of stage appearances. For example: the poetic troubadour duels – interesting, attractive, well conceptualized, focused on intellectuality as knowledge, and the improvisation as a focal point of talent. Or crossing the limit between meaning and attraction, the dominance of form before content, the preference of external effects 35. Bulgarian 20th Century... 545 Vek 21, No.28, 1996 typical of the Rambo 13 philosophy and literary circle. Discussed or defamed because of their artistic inequality, they were very persistent in time – their bright and sometimes extremely radical appearances continued for almost two decades. In the years of transition, the concept of the artistic value of the book also changed. Its constitution in the literary canon was not that important, but rather its publicity, the visualization of the meaning and the messages it convened. The search for extravagance and scandal were part of the postmodern cultural gestures, but the revaluation and even the remorse of the representation of forbidden or forgotten authors and works were also significant. The premieres of both classical and new books were remarkable – they were remembered and commented. P. Doynov’s Rezervatat Visyashtite gradini na Bulgaria (Hanging Gardens of Bulgaria) was a theatrical performance in which the poet played three different parts; the premiere of Y. Eftimov’s Africa. Numbers was a football match; Roman Kisyov presented his books in a designated artistic space, accompanied by music; other poets included hip-hop dancing or ballet. The poetic play was performed in theatre as Petar Chuhov’s Bezopasni igli (Safety Pins) (a Sfumato performance), considered by critics as a “haiku holiday in theatre”; Ela, 546 legni varhu men (Come, Lie on Me) by Sylvia Choleva (University Theatre at New Bulgarian University); Tapetite na vremeto (The Wallpapers of Time) by Konstantin Pavlov’s poems, staged by Yulia Ognyanova (A. Konstantinov State Satirical Theatre); the artistic project I, Hamlet, which took place near the Salzata (The Tear) Lake in Rila. The late, and yet intense, attempt to realize the Slam phenomenon was also interesting. It was accepted with some suspicion because of the enticing uncertainty of free stage and poetic performance. The poetic scenario caught up with its backwardness by finding new and different forms of communication with the reader-viewer, using publicly available forms of psychotherapy, mass sharing and public empathy, through speech, music, and ritual movements. This is how the poetic performance avoided the boredom of the monotonous reading (Vasil Vidinski, Maria Kalinova, Kamelia Spasova, etc.), provoked, scandalized, caused and discouraged aesthetics (Urban Readings, Literature in Action, Point vs. Point, Virginia Zaharieva, etc.). It was in this symbiosis between the two arts, in the complex combination of poetry, music, and movement, that the identity of the contemporary artist was more vividly outlined – with no masks or mediators in the communication with the audience. These events definitely distinguished from the rituality of academic readings, parodying the template critical assessments. They focused on the performance and improvisation, created a celebration of free, unbiased, creative spirit, formed productive connections between vision and words, between literature and show. This was a different literary reality – attractive, sometimes even scandalous, but easily forgotten or replaced by newer modern forms, an essential part of the cultural environment at the end of the 20th century. This text is left without conclusion because the Bulgarian literature since 1989 is not a finished literary story. It is created even now and is still dynamically changing. Therefore, it is hard to objectively analyse and even harder to present. E. Т. 547 NEW ARTISTIC PRACTICES IN THE 1990s Following the change of political rule in Bulgaria in 1989 and the amendments of the constitution, the arrangements in the artistic sphere abandoned the centralized governance model. Overcoming the isolation of artistic life in Bulgaria and connecting it with current international artistic forums and practices, became the common feature of projects emerging from various artistic circles. The Expectations The main expectations of then young artists and art critics, of those in the beginning of their creative career paths, as well as those, who had until then remained uninvolved in the former power mechanism, can be summarized as follows: • Opportunities to realize various art projects, financed by diverse sources (and not as it used to be: by the ideologically indoctrinated centralized government – state, municipal, professional, etc.) within a context of a liberal public domain arrangements; • Setting up of artistic institutions independent of the state: private galleries, artists’ associations other than the Union of Bulgarian Artists, donators and collectors, private foundations; • Establishment of new international art forums in Bulgaria to place our country on the map and the calendar of worldwide cultural events; • Private media, providing platform for independent art criticism. Expectations were that in result of these so desired changes, an independent arts market would be created, viable to function under the conditions of globalization. As regards artistic education, along with proposed changes of the curricula at the national academy of arts, alternatives were being discussed – private higher education institutions. As far as historicizing of art goes – the Bulgarian, European, or other – changes were too anticipated. In this new, presumably liberal situation, the 548 rereading / rewriting of historical Bulgarian art narratives was outlining as a field of research and exhibition activities. It was now expected that the paradigm of interrelation of art events in Bulgaria with European and world ones would become predominant, instead of remaining limited to nationwide isolated and distinct formats and practices. Compiling historical narratives was the main activity of museum institutions as well. Under the communist rule, in the course of decades, the function of the art museums in Bulgaria was twofold – one aspect of it dealt with the ideological task of buying pieces of authors loyal to the power (among whom there were many talented ones), and the other – seemingly doing what was inherent to such institutions. The functional normalization of art museums, the creation of at least one new state-owned museum oriented to modernity, were much anticipated following the political changes’ onset in late 1989.512 To what extent and which of these expectations have been realized in the last decade of the twentieth century? The Changes The centralized governance model of the communist times was no longer valid in the 1990s. There are many historical reviews of the changes occurring in the last decade of the century513. In the context of this book and almost twenty years afterwards, this text is yet another attempt to concisely present the transition. Although the Union of Bulgarian Artists was in existence, inherently managing all exhibition opportunities (in its own halls and premises in Sofia and throughout the country) or for creative travelling abroad (in ateliers designated for Bulgaria, in Cité des Arts in Paris, for example), 512 The last issue of Izkustvo journal, before it closed in 1990, was dedicated to art museums. The editorial text on the second cover of the magazine said: „For years the condition of Bulgarian art museums and galleries has been a matter of concern not only for the specialists working there but also for wider professional and public milieus. [...] Even brief impressions from the galleries and house-museums in the country show that they do not function properly, and, in many case, their existence is only on paper.“ 513 See: ProArt / ArtPro, comp. M.Vassileva and D. Kamburov. Sofia, Swiss Cultural Program, Bulgaria, 2007, and in particular the articles of Maria Vassileva (5–11), Iara Boubnova (11–19) and Diana Popova (21–27); Vassileva, Maria. Art of Change. Sofia, Sofia City Art Gallery, 2015; Nozharova, Vesela. Introduction to Bulgarian Contemporary Art 1982-2015. Plovdiv, Janet, 2018. 549 was in a liberal, competitive situation, among other institutions. The Ministry of culture too did not manage all resources for artistic projects domestically and abroad, although that back then (and today still) it was a decisive factor when it came to participation in big forums such as the Venice Biennale. Nevertheless, a Bulgarian artist was invited to make a personal appearance at the “Аperto”514 Biennale. During the 1990s there were different international foundations and cultural institutes to promote decentralizing the financing of contemporary art practices in Bulgaria. Among those, particularly active was the George Soros Foundation which set up a network of art centres around the former socialist countries. The Bulgarian one was in operation from 1994 until 2003. Since 1994 up until 1999, financed by the Soros Art Centre, six editions of an annual contemporary art exhibition were organized on the principle of curation, documented in catalogues (six of them altogether). The Centre printed catalogues for different artists; it initiated the creation of an archive of Bulgarian 20th century artists; it supported professional trips. The network organized exchange of art events and periodicals. Other foundations of similar purpose, although with more humble financial contribution to the artistic life, were the Swiss Pro Helvetia, the Austrian KulturKontakt, BINZ, Zurich. The American Paul Getty Foundation granted scholarships to young art experts, encouraging art studies on the Balkans at the same time promoting going beyond the boundaries of the national historicizing paradigm. Quite a few art experts with the Institute of Art Studies at the Bulgarian Academy of Science received scholarships under a dedicated program sponsored by the Foundation, allowing them to travel to other Balkan countries, acquiring knowledge and views on the artistic exchange in different epochs, and creating professional contacts. Overcoming the isolation of the Bulgarian art scene in terms of its place on the international map and calendar, connecting it to popular artistic forums and practices, did not happen intensively enough in the first decade after the changes. It was beyond doubt that the new institutions which financed art projects did change the environment, but they were foreign players and insufficient. Their policies were often criticized, but the problems were not their priorities, but the lack of enough resources to financially support artists. 514 Among the few regularly held forums with international participation held in the 1990s in Bulgaria is the Varna Graphics Biennale – a legacy from the last years of communism. Towards the end of the decade, however, it was in decline. Yet another biennale, the Third International Biennale in Istanbul in 1992, became a focal point of interest for the local Bulgarian art circles, because several Bulgarian artists took part in it – Georgi Ruzhev, Nedko Solakov, Lyuben Kostov and Luchezar Boyadjiev. Its fourth edition in 1995 again hosted Bulgarian representatives – L. Boyadjiev, Pravdoliub Ivanov, N. Solakov. On the international map Bulgaria appears also as a place for contemporary Western art presentation. Almost until the last years of the communist period all proposals for exhibitions of contemporary Western art were either diverted, or, in rare case they actually took place, inadequately covered by the press. In 1993 a big exhibition Art contemporain en France. Une situation 1980–1993 was introduced in Sofia, Plovdiv and Varna. This large-scale project of gallerist Bernard Jordan together with AFFA – Association Française d’Action Artistique, supported by the French Cultural Institute in Sofia, included a cycle of lectures by French critics and contemporary art researchers. Catherine Millet’s Contemporary Art in France was translated and published in Bulgarian, and the author came to Sofia for its introduction in front of Bulgarian audience. This generously funded project was how the French cultural policy expressed its interest towards the Bulgarian artistic circles in the early 1990s. Georgi Ruzhev. One-dimensional man, 1992 photography, canvas, 200 х 160 cm. Nedko Solakov in 1993. 550 551 Towards the end of the decade other international exhibitions influencing the local circles took place, and those were Fluxus in Germany 1960–1994 at the National Gallery for Foreign Art, in 1998, and Locally Interested, at the same place, in 1999 – both included lectures and accompanying events. The world-famous artists of Bulgarian origin, Christo, send his posters for an exhibition, organized at the Gallery The City in Sofia. A book was published in Bulgaria, dedicated to his art515. The international landscape remained vibrant both by the Bulgarian quest to overcome isolation, and externally – by the search of the international stage for new territories and art practices. In the 1990s many world-famous curators and theoretical experts of contemporary art came to Bulgaria, inviting Bulgarian artists to participate in their international exhibition projects. Among those were Rosa Martínez, Ami Barak, René Block, Peter Weibel, Harald Szeemann, Beral Madra, Bojana Pejić and others. Private galleries and art trade, whose activity after the political changes in Bulgaria was settled by the law, were yet another possible source of earning for artists and for funding their projects. After the early 1990s many private galleries were opened. Most of them functioned as antique shops. But there were others which participated in the exhibition calendar presenting contemporary art practices. In the first decade of political changes those galleries were: Art 36, Lessedra, Arosita, Studio Spectrum, Seasons, Ata-Rai (later renamed Art Centre ATA), all of them in Sofia, Akrabov in Plovdiv, TED in Varna, and XXL in Sofia, set up as a artists’ managed exhibition area. Along with Bulgarian authors, they attempted to also present contemporary foreign artists. Collectors, however, although few of them, were hesitant about the contemporary forms and practices. When interested in modern art, they would most often buy pieces worked in popular materials and media – maily painting and sculpture. Many independent artists’ associations were established in Sofia, Plovdiv, Varna and other Bulgarian cities in the last decade of the 20th century. Among them are Izkustvo v dejstvie (Art in Action) in Sofia (1990); Rab (Edge) (1990) in Plovdiv; International art festival Process – prostranstvo (Process – Space) (1991) in Balchik; Institit za savremenno izkustvo (Contemporary Art Institute) (1995) in Sofia; Club Var(t)na (1996) in Varna; Izkustvoto dnes (Art Today) Foundation (1997) in Plovdiv; 8th March Group (1997) in Sofia; Sofia Underground – festival of performances, actions and happenings (1997); InterSpace – media arts centre (1998) and many others. Banja Starinna (Ancient Bath centre of contemporary art) in Plovdiv was set up as an independent Contemporary Art Centre. These not-to-profit legal entities promoted the popularization of contemporary Bulgarian artists in the country and internationally, of foreign artists in Bulgaria, cooperated so that the Bulgarian art scene can overcome its isolation. As regards to higher education, an alternative came along – the private arts academy Jules Pascin in Sofia (1993–1997). Art critics also do attempt at decentralization. Izkustvo Journal – the periodical of the Union of the Artists in Bulgaria, was discontinued by the Union itself, only to be resurrected as the private Art in Bulgaria, which existed some ten years (1992–2003). This new journal focused on contemporary art scene in Bulgaria and abroad, demonstrating broad-mindedness by publishing articles in English, as well as many translated ones by foreign authors. Critics were seeking new information media. Articles about art were published by many newspapers Kultura (until 1990 Narodna kultura, Literaturen vestnik, Vek 21, Puls and others. Announcements and short extracts about exhibitions were heard broadcasted by different radio programs, most often by Hristo Botev program – in the early years. However, the media space by art criticism was relatively limited in the late 1990s as well, almost not allowing for any broader discussions and wide public attention. Bulgarian critics found themselves in a new situation of travelling, visiting and participating in international forums. Among them were the conferences of the International Association of Critics AICA in Budapest, 1996; Warsaw, 1997; Poznan, 1998, as well as conferences of the Soros centres network, and Paul Getty Foundation Visual Culture Summer Schools. These new opportunities and the publications that followed – as authors and translators516 – broadened the horizons, enriched the landscape of critical ideas and the vocabulary of criticism. A novelty of the local environment became the figure of the curator – the English word was preferred to the French one, due to the undesired connotations of the latter in the Bulgarian linguistic domain. During the 515 Ангелов, Ангел В. Конкретни утопии. Проектите на Кристо. Литература. – София: Отворено общество, 1997. 516 Ангелов, Ангел В., Генова, Ирина. Следистории на изкуството – София: Фондация Сфарагида, 2001, and Разказвайки образа – София: Фондация Сфарагида, 2003. 552 553 communist rule there were also commissioners for exhibitions, especially for those outside Bulgarian. However, in the 1990s all critics and art experts, artists as well, insisted on the specifics of the curatorial activity, for which the concepts of the exhibition project and the relationship with the context are central. In those years curators were usually professionals, mature art experts and critics. Among them were D. Popova, Y. Bubnova, Maria Vasileva, Ruen Ruenov, Kamen Balkanski, Desislava Dimova and many others. Sometimes artists stepped in – Emil Mirazchiev, Milko Pavlov, Elena Panayotova, as well as artists who were experts of art – L. Boyadjiev, Dimitar Grozdanov, Svilen Stefanov. The curator thus became an all-time figure for museum exhibitions as well – some of the 20th century examples are: Tatyana Dimitrova, I. Genova, Ruzha Marinska, Milena Georgieva. Art Practices in an Environment of Globalization. Excitement and Difficulties The fall of the Berlin Wall intensified the globalization processes in all areas of life. The opportunities for travel, although not immediately and without problems, became accessible to all. For them art circles this meant free movement of people, texts, images, ideas and meaning. The context of artistic practices in Bulgaria was transformed – from a relatively isolated and self-sufficient, it turned into an open, volatile and unstable one. In those early years the artists and critics in Bulgaria were face with the challenge to think of their work in a new context, one that they knew poorly. The tendencies after the point of conceptual art activities were not until then presented in Bulgaria or discussed. In one article on neo-expressionism, published in 1984, L. Boyadjiev explained to the reader’s concepts, such as photorealism, performance, etc.517 In the years of communist rule, only a few members of the artistic circles in Bulgaria had the chance to directly contemporary forms and practices, beyond the Iron curtain, and even fewer – to closely follow the critics’ debate. An understanding observation and interpretation, creative reference to one or the other artistic phenomenon, require a longstanding experience in the respective milieu. Critical writing also means working on the language – in our case Bulgarian, and that ensues creating general concepts. In the era of communism, until the beginning of the liberalization, even already well known contemporary forms and practices were not referred to in articles by Western terms, but descriptively and vaguely. Those who wrote in the 1990s had to simultaneously gain experience in directly communicating with and about pieces of art produced beyond the Iron Curtain, commenting newly emerging phenomenon in Bulgarian art life, and using an adequate critical language . This language was crated also through a big number of translations. Thus, in the beginning of the changes, in the context of a lacking artistic and critical discourse and language, all acts and performances, unlike all others until then were referred to as unconventional. “N-forms. Reconstructions and interpretations” was the name of the first of a series of annual exhibitions at the Soros Art Centre in Sofia, in 1994. Difficulties were even greater in the field of creating meaning. László Beke, an influential art expert and curator from Hungary, noted in 1996 in a statement he made, that Central and Eastern Europe, or Europe of the former communist countries, has lost the ability to produce meanings.518 Opportunities for intensive information exchange did not automatically mean possibility/ability to produce an influential meaning. Travelling, information means and technologies, fast development of internet environment and creation of a global network, did stir an excitement. But it quickly became clear that they only seemingly gave equal chances for participation in an international milieu to artists from different cultural territories. In our country, as elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe, there was a concern that new trends are emerging and stabilizing in certain artistic circles and forums, wherefrom they disseminate, get absorbed and transformed across much broader culture context. A discussion was initiated to what extent the transformations in the local circles can be indeed influential, so as to have secondary effect onto the centres of origin. The impossible combination of local and global gave birth to the word glocal, which during the 1990s came in use in the field of culture. Бояджиев, Лъчезар. Нео-експресионизмът като реакция срещу една дискредитирана утопия. Кръгозор. № 2, 1984, 183–195. Cit in: Генова, Ирина. Tempus fugit / Времето лети: За съвременното изкуство и визуалния образ / Tempus fugit / Time Flies: On Comtemprary Art and the Visual Image. – София: Алтера , 2007, с. 39–42. 554 555 518 517 The art as it was then, taking different shapes, media and practices, influenced the environment rendering it problematic. Contemporary art in Bulgaria during these years, for the first time since many decades, communicated within its environment without the screen of the governing ideology. Being self-aware of the time and place, as well as for the different nature of the artistic practice, introduced modifications of the concept of art. Artists in Bulgaria faced all these hurdles. Strong art “statements”, semantic fields influential beyond the local medium, are inevitably linked to self-reflexive images. The quality of making, or its lacking, in those images, either creates or prevents any influence. It has always been so. But back then, in this then contemporary situation, where artists’ workshops already resembled industrial sites, and artistic projects took specific materials and technologies to realized, when art installations – permanent or temporary, indoors or outside – required technical means and skilled people, this mastery had to rely on the support of an environment which was both materially and technically rich. In this respect, visuals artists in Bulgaria, in the 1990s, and later, were facing insurmountable abstacles and gaps. All these deficits influenced the contemporary creations of artists in Bulgaria during the first decade after the changes. The excitement and energy for experiments often did not lead to satisfying effect – a situation which gave reasons to critics to view some works more like projects. The artists with contemporary, dynamic thinking and ambitions in the early 1990s, were now in a tense situation of division between “here”– the Bulgarian environment, and “there” – the international art scene. So, what were themes that attracted them, and how did they decide, albeit in a compromise, this situation? One of the early thematic fields in modern art practices in our country was the city. To the West, since the late 1960s, since the experience of conceptualism onwards, the new artistic language started interacting with the environment – physical, technological, informational – which simultaneously sustained and changed the sense of self of the individual, the networks of relations, and the society. Artistic practices, along with the debates in university audiences and the mass media, defined the intellectual experience of the society. 556 Lyuben Kostov. The Centre of the World, 1994 ropes, textile The city in those early years of changes was not simply a topic. The city was animated and conquered by the artists. In this respect significant were the Bridges constructions along the Perlovska river canal by Dobrin Peichev and Orlin Dvorianov in 1988, and the flying silk forms erected by Lyuben Kostov over the streets of Sofia, Pleven in the early 90’s: Comet, 1992–1993; Star icosahedron, 1992–1993; Bird, 1992; The egg, 1993, Trap of Time, 1994, which created a sense of lightness and freedom. In the hall of 125 Rakovski Street, during the first exhibition of the group The City in 1988 (Andrei Daniel, Bozhidar Boyadzhiev, Vihroni Popnedelev, Greddy Assa, N. Solakov, Svilen Blazhev, Philip Zidarov), one could see crushed cans of Coke, never before sold in Bulgaria, peeking attractingly out of a waste bin. Was the rational “reversal” of meaning part of the author’s design, or was it merely a subjective perception? To our trade then this “garbage” looked quite luxurious. But how could one turn the packaging of a local production an artistic object? If one were to use authentic garbage, this would result in an artistically invalid and incomprehensible literalism elsewhere. In the case of ready-made or the problematization of trivial objectivised environment, in our country the low level of industrial production practically did not allow for the manufacturing of large quantities of 557 identical objects. This circumstance, in turn, cancelled the problem of unification, the problem of endless multiplication and the impersonal perfection of the machine-made creations. Later in Bulgaria, the rapidly changing environment and the new human situation gave birth to meaningful fields. The reworking of social experiences from the then recent past of the 1990s had a potential for a relatively broader community of meanings and topicality of the statements. The “Соцарт” (from Socialist Art), as an opportunity for local and global connectivity, did not deploy in our country as it did in other former communist countries in Europe. Despite some memorable works and actions – Wooden clapping machine by L. Kostov, A Look to the West, by N. Solakov, the Chameleon action of The City group, all in 1990, Right to work (wooden installation and a series of drawings) by Sasho Stoitzov, 1995, and others – this trend was far from the scale and international popularity of artistic realizations in Russian, Polish, Czech, and Hungarian art. In Bulgaria, however, there was not enough artistic experience and motivation for this kind of practice. The thinking of a collective identity associated with Eastern Europe in the former communist countries, engaged modern artistic practices in our country as well. Chameleon, 1990, Happening in front of the National Palace of Culture, Sofia. The City Initiator Group Sasho Stoitzov. Right to work, 1995, installation, wood The Bulgarian participation in the International Exhibition After the Wall. Art and culture in the Post-communist Europe, curators Bojana Pejić, Iris Müller-Westermann, David Elliott, towards the end of the decade is only part of this thematic direction519. Collective identities and their invention on the Balkans were an active thematic field in the 1990s. One of the influential images by Bulgarian artists is the installation Territories, 1995–2003, by Pravdoliub Ivanov, first shown at the Istanbul Biennial in 1995520. Earth, turned into flags without symbolic colours, without coats of arms or hereditary emblems, the earth that brings the breath of life and death, dramatically poses the question about our identity. In an environment of high political tension and war occurring in the collapse of former Yugoslavia, the problem of Balkan identities by far outreaches the artistic field. 519 The exhibition was presented in 1999 MoMA / Moderna Museet in Stockholm, the Museum Ludwig, Budapest and Hamburg Station – Museum of Contemporary / Hamburger Bahnhof – Museum für Gegenwart, Berlin. 520 Pravdoliub Ivanov. Territories, installation, 1995–2003, earth, textile, wood, metal holders. Ownership: Block Collection, Berlin. 558 559 Exhibition projects in this thematic field are numerous. After the end of the war, at the beginning of the XXI century, three of them were of particular political significance: In search of Balkania, 2002, Graz, with curators Peter Weibel, Roger Conover, Eda Čufer; Blood and Honey, 2003, Vienna, with curator Harald Szeemann, and In the Gorges of the Balkan, 2003, Kassel, with curator Rene Block. Fairly numerous were the works that problematized the (religious) faith and the lacking faith. Among them the Bulgarian ones were Strengthening of Faith, 1991 by L. Boyadjiev, Inside, 1996, by Kosyo Minchev and others. The identity of the artist, his role as a provocateur, exposing prejudices and conventions, is an important activity in the 1990s. Large cultural narratives served as foundation of the spanning installations and artistic interventions of N. Solakov – New Noah’s Ark, 1992, Art Collector, 1994, and others. The materialization of the artist’s projects in Bulgaria was far from the scale of his performances on international scene. In some cases, it was difficult to communicate with Pravdoliub Ivanov. Territories, installation, 1995–2003, earth, textile, wood, metal holders. Ownership: Block Collection, Berlin Nedko Solakov. Top secret, 1990 catalog drawer and cards with different records and visual materials audiences, due to differences between the local and global context of thinking. Artists often turn their self-awareness and their body into a subject of detached observation and means of expression. At this background some of the most influential works appeared: Reflections / Imprints series (Soap Reflections, New Hopes, Never-ending Tales, Vanitas) by Nadezhda Lyahova; Personal pronouns and Between thought and speech of Pravdoliub Ivanov; the multimedia installation of Galentin Gatev Согрus аlienum, and others. In another context and in a larger study, they could be discussed as installations, often involving photography as Luchezar Boyadjiev. Neo-Golgotha, 1994 three costumes, giant size, rope, ca. 450 x 900 cm. 560 36. Bulgarian 20th Century... 561 In the Pravdoliub Ivanov’s installation. One Hour, 1996, 60 dial plates with arrows metering every minute, attract all looks magnetically. Time – the personal time, is a metaphoric image, at the same time, a symbol of the highest order. The aesthetic minimalism and strictness, imminent movement and deadness of the arrows, discontinuous connectivity of the dials, cause agitation related to loss, a nostalgic experience, affect beyond the specifics of the contexts. A special place for encounters of meanings on a global scale was the book as an object and image. The interest towards the book, created by an artist, came back topical in the 1990s in the international artistic space. In the Bulgarian Art-book exhibition in 1997, with curator M. Pavlov, the art book was cast, formed, structured, carried the traces of drawings and prints, photography, collages, computer graphics and embodies the infinite inventiveness of the artists. The communicative aspect of the environment, the information and its media (the press with its visual image, the electronic media, the computer technology, the Internet, although not so widely used in the1990s), Nadezhda Lyahova. Reflections / Imprints, Cycle Extract, 1999, Cast of the artist’s face, actual size, different materials (soap, sand, ice cream, ice) Mariela Gemisheva. Fashion Fire, 2003, fashion show-performance, with the participation of Edmond Demirdjian – drums, Regional Fire Safety Department, Sofia a media; as visual practices exploring the relationship between image and speech, in situ works, etc. The interpretation of the human body was a chance for universal outreach and universality of the artistic impact. To this field of commonness, we can add pieces viewing the body as an erotic object. The performance is another artistic choice through which the body of the artists (or other performers) is fully instrumentalized. In the 1990s, Adelina Popnedeleva, Ventsislav Zankov, Mariela Gemisheva and others, employed these means of expression. In another direction, M. Pavlov studied imprints as traces and memory in his late 1990s Imitations. In a series of large graffiti using the frottage technique, he attributed importance to the impact of an unexpected closer look at familiar objects and spaces, the conversion of tactile perception of the invisible into an image. The artist challenges the notion of uniqueness associated with the understanding of authorship, choosing the repetition of the gesture’s automatism. 562 563 Milko Pavlov. From the Imitations cycle, 1999–2000, 130 x 100 cm, frottage, graphite on paper. Private collection were yet another possibility for intersections between different contemporaneity. In the Bulgarian context, multimedia installations such as the The Last Supper by V. Zankov, 1995, and Police by Kosyo Minchev, 1995 – from the Video & Hart (video and paper) exhibition in 1995, curator K. Balkanski – posed questions about the impact of the electronic media. Video became a well-known and accessible art media in Bulgaria in the mid-nineties. Among the artists attracted by its potential were Kalin Serapionov, Daniela Kostova, N. Lyahova, A. Popnedeleva, Krassimir Terziev, Nina Kovacheva, Valentin Stefanov and many others. The thematic directions are different. What is common is the interest towards movement and time, towards the relationship between picture, film and video. The problematizing of otherness, the difference of the local environment, or rather – the artistic manifestation of its problem, is less common in works of the said decade. Such were the texts made out of hedges, the vegetable symbols, the baroque broilers by Kiril Prashkov from 1996–1997; Sweet Life by A. Popnedeleva – mats weaved from glossy wraps, as well as the beautiful garbage dresses, the corrugated cardboard columns, the dream woman image of polyethylene bags in the 1994–1997 works, and so on. Exposing the differences between the informational and the subjectivized environment, the scarcity of the latter, the trivial images of everyday life, could hardly have any impact within a developed society. Yet, these works expressed new meanings in our situation. A series of topics, popular in the West, and found in the works of Bulgarian artists, seem to outpace the social times, rather as a premonition Ventsislav Zankov. The Last Supper, 1995, multimedia installation Nina Kovacheva and Valentin Stefanov. Wet contact, 2002, video, 29.41 min. 564 565 Kiril Prashkov. National Beans I. 2002, National Style series, approx. 2.5 kg beans, acrylic, varying sizes for soon-to-be emerging topics in the Bulgarian context. That’s the influence of the feminist and gender issues in the exhibition Erato’s Version in 1996, curated by M. Vasileva and Y. Bubnova, or the photo-installation by Kalin Serapionov The missing category, in 1996. In the following years a series of exhibitions of the March 8 group, with curator M. Vasileva, presented playful and provocatively construed female roles in the then contemporary situation. A little later was the onset of a public debate in Bulgaria in this line of discourse, accompanied by research and educational efforts, and today the gender theme is the field of a political conflict. Towards the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 21st century, the question of the role of global art institutions, especially that of the biennials, in the modern world, became quite topical – what kind of practices they stimulated, how they affected the career of artists, etc. Did global institutions turn creative art practices into an arena for competition of powers of the neoliberal marketing, or did it not? This issue gained new reasoning and became the centre of debates in the coming decades. Adelina Popnedeleva. Sweet life (Small), 1993, 66 x 80 cm, textile threads, candy wrappers. Private collection 566 567 Kalin Serapionov. Wanted category, 1996, part of photo installation Closing remarks In the first decade of the changes and the last one of the 20th century, there were significant transformations of the artistic domain in Bulgaria. The artistic life model was replaced in the context of a new liberal social background. Modern art trends, popular from the international stage, were adopted and re-worked in our country. Conceptually new forms and practices of expression and influence were created. Visual artists experimented with different media, including photography and video. New thematic fields were explored. Various version of performance developed. Artists, critics and amateurs, art pieces and exhibitions travelled across the border. However, the expectations of visual artists and the wider artistic circles in our country were not satisfactorily fulfilled. Chances to stabilize the liberal aspects of the environment were missed. The opportunities for funding artistic projects were few, and philanthropists and collectors of contemporary art were almost absent. There were no large exhibition spaces either. The activity of art museums is also not normalizing as expected. No new modern art museum was established. Only few significant contemporary foreign exhibitions came to Bulgaria and the country still seemed isolated on the art map. Criticism did not have enough media space for adequate expression. Provided these circumstances, the audience had difficulties finding the way to the actual artistic forms and practices. Many young artists and critics left Bulgaria. Nevertheless, looking from a two-decade distance, now the 1990s look as if having been filled with energy and will for change. Times in which the birth of a stimulating art environment seemed possible. NEW CINEMA AT THE END OF THE CENTURY The Eve of the Transition – Angry Young Men and Belated Premiers The generation of cinematographers, who would make the transition to the new production model and break with the aesthetics of the social realism at the end of the twentieth century, debuted in the cinema at the 1988 Bulgarian Film Festival in Varna with three provocative films: Lyudmil Todorov’s Running Dogs, Krasimir Krumov’s Exitus and Ivan Tscherkelov’s Pieces of Love. Obviously, the style of these movies was borrowed from the existential dramas of the European cinema from the 1960s and 1970s. That is why the experiments of the angry young men of the Bulgarian cinema can be seen as attempts for a late avant-garde rather than as authentic discoveries. On the other hand, however, there is no doubt that their films brought aesthetics into the Bulgarian cinema I. G. Lyudmil Todorov, director (b. 1955) 568 569 The interruption of the process – collapse and achievements Hristo Shopov and Irini Zhambonas in Margarit and Margarita (1989), dir. Nikolai Volev art that was still new at the time. Thus, at the very end of the 1980s, the new generation of Bulgarian cinematographers demonstratively rejected the paradoxical dissidence of their predecessors and, with the enthusiasm and defiance typical of that time, declared their profound traumas and their intolerance to the Communist rule. Immediately after the end of the national festival in 1988, three premieres took place, which returned most of the films “arrested” by the communist censorship decades ago to the cinematic process – Lyubomir Sharlandjiev’s Prokurorat (The Prosecutor, produced in 1969, premiere 12.09.1988), Irina Aktasheva and Christo Piskov’s Ponedelnik sutrin (Monday Morning, produced in 1966, premiere 31.10.1988) and Binka Zhelyazkova’s Zhivotat si teche tiho (Life Goes Slowly By), produced in 1957, premiere 19.12.1988. However, Lada Boyadjieva and Yanush Vazov’s Zavrashtane (Return, produced in 1966) and the recently finished Nikolai Volev’s Margarit and Margarita (produced in 1988) were still considered harmful. It was not until December 1989 when they would reach the viewers after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Communist power across Eastern Europe. 570 Regardless of the turbulent political changes, the Bulgarian cinema production was still maintained by the socialist production momentum until the first months of 1991. In 1989, the last year of the communist rule, the State funded several movies criticising society inspired by the Soviet Perestroika, released after the change in the political model: Petar Popzlatev’s Az, grafinyata (Me, the Countess, 11.12.1989), Ivanka Grabcheva’s Karnavalat (The Carnival, 1990), Georgi Djulgerov’s Lagerat (The Camp, 1990), Docho Bodzhakov’s Our Father, Ti, koyto si na nebeto (You, Who Are in Heaven, 1990) and Dimitar Petkov’s Tishina (Stillness, (1991). These were the first Bulgarian attempts for film repentance for the communist repression declared at the 1988 national historic-to-be festival with Ivan Nitchev’s 1952: Ivan and Alexandra, awarded with the Golden Rose Grand Prix. In 1991, this process further developed through film interpretations of stories examining the imposition of the communism in our country in the 1940s with Docho Bodzhakov’s Kladenetsat (The Well), Krasimir Krumov’s Malchanieto (The Silence, Svetlana Yancheva (Sybilla) in Az, grafinyata (Me, the Countess), 1989, dir. Petar Popzlatev 571 first nomination of a Bulgarian film for the European Film Awards – Felix) and Kiran Kolarov’s Iskam Amerika (I Want America). Nearly all of the above-mentioned films presented this socially painful issue quite superficially with their authors not striving for artistic reconsideration of its interpretations imposed during the period of socialist realism. In the 1990s, the socialist artistic stereotypes were still prevailing in the Bulgarian cinema. At the dawn of democracy, the Bulgarian cinema was politically and aesthetically shaping “in a fierce proletcult way”521. The directors of these films declared their democratic positions with well-established socialist realism formulas, simply shifting the direction of the opposition in conflicts without paying much attention to social dynamics and individual psychology. Krumov’s The Silence was an exception that only proved the rule. The sincere anti-communist pathos was not enough per se to transform the artistic model of the Bulgarian cinema. Riding the wind of change, Bulgarian cinematographers seemed to have forgotten that our cinema had a counterconformity tradition, whose representatives opposed the communist ideology and the socialist realism principles for four decades. Even at the end of the 1950s, despite the communist censorship, films were created in Bulgaria against the socialist realism guidelines. It is these movies, who formed the authentic, non-ideological line in the Bulgarian cinema and were its real achievements. In the last decade of the twentieth century, the imposition of the communist rule developed as a major theme in the Bulgarian cinema. It emerged with Docho Bodzhakov’s Kladenetsat (The Well, 1991) and developed with Ivan Andonov’s Vampiri, talasami… (Vampires, Goblins..., 1993), Radoslav Spassov’s Sirna nedelya (The First Sunday Before Lent, 1993), Evgeni Mihailov’s Sezonyt na kanarchetata (Canary Season, 1993), and Hristo Hristov’s Sulamit (1997). There were also important storylines in Krasimir Krumov’s Malchanieto (The Silence, 1991) and Ivan Nitchev’s Sled kraya na sveta (After the End of the World, 1998). All of these films looked very bold, even challenging, compared to the then valid rules for heroic revolutionary interpretation of the establishment of the communist power, but most of their directors were rather prone to late civil courage than to seeking innovative expression and their films didn’t go further than banality. 521 Саръиванова, Маргит. Не забравяй, но прости. // Кино, 1991, № 9/10, с. 68. 572 In 1993, a significant year for the Bulgarian cinema, the film directors Ilian Simeonov and Hristan Nochev tried to confront the recently passed era of communism with the second Bulgarian feature film entitled Granitsa (Border). Nikola Minchev’s first Border (1954) was an exemplary piece of socialist realism in line with the approved film production plan for 1952–1953522, according to which “a film on the life of our border guards and the border population must be released at the end of 1952.” The deadline was not met. Minchev’s film was released in 1954, two years later. The premiere of the second film of the same title was exactly forty years later, at the beginning of 1994. Simeonov and Nochev created their Border from the time of the transition as an absolute rejection of the communist movie of the same name – the choices and actions of the characters represented by Minchev as heroic and patriotic in 1950s, were directed in 1990s with repulsive brutality. According to Simeonov and Nochev, border guards were Granitsa (Border), 1994, dirs.: Hristian Nochev, Ilian Simeonov 522 Постановление на Министерския съвет: Относно състоянието и задачите на българската кинематография. // Известия на Президиума на Народното събрание, бр.15, 19.ІІ.1952. 573 criminals brought up by the communist system, ready to shoot fugitives crossing the border to earn a few days of home leave. The film removed the heroic halo from the border guard image set by the socialist realism cinema in the 1950s. In Border (1994), the image of the border guard was transformed into an exact opposite in front of the audience – the heroes at the border post demonstrated various perversions and at the end one of them killed himself, deliberately entering the mine-field intended for the enemy. Thus, the Bulgarian cinema of the transition metaphorically broke down the closed communist territory outlined four decades ago by the cinema of socialist realism. The social experiment had failed – the new Border symbolically opened the Bulgarian space and the Bulgarian cinema to the outside world. And the reaction of the outside world was positive – the film was awarded in France, Belgium, and the Czech Republic. Open to cooperation with foreign producers after 1993, our cinema began to adapt to the taste of the western audience and this inevitably affected the interpretations of the theme of the Bulgarian communism. Ivan Nitchev’s Sled kraya na sveta (After the End of the World, 1998) was a good example of such an adaptation to the expectations of west world viewers. After all, the reconsideration of the events of the 1940s and 1950s by the means of the cinema soon ceased to inspire the Bulgarian filmmakers and with the beginning of the new century they stopped exploiting this theme. The only exception, Stanimir Trifonov’s Izpepelyavane (Burned to Ashes, 2004), was a lonely attempt for a closer look at the human dimensions of these traumatic events. The extremely dynamic social changes and the natural change of the generations in the cinema at the end of the twentieth century, the fading of the memory of the public drama of the 1940s and the 1950s and the altered production model pushed the Bulgarian cinema in other directions. To date, a proper artistic presentation of the crisis of the Bulgarian identity from the mid-twentieth century hasn’t been seen on the big screen. In 1991, the Bulgarian cinema production model radically changed. On 19th March 1991, Council of Ministers’ Decree of the Republic of Bulgaria Nr. 44523 cancelled direct state funding for film productions. Three months later, in June 1991, Council of Ministers’ Decree Nr. 107 liquidated the Bulgarian Cinematography Creative Consortium (BCCC) 523 Държавен вестник, № 23 от 1991. and established the National Film Centre (NFC). The Ordinance on its Structure and Activities and the Rules of Production524 were adopted in October of the same year. These documents imposed structural changes in cinematographic production by regulating a new model of private film production, partly funded by the state. At the same time, the cited decrees of the Council of Ministers also determined the rules for international cooperation in the cinema domain. In practice, these structural changes not only abolished the monopoly of the State as the only film producer inherited from socialist Bulgaria. They also drastically minimised its financial commitment and caused unseen production collapse in the national cinematography. In 1992, only two feature films were produced in Bulgaria – Vampires, Goblins... – funded by the NFC and the first privately funded Bulgarian feature film after 1948 – Sergei Komitski’s Kurshum za raya (Bullet to Paradise). The so-called “null years of the Bulgarian cinema”, which followed, continued until the end of the twentieth century. During these null years, two or three feature films were produced annually in Bulgaria. (By comparison, in the 1970s, the strongest decade of the Bulgarian cinema, the annual production of full-length feature films in Bulgaria ranged from thirteen to twenty). Pismo do Amerika (Letter to America), 2000, dir. Iglika Triffonova 524 574 http://www.kultura.bg/media/my_html/2105/ch_91.htm [visited on 4.2.2013] 575 Stefka Yanorova (Sonya) and Samuel Finzi (Pavel) in Opashkata na dyavola (The Devil’s Tail), 2001, dir. Dimitar Petkov On the other hand, it is remarkable that these null years produced some of the most successful and artistically significant for the period of transition Bulgarian feature films – Ilian Simeonov and Hristian Nochev’s Border (1994), Ivan Tscherkelov’s Tarkalyashti se kamani (Rolling Stones, 1995) and Stakleni topcheta (Marbles, 1999), Andrey Slabakov’s Wagner (1989), Ivan Nitchev’s Sled kraya na sveta (After the End of the World, 1989), Iglika Triffonova’s Pismo do Amerika (Letter to America, 2000) and Dimitar Petkov’s Opashkata na dyavola (The Devil’s Tail, 2001). Considering the subsequent development of the processes in the film production and cinema distribution in Bulgaria, the collapse after the sudden production change that came without any economic preparation, may be seen as a political gift for the distributors of American cinema in Bulgaria. Having lost contact with their own barely surviving cinematography, the Bulgarian public joined the Hollywood production, which flooded the Bulgarian theatres. The communication of the Bulgarian viewers with the native cinema was marked by nostalgia – watching and downloading old, favourite films and increasing indifference to sporadically emerging new Bulgarian films. It was not until the end of the first decade of the new century when the proper dialogue was restored with Dimitar Mitovski’s 576 satirical comedy Misiya London (Mission London, 2010). Meanwhile, in 2001, the state company Boyana Film EAD (formerly Boyana Film Studios) was sold to US owners. Thus, the State Cinema Centre transformed into the foreign film company Nu Boyana Film Studios and finally became a financially profitable photo shoot area and a convenient venue for performing technical services for American film productions. The Bulgarian productions after the production collapse were few. In 1993, once again only two films were produced, partially funded by the NFC – Nidal Algafari’s La Donna e Mobile and the above-mentioned Border of Ilian Simeonov and Hristian Nochev. Border turned out to be one of the greatest artistic achievements in the transition cinema. The other significant event that marked this year as important for our cinematography was the official accession of Bulgaria to the Council of Europe fund for the co-production, distribution, exhibition and digitisation of European cinematographic works (EURIMAGES)525. This act of the Bulgarian State initiated the successful integration of the Bulgarian cinema into the European cultural process. In practice, that meant equal Misiya London (Mission London), 2010, dir. Dimitar Mitovski 525 http://www.nfc.bg/bg/fondove_i_programi.html [visited on 4.2.2013] 37. Bulgarian 20th Century... 577 access of Bulgarian filmmakers to European financial support for cinema production and film distribution and full creative cooperation between our filmmakers and their colleagues from the European Union. The 1990s – Identity Crisis and Search Directions The impression of an interruption in the Bulgarian cinema in the 1990s originated not only from the production collapse, but was also related to the identity crisis experienced by the Bulgarian society in this decade. Changing the production model was just one aspect of the crisis directly related to the cinema. At a deeper level, the identity crisis caused by the transition was not only a local issue – it was caused by the major social challenges the world was facing due to globalisation. The dissolution of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc in the late 1980s and the subsequent attempts to fully unite Europe were also a part of the global development. Keeping that in mind, it was quite normal that one of the main themes explored by the Bulgarian transition cinema was the matter of identity. At first glance, cinematographers were expected to deal with this issue by turning to the tradition of the Bulgarian non-conformist cinema of the previous period. Furthermore, in the 1990s, most of the actors, who, at the time of communism, opposed to the ideological instructions and tried to achieve authenticity on the big screen, were still alive. These were: Binka Zhelyazkova, Irina Aktasheva, Hristo Piskov, Yanush Vazov, Eduard Zahariev, Lyudmil Kirkov, Rangel Valchanov, Georgi Stoyanov, and Georgi Djulgerov. They were the living heralds of this tradition. Unfortunately, the liquidation of state funding in 1991 brought most of them to creative stupor. After 1991, Binka Zhelyazkova, Irina Aktasheva, Hristo Piskov, Yanush Vazov, Lyudmil Kirkov, and Georgi Stoyanov permanently stopped shooting, even though they worked to the very end of the state-funded film production – Lyudmil Kirkov’s last feature film Petak vecher (Friday Night) was filmed in 1987, Binka Zhelyazkova’s last two documentaries were filmed in 1990. Irina Aktasheva’s final screenwriting attempt was in 1990 and Georgi Stoyanov’s last film Onova neshto (That Thing) was released in 1991. Each of them probably had his or her reasons for a creative collapse and these reasons should be 578 Eduard Zahariev, director (1938–1996) considered both individually and in all their complexity. Still, maybe it wouldn’t be too vulgar to associate the creative silence of these recognized filmmakers with their inability to adapt to the new funding model. The political transition brought quite a few paradoxes of the Bulgarian cinema to light. One of the most striking among these was this withdrawal of work of the most active dissidents of the communist period – their paradoxical dissidence was impossible to develop without the solid sponsorship of the communist system against which their art so fiercely protested. The Social Drama – Redefining the Genre The only director of the older generation who, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, didn’t give up filming moral anxiety cinema in Bulgaria was Eduard Zahariev. His last film, Zakasnyalo palnolunie (Late Full Moon, 1996), redefined the social drama genre in the Bulgarian cinema and was one of the most significant Bulgarian movies of the 1990s. With this film, Zahariev unlocked the second main theme in the transition cinema – the theme of criminalizing everyday life due to the loss of social orientation and moral markers. In the 1970s and 1980s, Zahariev was among the most prominent critics of double social standards. The issue related to the lack of public morality, as a prerequisite for the absence of personal morality, intrigued him throughout his creative 579 path. His films Vilna zona (Villa Zone, 1975) and Elegia (Elegy, 1982) were representative of the Bulgarian moral anxiety cinema. His artistic legacy, the film Zakasnyalo palnolunie (Late Full Moon), which he worked hard to complete before the predicted fatal end of his terminal illness, was constructed in the dramatic satirical style that was typical of the director, with highly distorted proportions of the good and evil ratio. The director, born in Moscow, being the son of Bulgarian political immigrants and a member of the Bulgarian Communist Party, was highly critical of the communist reality, with his criticism always on the left in terms of the imaginary “true” communism. Like many left-wing intellectuals around the world, Zahariev experienced the 1990s social changes as a collapse of his personal social utopia. Perhaps his bitter disappointment with the social processes after the collapse of communism was the reason for the lack of any good guys in Zakasnyalo palnolunie (Late Full Moon). The transition had made an arch rogue even from a seven-year-old child. The story in Zakasnyalo palnolunie (Late Full Moon) unfolds as a narrative about the deepening alienation of the main character, the Old Man (Itzhak Fintzi), from everything and everyone. He lives with his family, but his relationship with his closest circle is built on constantly increasing hatred. Hatred is also the foundation of his contacts with few remaining friends. Hatred is presented as the only stable relationship between the characters. The Old Man’s character strongly resembles Ivan Shiyakov’s character in Elegy. It is no accident that Itzhak Fintzi played both parts in the spin of about fifteen years. In an environment of changes, so many years could easily lead to the degradation of the image of an honest man, who is not able to put up with the hypocrisy in his family. In the 1990s, the elegy of the 80s was replaced by fierce determination. Author and hero made a final check of their moral principles. Their answers were uncompromising, sometimes even pronouncedly sarcastic. With Zakasnyalo palnolunie (Late Full Moon) in the mid-1990s, the lack of ethical coordinates that worried the director in the 1980s became apocalyptical. Evil had become ubiquitous – through the Old Man’s character, the autonomy of the human being was reduced to a helpless insect. Violence was the only effective interaction between the characters in this daily horror story. The film started with a slap and ended with a parricide. And the director seemed to have grown dumb in the process. With no words or means of expression of his own, he finished his film with outright quo580 Itzhak Fintzi (born 1933), actor tations from Battleship Potemkin (1925) and Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky (1937) to unequivocally point out the roots of present-day evil. Using his film, Eduard Zahariev was the only Bulgarian director who opposed to the total destruction during the transition years with the same creative uncompromisingness that he had previously used to reject the hypocrisy of the communist period. Created with Zahariev’s typical moral commitment, that film ushered in a new trend in Bulgarian cinema, which would follow the zigzags of the transition, especially in the first decade of the new century, and which was called chernukha526 (film noir) by Russian colleagues. By definition, the genre is “one of the manifestations of hyperrealism”527 and “depicts the dark aspects of life and existence full of doom and ignorance accompanied by scenes of brutality and violence, as well as depicting such grim, ugly aspects of life and existence.”.528 In one of my previous publications, I called the Bulgarian variations of this style vulgar realism.529 526 Липовецкий, Марк. Растратные стратегии, или Метаморфозы „чернухи“. – Новый Мир, 1999, Nr. 11. http://magazines.russ.ru/novyi_mi/1999/11/lipowez.html [visited on 31.1.2013] 527 Щербина, Юлия. Автобиография реальности. – Сибирские огни, 2011, Nr. 5. http:// www.sibogni.ru/magazines [visited on 30.10.2018]. 528 Ефремова Т. Ф. Новый толково-словообразовательный словарь русского языка. — М.: Дрофа; Русский язык, 2000 https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efremova/266024/%D0%A7%D0 %B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%85%D0%B0 [visited on 30.10.2018]. 529 See Братоева-Даракчиева, Ингеборг. Българско игрално кино от „Калин Орелът“ до „Мисия „Лондон“. Sofia: Art Research Institute, 2013, page 254. 581 Against the Absurdities of the Transition – Absurd Films The real break with the socialist realism aesthetics in the cinema began in the 1990s, with attempts to impose the genre of absurdist drama. In 1991, Georgi Stoyanov’s That thing was released. The strange story of “that thing”, which had mysteriously settled in the house of Philip and Verka, was narrated by the director with his intrinsic ability to bring the hidden absurdities out of the ordinary course of life. Stoyanov, who graduated in 1965 at the Paris Film Academy with the short film Dryamka (Nap) shot in Bulgaria, had problems with the defenders of socialist realism in Sofia. The characters – a group of youngsters, who set off on a brigade (young Ilka Zafirova, Krikor Azaryan, Mikhail Mikhaylov) find themselves in absurd situations in a surreal landscape. They rather play absurdist drama characters than characters of a Bulgarian brigade film. That is why Dryamka (Nap) wasn’t distributed in Bulgaria. In spite of the sanctions, Stoyanov didn’t give up his absurdity experiments, but in his next movies – Sluchayat Penleve (The Penleve Case, 1967), Ptici i hratki (Birds and Greyhounds, 1969), and Panteley (1978) he associated his stylistic preferences with politically correct anti-fascist themes. As a result of this strange union, his film Panteley transformed the values of the Bulgarian historical and revolutionary cinema a whole decade before the permitted freedoms of perestroika. Onova neshto (That thing, 1990) was distinguished by the eccentric style typical of the director but didn’t meet the public expectations in the beginning of the transition and failed to speak to the audience. The second absurdist film of the1990s – Petar Popzlatev’s Something in the Air (Neshto vav vazduha, 1993) – wasn’t successful either. It was the first attempt of our cinema to reconsider communism beyond the aesthetics of socialist realism clichés used opposite in connotation. The film was also the first Bulgarian-French co-production. The fact that both Georgi Stoyanov and Peter Popzlatev had studied cinema in France was no coincidence. They both had the chance to keep up with the important development in European art, incompatible with the socialist realism and unacceptable in the Bulgarian cinema for decades. The absurdist drama genre, whose aesthetics was closely related to the French existentialism, was one of those forbidden things Onova neshto (That Thing). 582 Ivaylo Hristov and Valentin Ganev in Neshto vav vazduha (Something in the Air), 1993, dir. Petar Popzlatev Something in the Air was Popzlatev’s second full-length feature film. His debut, Az, Grafinyata (Me, the Countess, 1989), was perceived by the audience and critics on the eve of political changes as a metaphor of lifeless inadequacy during the years of communism. Unlike this debut, Something in the Air didn’t contain easy communication. The film was directed with an artistically supported ambition to enrich the Bulgarian cinema with some ideas and artistic style less known and unusual to our national cultural tradition. I particularly emphasize the role of directing because Konstantin Pavlov’s script, approved for production by Boyana Studio Art Council before the political changes, was open to various interpretations. The poet Konstantin Pavlov, perhaps the only real dissident in the Bulgarian cinema, recreated the claustrophobic atmosphere of socialist life, the intrusive feeling of something unidentified but sinister, which even took away the air to breath. In the early 1990s, the audience recognized the vague sense of constant observation, the vivid fear of their own shadow, the constant role change to pursue or be pursued between the two anonymous characters in the film. Popzlatev read Pavlov’s script as an absurdist drama and deliberately entrusted one of the leads to Ivaylo Hristov, one of the few Bulgarian actors, who at that time had experience with this genre530. Not long before that 530 Interview with Petar Popzlatev, Sofia, 8.2.2013, private archive. 583 Hristov had played Estragon in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot (1988), directed by Leon Daniel, Teatr na balgarskata armia (Bulgarian Army Theatre). In Something in the Air, however, the French-educated Bulgarian director didn’t strive to reproduce the absurdist model literally but used it to reveal the drama of Bulgarian totalitarian existence. Beckett’s characters existed in a generally meaningless world. That is why the communication between them ultimately ended in total silence. In Neshto vav vazduha (Something in the Air), the cause of the lack of meaning was not existential. It was an easy-to-identify force, yet unknown, which invisibly controlled the characters. The French view of the absurdist puppet characters controlled by invisible external forces was perceived by the Bulgarian director as a metaphor of totalitarian life. Neshto vav vazduha (Something in the Air) started with silence between the two characters. It dominated all the time on the screen – only five of the twenty-four episodes of the movie had a dialogue. The end of the movie was determined in contradiction to the absurdist pattern – the characters started talking after a fierce physical contact. The film ended with a difficult conversation, instead of establishing a final silence. Forced silence was the metaphor of the condition of the post- totalitarian individual at the beginning of the transition. Still, on the screen, the tension that had accumulated over the years finally found a verbal expression – viewers were urged to speak. The last screen role of Katya Paskaleva – The Cashier in Poseteni ot gospod (And the Lord Came Down to See Us), 2001, dir. Petar Popzlatev The constant role change between the two characters to pursue or be pursued, seeing themselves in each other, illustrated Jacques Lacan’s idea of seeing others as a mirror of oneself. Popzlatev invited a psychoanalysis specialist as a consultant in his film to help him construct the mirror images of the two main characters in line with the ideas of the French psychoanalyst. Strong psychoanalytic moments were also present in Krasimir Krumov’s Exitus (1988), Malchanieto (The Silence, 1991), and Zabraneniat plod (The Forbidden Fruit, 1994), and in Ivan Tscherkelov’s Tarkalyashti se kamani (Rolling Stones, 1995) – movies that “can be read as an existential drama of the lost generation”, as a “clearly defined gesture of self-identification and resistance of a whole generation.”531 The rebel of the “angry youngsters” against “fathers’ cinema” opened the Bulgarian cinema for psychoanalytic interpretation. The absurdist attempts on the screen continued but not so successfully with Rangel Valchanov’s Fatalna nezhnost (Fatal Tenderness, 1993). For his part, Andrey Slabakov’s debut in Wagner (1998) was a real achievement. The movie’s genre was defined as an absurd comedy532. Similar to Popzlatev’s Something in the Air, Slabakov’s black-and-white film was not associated with the specific Bulgarian reality or with social criticism in the common sense. It narrated the story of a socialist worker dream come true – a home provided by the State, which, however, turned into a nightmare, an absurd farce. The film was mostly a parody of the clichés of the socialist realism workers’ film and its style resembled Kafka grotesque – seemingly incompatible, yet well-functioning genre keys through which Slabakov commented on the totalitarian existence. His style as a director was more connected to the western cultural tradition than to the national one. In this sense, Wagner, like Something in the Air, was one of the few universally understandable Bulgarian films of the transition years, which are landmarks of a possible new aesthetics, which our cinema has unfortunately not been able to develop to date. After the premiere of Neshto vav vazduha (Something in the Air) in 1993, the Bulgarian cinema seemed to have attempted to actually reconsider the social realism. After the release of Wagner in 1998, it was already possible to speak of a successful attempt to reconsider a new style of totalitarian identity. In the forthcoming years, this innovative trend in Bulgarian cinema would be Петрова, Виолета. Сянката на Лай…, page 162–163. According to the website of the Bulgarian National Film Archive. http://bnf.bg/bg/odeon/ movies/1212/ [visited on 09.02.2013] 531 532 584 585 Emil Christov (b. 1956), cinematographer Ernestina Chinova and Dejan Donkov in Hindemidth (2008), dir. Andrey Slabakov obliterated by the literalism of vulgar realism to be renewed after a whole decade with Hindemidth (2008) – from the second film of Andrei Slabakov’s planned but unfinished trilogy on the absurdities of the Bulgarian life. In 2009, this trend would reach its peak with Javor Gardev’s Dzift (Zift, 2009), the first film noir in our cinema. In Zift, Gardev ironically exploited the clichés of this American genre rather than using them and reconstructed the world of the Bulgarian communism in a surrealist style, arranging them in a common puzzle with social melodrama elements. In Zift, Gardev refracted his point of view through different genre facets to cover different dimensions of the totalitarian past and built his film kaleidoscopically. The spectator was captured in the retrospection of the strange protagonist Moth (Zachary Baharov) in a fantastic journey back to the time of the real socialism. Totalitarian reality was revealed through a fantastic character built on the border between reality, nightmare, and delirium. The surrealistic visual atmosphere of the film was created by the great Bulgarian cinematographer Emil Hristov with all the mastery he was capable of. Striving to achieve, in his own words, the “authentic atmosphere of the ruins of socialism,” the cinematographer built the vision by combining the footage of today’s real Konyovitsa with computer-generated 3D images. 586 The impressive puzzle of different types of images and varied genre techniques, however, didn’t only relate to the interesting criminal story, nor did they limit to the impressive vision, but resulted in meanings at several levels. Zift was both a collage of Hollywood formulas, a brilliant cinematographic-style exercise, a film of strong social criticismbut also a complicated narrative about the existential deception of man. Created in the cinematographic tradition of suspense and brutality set by Hollywood through gangster film and film noir, the film was remarkable mainly for its cruel symbolism. In Zift, Javor Gardev used genre clichés not to please the senses of the spectator but to reveal the tragedy of a man trapped by violence, thus demolishing the thick layers of totalitarianism in the Bulgarian collective consciousness. Zachary Baharov (Moth) and Tanya Ilieva (Ada) in Dzift (Zift, 2008), dir. Javor Gardev 587 The low budget movie (EUR 700,000) was extremely profitable. It set an absolute record for audiences and revenues (over BGN 250,000)533 for the entire decade 1998–2008, won numerous national and international awards, and was nominated for the European Film Academy Award. In addition, however, Zift provoked a fierce debate among the critics. On the one hand, the ones, who formed their mind-sets during the communism didn’t admit the aesthetic values of the film, and on the other hand, the critics of the middle and young generation unconditionally praised it. Without diving further into these critical biases, we can say that Zift is one of the most valuable Bulgarian films from the time of the transition. Its contradictory reception, as well as the reception of all other film experiments that go beyond the realistic tradition of the Bulgarian feature cinema, only show how difficult it was to work in an innovative way in the context of the Bulgarian transition – between the burdensome legacy of the socialist realism and the superficial messages of the global media. I. B. 533 Янакиев, Александър. Случи се! // Кино, бр. 4–5, 2011, с. 52. 588 ARCHITECTURE OF THE TRANSITION Architecture: Alternative Forms, Environments, Trainings It is a known fact that architecture is affected on the one hand by local and regional conditions and on the other – by global and somewhat universal quests and phenomena. At the same time the dividing lines between the local and the global in the communities and buildings in Bulgaria are characteristic of the specific featuresof the place and theepoch, i.e. Bulgaria at the turn of the 20th Century. Locally speaking, one event that had a considerable impact was the change in the political regime which took place in 1989. It affected both the organization of the architectural and building processes (in other words, the forms of training and funding, the architectural studios and team) and the styles and conceptual preferences of authors and users. Thus, as a result of the decentralization processes that took place after 1989, the existing design structures gradually disintegrated and reorganized. The Stateowned construction companies with in-house design departments such as Glavbolgarstroy were privatized. Regional and industrial design budget organizations melt away, and the largest of them, Glavproekt (responsible for multiple key project designs that dominated the preceding decades), was finally sold off in 2003. Many private design bureaus, studios and building companies sprung up from the ashes. Yet, despite certain large-scale projects and some acclaimed and successful implementations, the overwhelming majority of those did not make it through the Transition. The overall structure of the market for architectural products changed. In the 90s state-owned and public entities as commissioners of architectural design jobs were almost non-existent. New construction 589 boiled down to mostly chaotic (private) initiatives competing with one another in terms of appearance, quality, and return on investments. As a result, although certain projects (or complexes) were constructed to a high standard of quality, they were mostly plagued by lack of harmony with their respective environments and almost non-existent interconnectivity and infrastructural support. In the maelstrom of the tumultuous economic, political, and social changes that ensued, adapting the legislation and updating training, although badly needed, took a while to materialize. Until the end of the 20th Century the University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy remained the only university in Bulgaria fully accredited to train Architecture majors (the Chernorizets Hrabar Free Varna University was accredited in 2002, the Department of Architecture of the Lyuben Karavelov University of Structural Engineering and Architecture of Sofia was inaugurated in 2006, and the Master’s Program in Architecture of the New Bulgarian University was certified in 2009). Although enrolment increased several fold, the curriculum was updated very slowly. As time went by, designers became involved with additional and alternative tasks and started to participate in many constructionrelated processes sometimes taking on managerial and oversight functions. Albeit extremely rarely, there were architects who graduated abroad even during the communist regime. During the Transition, studying architecture abroad became much easier from both administrative and financial standpoint allowing new internationally schooled talent to join the ranks. With the start of the Third Millennium saw new and invigorated efforts to create a new, more contemporary legal framework looking for synchronicity with European norms and concepts for future development. The impact of certain global cultural and architectural practices is also evident in the development of architecture in Bulgaria. We will take a look at two of them here: • The arrival of digital media; • New participants and components in the industry. Digital Media and Popular Culture in Architecture Over the past 20 years we have witnessed huge changes in design and construction practices. Originally met with mixed feelings, CAD tools took the industry by storm because they brought simplified and facilitated drafting and visualization processes as well as the long-awaited possibility for secure network communication and served as the foundation of some ground-breaking factors in design changing, to a degree, the very character and structure of the creating and shaping process. “The new generation of designers leans much more heavily on technology”, “People do not deny the need of graphics but they remove the accent from the analogue drawing as an indispensable component accepting CAD-drawn versions as an equal substitute.” Brown writes534. Digital media, known today as CAD (computer-assisted design) and BIM (building information modelling) form a considerable part of the foundation of modern architectural design. In Bulgaria their development follows a logic of their yet it is still in line with global industry trends and follows their rhythm without falling behind. Academic education in Bulgaria was also impacted heavily by the evolution of CAD and BIM tools adopting as its own the best of the current practices and knowledge. Bulgarian universities were supported directly by software developers to allow students and faculty staff to use free training versions of CAD software products by simply entering their administrative student number and a university e-mail address or similar data for the professors. Although individual architecture-related subject are taught at various different schools, historically, the University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy was the place where the training and proliferation of architectural CAD and BIM tools in Bulgaria began. As early as 1990 the university taught a course entitled ASAP (a Bulgarian acronym for Automated Methods for Architectural Design) and offered third-year students courses in 2D CAD design. In the 1993–1994 academic year the University launched its Computer Science in Architecture course. The Computer Science course was separated into two modules. The first module was 534 Brown, Polly. 2009. CAD: Do computers aid the design process after all? Intersect, 2 (1), 52–66 p. 56. 590 591 part of the 3rd year curriculum and the second, which included 3D CAD modelling, was taught in the fourth year. During that same period the University introduced a course entitled New Developments in Computer Technology. It was offered to 5th year students and was focused on the 3DS Studio software. In addition to being taught at the university level, CAD and BIM made their way in the industry through the work of practicing designers and authors. The great dynamics of computer-assisted design created a demand for courses and self-teaching solutions. In the real world an answern to the need for constant learning of new graphical techniques could be to leave complex visualizations and having to execute full sets of drawings to external contractors. However, more often than not the assignment of these duties created controversies in terms of how the rights and responsibilities with respect of the design, the customer and the public view of the sites would be distributed. Furthermore, many public tenders, state authorities, and investors require potential designers to have CAD and BIM design certifications as a guarantee for high quality, rate of return, and fast work completion. Despite all of this, the emergence of visualization as a profession with all of the opportunities it offers in terms of enhancing the end product is now a fact. At the same time we are seeing new hybrid (digital) forms of education and a commentary of architecture and architectural graphics. In this context, the efforts toward protecting the authors such as creating levels of access to professional information online are only logical. Apart from the consequences of the remediation of architectural data to digital media, it has become painfully clear that the virtual world is now integrated into our lives, both in terms of our day-to-day habits at home and in terms of our long-term professional behavior. Virtual worlds are saturated with visual data which allows us to experience and discover different architectural sites (implementations and even projects) from a distance. Often their authors use different artistic reflections such as virtual replication with building upgrades or unexpected juxtapositions. On the web, realistic replicable pictures and video (including animated) representations of architectural sites increase their power of recognition and by augmenting the perception of the designer’s ideas serve as a primary graphical dictionary in a database of references and quotations. We 592 are also witnessing an ever spreading integration of specific architectural concepts in environments modelled for cinema, television, and even game offerings. Thus architecture and its products are being promoted on an ever growing number of levels to the point that they are now serving as the basis of “urban myths” and are exerting a strong impact on consumer tastes and preferences. Games, movies, and pictures have proven capable of forming visual archetypes of the architectural environments such as “home”, “office”, “store”, “food” or “city”, “country” etc. which are foreign to the region. All of this is indicative of a two-way connection between virtual environments and reality. On one level there is the creation of an environment which follows the author’s vision of a typical building or a settlement but on a second level, in reality, this architectural image has been accepted by the audience as indicative of the society depicted or life case and its materialization is demanded by the users. The next step in technological development is the so called augmented (upgraded) reality, a term that is becoming quite popular in the 21st Century. New Architectural Practices at the Turn of the 20th Century Despite its chaotic nature and the unpredictable highs and lows along its way, the development of the architectural environment in Bulgaria’s cities at the end of the 20th Century has been vigorous and far-reaching. We are all familiar with the break-neck (over) development of resorts, the (over)concentration of the residential and industrial districts of the country’s largest urban centers, and the emergence of new functional typologies, and the invasion of modern materials and construction technologies. Unfortunately, we have also witnessed examples of blatant destruction of architectural heritage sites from earlier periods and the authenticity deficit in certain purportedly conserved sites and complexes of major importance. What is worse, only an insignificant part of the architectural environment was destroyed for political reasons such as the belated destruction by explosives of the Mausoleum in 1999. Most of the (self-)38. Bulgarian 20th Century... 593 A picture of the gradual (self)destruction of the 1300 Years of Bulgaria monument in NDK Park designed by Valentin Starchev in 1981. dilapidation of heritage sites is the result of economic interests or unclear ownership. The urbanization of Bulgaria’s Black Sea Coast continued throughout the Transition. One of the changes that affected the character of the resorts was the disappearance of the “a loosetextured scale of building silhouettes” of the 70s. The sense of openness and space is gone and the individual contact with nature is almost non-existent. The quantity of visitors inside the complex is unbalanced. “Conflicts with the environment are an extremely serious problem plaguing the development of Bulgaria’s seaside and mountain resorts”, Kovachev535 writes. “It is not a matter of just building the buildings and facilities necessary to support the various recreational and tourist needs, one needs to consider the landscape’s ability to absorb those buildings and facilities but unfortunately this is often overwhelmed beyond what would be acceptable by the great number of tourists…” At the same time, the concentration of buildings changes the spatial characteristics of resort complexes. Post-war culture and the spirit of socialist collectivism called for the shared use of many spaces like 535 bathrooms, stadiums, open-air theaters, stands, beaches, gardens and squares and promoted their se for organized group interactions. Passing The gradual (self) destruction of “through these locations required open or closed galleries, roads and connections. The turn of the 20th Century brought about a considerably stronger desire for compartmentalization and clearer demarcation of borders (through barriers and fences) between the individual properties. The complex designs of common gangways, staircases, and lobbies were simplified or done away with. The focus shifted towards the individual and somewhat exclusive forms of recreation and tourism and the complexlike structure of resort communities became more pronouncedly cellular. Regardless, the sprawling saturation and condensation of Bulgaria’s Black Sea resorts is not surprising. On the one hand, it is the result of strained communication and poor organization of the resource flow (food, power, water, etc.) inside the complexes (once they were no longer managed centrally). On the other, it comes in the footsteps of growing demands and the search of new types of services: sufficient number of shopping malls/ streets, flexible multi-purpose spaces for conferences and sporting events, House with the Strawberries”, home to Dimitar Ivanov, built in the late 20s, designed by Architect Georgy Kunev. The building was used in the filming of the motion picture The Devil’s Tail. Атанас Ковачев. Градоустройство, ч. 1, Pensoft Publishers, София, Москва, 2003, с. 291. 594 595 adaptable areas for entertaining children and tourists, and additional attractions. Modern reality is such that space and the immediate contact with nature often takes a back seat to things like full air conditioning; household amenities and gadgets; high sustainability and sharp design; placing an emphasis on artistic development in architecture as a lifestyle concept; and so on. In fact, these are the features that modern tour operators highlight in their current hotel offerings on the Internet. The condensation of urban environment is evident in almost all major resort communities and resort complexes in Bulgaria. As it turns out, the influx of new materials shapes the nature of the architectural environment in no smaller degree than the emergence of new quarters, buildings and reconstructions. Unlike public buildings from the late Socialist Era which were dominated by materials such as concrete, limestone, and aluminum, the buildings of the Transition are marked by the large-scale use of metal and composite panel systems, large suspended glass facades and new natural or engineered stone cladding tiles. At the same time the hotel complexes and the residential buildings from the end of 20th century are marked by a random mix of styles, decorative and structural elements, colors and finishes. The soleproprietor Illustration of the overdevelopment of Sunny Beach in the early 21st Century – the original spatial plan of the holiday community has been superimposed over present-day satellite image (Google Map). 596 Sofia South, A Vew From Above: New Buildings and Reconstructions private investors and the architects released from the grip of the centralized framework, seemingly intoxicated by the new opportunities, turned certain urban areas into their own experimentation labs during the first several years of the transition. Although well received by the contemporary architectural community and the users, many of the creations of those years can now be described as failures (in Sofia this applies to certain parts of Lozenets and Belite Brezi residential districts, but there are examples such as these in every major city in the country). These are mostly overdeveloped lots with unclear ownership of the common areas, incomplete and unsophisticated solutions in terms of the silhouette, structure, or material choices. At the same time, sites in industrial and residential areas are left without essential support. However, it was the last decade of the 20th century that laid the foundations of the contemporary architectural and construction culture. Despite some controversial results, this was the experience from which the subsequent development of Bulgaria’s architecture sprung from. The 90s was when some of the most recognizable projects were conceived and 597 started including the first loop of the subway system (1998–2000) as well as the first elements of what would later become known as the Business Park in Sofia’s Mladost District, among others. A chaotic co-existence of natural forms, architectural periods and a plethora of different structures and materials continues to shape urban areas in Bulgaria to this day. If built to a high standard of quality, adequately maintained, and supported by sufficient infrastructure, this eclectic combination has the potential of becoming a trademark of sorts for the region and the country. S. T. A combination of materias: the stone cladding of the Telephone Palace building (1936–1947), the aluminum window frames of the Ministry of Transport Building (1967), glass and stone forming the facade of Grand Hotel Sofia (2004) An Image from Blagoevgrad, 2017 598 599 BIBLIOGRAPHY Beyer, Elke, Anke Hagemann. Sun, See, Sand… and Architecture. How Bulgaria’s Black Sea coast was turned into a turist product. В: Beyer, Elke, Anke Hagemann and Michael Zinganel, Ed. Seaside Architecture and Urbanism in Bulgaria and Croatia. Berlin, jovis Verlag GmbH, 2013. Brown, Polly. 2009. CAD: Do computers aid the design process after all? Intersect, 2 (1). Churchill, Winston. The Sinews of Peace (Iron Curtain Speech). Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, March 5, 1946. < https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/ speeches/1946-1963-elder-statesman/the-sinews-of-peace/> Davcheva, M., Tasheva, S, The Brand: Sunny Beach and Albena, Bulgaria. Central Asian Journal of Art Studies, 3, 3, T.K. Zhurgenov Kazakh National Academy of Arts, 2016, с. 94–104 Delmard, Alaricus. Cinematograph Theatres in Sofia. The Cinema News and Property Gazette, 06.06.1912. Duby, Georges; Perrot, Michelle. Histoire des femmes en Occident, Vol. V, Plon, 2002. Frith, Simon. Music for Pleasure. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988, Genova, Irina. Expressionism in Bulgaria: Critical Reflections in Art Magazines and the Graphic Arts. In: The Routledge Companion to Expressionism in a Transnational Context. Edited by Isabel Wünsche. Routledge, 2018, pp. 465–484. Genova, Irina. Modern art in Bulgaria: first histories and present narratives beyond the paradigm of modernity. Sofia. New Bulgarian University Press. 2013. Genova, Irina. Expressionism in Bulgaria: Critical Reflections in Art Magazines and the Graphic Arts. In: The Routledge Companion to Expressionism in a Transnational Context. Edited by Isabel Wünsche. Routledge, 2018. Golomstock, Igor. Totalitarian Art. Harper Collins Publishers LTD, 1990 [Голомшток, Игорь. Тоталитарное искусство. Москва, 1994] Grossberg, Lowrence. Is Anybody Listening? Does Anybody Care? On the State of Rock. – In: Youth Music and Youth Culture (eds. A. Ross and T. Rose). London: Routledge, 1994. Groys, Boris, Stalin oeuvre d’art totale. Jacqueline Chambon, 1990. History of Literary Cultures of East Central Europe. Cultural Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries, 1– 4, (eds.) John Neubauer, Marcel CornisPope, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004–2013 https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Почетно_звание_„Народен“ https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Kenna, Carol. Mural: Europe, after c. 1930. In: The Dictionary of Art Grove. Oxford University Press, 1996, vol. 22. La querelle du réalisme. Présentation de Serge Fouchereau. Éditions Cercle d’Art, Paris, 1987. Lehmann, Hans-Thies. Postdramatic Theatre. London and New York: Routledge. 2006. Levy, Claire. Swinging in Balkan Mode. – In: Jazz Worlds/World Jazz (eds. Philip Bohlman, Goffredo Plastino). Chicago-London. The University of Chicago Press, 2016. Levy, Claire. Non-Western Music in Postmodern Condition: A Perspective from Bulgaria. – In: Modernism and Central and East-European Art and Culture. Osaka University Press, 2007. 600 601 Levy, Claire. Who is the Other in the Balkans? Local Ethnic Music as a Different Source of Identities in Bulgaria. – In: Music, Space and Place: Popular Music and Cultural Identity (eds. Andy Bennett, Stan Hawkins, Sheila Whiteley). Ashgate: 2004. Levy, Claire. Rap in Bulgaria: Between Fashion and Reality. – In: Global Noise: Rap and Hip Hop Outside the USA (ed. Tony Mitchell). Wesleyan University Press, 2001. Levy, Claire. The Influence of British Rock in Bulgaria. – Popular Music (Cambridge University Press), 1992, 11/2. Lyotard, Jean, F., The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Bennington, Geoff & Massumi, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. Middleton, Richard. Musical Belongings. – In: Western Music and Its Others: Difference, Representation, and Appropriation in Music (eds. Georgina Born and David Hesmondhalgh), University of California Press, 2000. Negus, Keith. Popular Music in Theory: An Introduction. Hanover and London: Wesleyan University Press, 1996, 139. N-форми. Реконструкции и интерпретации. Каталог. Сорос центъра за изкуство. – София, 1994. Стефанов, Свилен. Авангард и норма. – София: Агата-А, 2003, с. 35–66. Orwell, George. You and the Atomic Bomb“, Tribune, 19 October, 1945.http://orwell. ru/library/articles/ABomb/english/e_abomb. ProArt / АртПро. / Състав. Мария Василева и Димитър Камбуров. – София: Алтера, 2007. Protich, Andrey. Fine Art in Bulgaria. Balkan States Exhibition, London. Supplement to “Bulgaria of Today“. 1907. <https://archive.org/details/ FineArtInBulgariaBalkanStatesEx hibitionAtEarlsCourt 1907>. Raycheva, Regina. Archetypes in Furniture History, Lap Lambert Academic Publishing, 2018. Rethinking Histories of Arts in the 20th Century. Sofia: Institute of Art Studies – BAS, 2015. Sirak Skitnik. Bulgarian Art Today. The Studio, London – New York, 1938, vol. 115, № 540, March, 115–139. Slobin, Mark. Subcultural Sounds: Micromusics of the West. Hanover: Wesleayn University Press, 1993. Spassova-Dikova, Joanna, Inna Peleva. Figuring the Motherland and Staging the Party Father in Bulgarian Literature. History of Literary Cultures of East Central Europe. Cultural Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries, 4, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2010. Spassova-Dikova, Joanna. From chitalista to National Theater in Bulgaria. History of Literary Cultures of East Central Europe. Cultural Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries, 3, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007. Spassova-Dikova, Joanna. Institutionalization and Innovation in the Bulgarian Theater. History of Literary Cultures of East Central Europe. Cultural Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries, 3, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007. Spassova-Dikova, Joanna. Socialist Mandatory Models vs. Stylistic Eclectics on the Bulgarian Stage. History of Literary Cultures of East Central Europe. Cultural Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries, 3, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007. Spassova-Dikova, Joanna. The Concept of Cross-points in the Contemporary Arts Histories Research. Rethinking Histories of Arts in the 20th Century, Sofia: Institute of Art Studies – BAS, 2015. Statelova, Rosemary. The Seven Sins of Chalga. Toward an Anthropolgy of Ethnopop Music. Sofia: Prosveta, 2005. Tasheva, S. Problems of Contemporary Architectural Graphics. International Handbook of Semiotics, Springer, 2015. Tasheva, S. The quest for national art and style in Bulgarian architecture during the 20th century. Rethinking Histories of Arts in the 20th Century, ИИИзк, БАН, 2015. Tasheva, S. Types of sets of architectural graphics and texts in Bulgarian public space – XX century. Proceedings of the world congress of the IASS/AIS, IASS Publications & NBU Publishing House, 2016, ISSN:2414-6862, online: http://www.iass-ais.org/proceedings2014/view_lesson.php?id=175 Tasheva, S. Le Corbusier and Post-war Architectural Graphics in Bulgaria. French Artistic Culture and Central-East European Modern Art, Institute of Art History, 2017, pp.290–300 Todorova, Maria. Imagining the Balkans. Oxford UP, 1997. Underwood, Paul, New York Times, March 11, 1962, Section Resorts And Travel, Page XX22, Column. Wicke, Peter. The Times They are-a-Changing: Rock Music and Political Change in East Germany. – In: Rockin the Boat: Mass Music and Mass Movements (ed. R. Garofalo). Boston: South End Press, 1992. Абросимов, Павел. Състояние и задачи на съветската архитектура. // Архитектура, 1956, бр. 1. Аврамов, Димитър. Диалог между две изкуства. – София: Български художник, 1993. Аврамов, Димитър. Летопис на едно драматично десетилетие. Българското изкуство между 1955–1965 г. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1994. Аврамов, Димитър. Майсторът и неговото време. – София: Български художник, 1989. АЕЦ Козлодуй ЕАД, Начало >> За централата >> История, 2008 <http://www. kznpp.org/index.php?lang=bg&p=about_aec&p1=company_history> Албум с фотографии на български индустриални предприятия от периода 1887– 1912 г., подарен от Съюза на българските индустриалци на цар Фердинанд І по случай 25-годишнината от възшествието му на българския престол. [1912 г.]. Фонд. 3К, опис 7, архивна единица 511, лист 101. <http://www.archives.government.bg/553-> Уникални и особено ценни документи. Ангелов, Ангел. Спасов, Иван. 60 стъпки по пътя към Храма. – София: Хермес, 1994. Ангелов, Ангел, Генова, Ирина. Разказвайки образа – София: Фондация Сфарагида, 2003. Ангелов, Ангел, Генова, Ирина. Следистории на изкуството – София: Фондация Сфарагида, 2001. Ангелов, Ангел. Конкретни утопии. Проектите на Кристо. Литература. – София: Отворено общество, 1997. Ангелов, Ангел В. Историчност на визуалния образ. – София: Алтера, 2009. Ангелов, Валентин. Авангардното изкуство на Запад днес. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1973. Ангелов, Валентин. Изкуството и околната среда. Проблеми на съвременния синтез на изобразителните изкуства с архитектурата в България. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1976. Ангелов, Валентин. Конструктивизмът в изобразителното изкуство и архитектурата. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 1972. Ангелов, Валентин. Монументално изкуство – социалистическа култура. – София: Партиздат, 1974. Ангелов, Валентин. Пластические искусства и живая среда. – София: Болгарская академия наук, 1988. Ангелов, Валентин. Съвременна западна архитектура: Естетика и практика. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1968. Ангелов, Валентин и др. Съвременни декоративно-приложни изкуства в България. / Други авт.: Виолета Янева, Саша Лозанова – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 1989. 602 603 Андерсън, Бенедикт. Въобразените общности. – София: Критика и хуманизъм, 1998. Андрейчин, Иван. Книга за театъра. – София, 1910. Апотеоз на българския театър. Юбилеен сборник. – София, 1929. Аркин, Давид. Борба за стил в архитектурата. // Съветската архитектура. – София: Академично издателство „ Проф. Марин Дринов“. Архив на САБ: Доклад за резултатите от експресно емпирично социологическо изследване „Кризата в театъра и перспективите пред Съюза на артистите в България“, 03. 1990. Архив. Музей на Народния театър, инв. № 752, п. 31, 32, 33. Атанасова, Цветанка. Кръгът „Мисъл“. – София: Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 1991. Атанасова, Цветанка. Българският модернизъм. – София: Рива, 2017. Бадев, Йордан. Милост към народната песен. Настрана от модерноманията. // Зора, XXIV, № 7166, 21 май 1943 г. Баева, Искра. Българският социализъм след Втората световна война като изследователски проблем. // Изследвания по история на социализма в България 1944–1989. – София: Център за исторически и политологически изследвания, 2010. Байчинска, Светлана. От Многострадална Геновева до Хамлет. – София: Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 1997. Байчинска, Светлана. Някога и недотам отдавна. Сборник театрално-критически текстове, София: 5 звезди, 2006. Бакърджиев, Георги. Впечатления от изкуството на гоблена в Полша. // Изкуство, 1967, № 6, с. 48–49. Балабанов, Александър. За българските филми. // Мир, 10.10.1935, с. 1. Балабанов, Александър. Художествен театър или „Вишнева градина“. // Зора, № 346, 2 ян. 1920. Балабанов, Александър. Студии, статии, рецензии, спомени. Т. І. – София: Български писател, 1973. Балабанов, Александър. Студии, статии, рецензии, спомени. Т. ІІ. – София: Български писател, 1978. Балабанов, Александър. Симеон Радев в спомените на съвременниците си. – София: Български писател, 1986. Балабанов, Никола. Театър и драма. – София, 1933. Балабанов, Никола. Дружеството на жените художнички. // Завети, № 4–5, 1935. Балабанов, Никола. Културни и филантропични институти и културни прояви след измененията на закона за народното просвещение от 1924 г. София, 1925. Балът на изкуствата и печата. Успехът му. // Демократически сговор, № 130, 10 март 1924. Баларева, Агапия. Българското хорово акапелно творчество. София: Наука и изкуство, 1968. Баларева, Агапия (съст.). Българските музикални дейци и проблемът за националния музикален стил. София: Изд. на БАН, 1968. Баларева, Агапия. Кантатно-ораториалният жанр в българската музика. София: Изд. на БАН, 1979. Белковски, Станчо. Архитектурна дейност 1922–1942: Жилища, общ. сгради, селища. – София, Хр. Г. Данов, 1943. Белковски, Станчо. Студентски дом. // Студентска борба, № 9, 01 март 1930. Бениеш, Моис. Мисли през антракта. – София: Български писател, 1966. Берсенев, Антон П. Българското творчество и западният модернизъм. // Музикален преглед, V, № 10–11, 5 септ. 1928 г. БНФ, ф. „Българско дело“. Бикс, Розалия и Анелия Янева, Румяна Каракостова, Миглена Ценова. Български музикален театър. Опера, балет, оперета, мюзикъл. Репертоар. 1890–1997. София: АИ Проф. Марин Дринов, 1999/2000. Бикс, Розалия и Анелия Янева, Румяна Каракостова, Миглена Ценова. Български музикален театър 1890 – 2001. Опера, балет, оперета, мюзикъл. Театри, трупи, постановки. Соифия: АИ Проф. Марин Дринов, 2005. Бикс, Розалия и Анелия Янева, Румяна Каракостова, Миглена Ценова. Български музикален театър. Опера, балет, оперета, мюзикъл. Постановчици. Диригенти. Режисьори. Хореографи. Сценографи. Хормайстори. 1890–2005. София: Институт за изкуствознание – БАН, 2008. Бикс, Розалия и Анелия Янева, Румяна Каракостова, Миглена Ценова, Емилия Жунич. Български музикален театър. Опера, балет, оперета, мюзикъл. 1890–2010. Рецензии, отзиви, коментари, IV. София: Гея-Либрис & Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, 2015. Бобев, Боби. Записки по история на България, 1878–1944. – София: Булвест 2000, 1992. Богданов, Иван. Енциклопедичен речник на литературните термини. – София, 1993. Божикова, Милена. Васил Казанджиев. София: БАН, 1999. Божикова, Милена. Музикалният ХХ век като „късен стил”. София: Институт за изкуствознание – БАН, 2009. Божинов, Александър. Тържествено чествуване на кубистичния и дадаистичен футуризъм в Народния театър. // Свободна реч, № 1721, 1929. Божков, Атанас. Българска революционна графика. – София: Български художник, 1958. Божков, Атанас. Българската художествена академия. – София: Български художник, 1962. Божков, Атанас. Изобразително изкуство: видове и жанрове. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1963. Бояджиев, Атанас. Пловдивският драматичен театър в периода между двете световни империалистически войни 1919/39 година. // Сто сезона. – Пловдив: Хр. Г. Данов, 1981. Бояджиев, Константин. Историцизъм и модерност. – В: София 120 г. столица. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. М. Дринов“. Бояджиев, Лъчезар. Неоекспресионизмът като реакция срещу една дискредитирана утопия. // Кръгозор, № 2, 1984. Братоева-Даракчиева, Ингеборг. Българско игрално кино от „Калин Орелът“ до „Мисия „Лондон“. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата, 2013. Брошура „25 години сатиричен театър“. – София: Държавен сатиричен театър, 1982, с. 4. Бурин, Иван. Не даваме Яна на турска вяра. // Литературен фронт, № 6, 7 февр. 1963. Българската критика за Гео Милев. – София: Български писател, 1971. Българските музикални дейци и проблемът за националния музикален стил. / Състав. А. Баларева. – София: Институт за музика – БАН, 1968. Българско и модерно. Към изучаването на новата българска литература. / Състав. Елка Димитрова – София: Издателски център „Боян Пенев“, 2014. Българско и модерно – 2. Експериментални прочити. / Състав. Елка Димитрова – София: Издателски център „Боян Пенев“, 2015. Български поетически авангард. Антология. / Състав. Михаил Неделчев, Елка Трайкова, Мариета Гиргинова. – София: Издателски център „Боян Пенев“, 2018. Български театър. Документални материали. Том ІІ. Свитък първи. 1900–1907. / Състав., научна ред. и бел.: Светлана Байчинска – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2008. 604 605 Български театър. Документални материали. Т. ІІ. Свитък втори. 1907–1917. / Състав., научна ред. и бел.: Светлана Байчинска – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2012. Вазов, Александър. Спомени. Архив на Българска национална филмотека. Вандов, Никола и Мария Вандова. Международен фестивал Друмеви театрални празници „Нова българска драма“. Летопис май 1966 – април 2016. Сдружение „Нова българска драма“ – Шумен и ОНГЪЛ – Варна, 2016. Вандов, Никола и Щилияна Василева. Драматичен театър „Стефан Киров“ – Сливен. Летопис 1918–2018. – София: Валентин Траянов, 2018. Вандов, Никола и др. Народен театър „Иван Вазов”. Летопис януари 1904 – юли 2004. /Други авт.: Антония Каракостова, Иван Гърчев, Снежана Гълъбова и Асен Константинов – София: Валентин Траянов, 2004. Вандов, Никола, Виолета Дечева. Режисьорите на 90-те. – София: Валентин Траянов и Фондация „Пространство Култура“, 2003. Вандов, Никола и др. 60 години столичен куклен театър 1946–2006. / Други авт.: Веселина Гюлева, Кремена Димитрова. – София: Валентин Траянов, 2006. Вандов, Никола и др. 65 години Столичен куклен театър. 1946–2011./ Други авт.: Иван Райков, Албена Халачева и Кирякос Аргиропулос – София: Столичен куклен театър, 2011. Вандов, Никола и др. 70 години Столичен куклен театър. 1946–2016. / Други авт.: Иван Райков, Кирякос Аргиропулос и Марина Кунгелова. – София: Столичен куклен театър, 2016. Вандов, Никола и др. 70 години Държавен куклен театър – Пловдив. Летопис 1947–2016. / Други авт.: Катерина Георгиева и Гергана Стаматова. – Пловдив: Държавен куклен театър – Пловдив, 2017. Вандов, Никола. Театър 199 „Валентин Стойчев“. Летопис (юни 1965 – май 2015). – София: Издание на Театър 199 „Валентин Стойчев“, 2015. Вандова, Мария и Никола Вандов. Театрална работилница „Сфумато“. 1989– 2009. – София: Театрална работилница „Сфумато“, 2009. Вандова, Мария, Никола Вандов. Младежки театър „Николай Бинев“. Летопис януари 1945 – декември 2014. – София: Валентин Траянов, 2015. Васев, Василен. Светлик на Дунава. Русенският театър 1878–1922. – София: Ango boy, 2001. Василев, Владимир. Въпроси около Народния театър. – Студии, статии, полемики. – София: Български писател, 1992. Василев, Владимир. Между сектанство и демагогия. // Златорог, № 2–3, 1923. Василев, Владимир. Студии, статии, полемики. – София: Български писател, 1992. Василев, Добрин. Опит за история на българския театър. – Варна: Графиза, 1942. Василева, Мария. Изкуство за промяна. – София: Софийска градска художествена галерия, 2015. Величков, Константин. Мотиви по законопроекта за откриване на Държавното рисувално училище в София. // Изкуство, № 2–3. Венкова, Стефка. Музиката на Католическата църква от източен обред в България. София: Изд. Католическа апостолическа екзархия, 2010. Венкова, Стефка. Апостол Николаев-Струмски: живот, вдъхновен от музиката. София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, 2016. Витанова, Лиляна, Генчо Гайтанджиев. Музикалното образование в българското училище. София: Наука и изкуство, 1975. Владков, Любомир. Театрална Варна. Варна: Славена, 1996. Влаева, Иванка. Творческите избори на Любомир Денев и импровизацията. София: Изд. Мелани, 2007. Владова, Елена, Благословия на куклите, Съюз на артистите в България, 1997. Власаков, Стоян. // Слово, 07.05.1936, бр. 4152, с. 1. Врачански драматичен театър. Съст. Ив. Райкин – София: Наука и изкуство, 1988. Выписка из протокола № 218 заседания Секретариата ЦК КПСС от 14 января, 1986. <https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/rus/text_files/Perestroika/1986.01.14.pdf> Выписка из протокола № 218 заседания Секретариата ЦК КПСС от 14 января, 1986. <https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/rus/text_files/Perestroika/1986.01.14.pdf> Вълчинова-Чендова, Елисавета. Градската традиционна инструментална практика и оркестровата култура в България. София: РИК Пони, 2000. Вълчинова-Чендова, Елисавета. Енциклопедия български композитори. Т. 1–2. София: Изд. СБК, 2003. Вълчинова-Чендова, Елисавета. Новата българска музика през последните десетилетия: модели и интерпретации. София: Институт за изкуствознание – БАН, 2004. Вълчинова-Чендова, Елисавета и Албена Найденова. Светът на моята музика. Композиторът Владимир Панчев. София: Изд. Марс 09, 2008. Гадамер, Ханс-Георг. История и херменевтика. – София: Гал-Ико, 1994. Гадев, Апостол. Из възстановителната дейност на „ДИПОЗЕ“. // Списание на БИАД, № 3–4, 1930. Гадев, Апостол. Откриването на дружествения дом. // Списание на БИАД, № 3–5, 1930. Гайтанджиев, Генчо. Популярната музика – про? контра? – София: Народна просвета, 1990. Гайтанджиев, Генчо. Масовото музикално възпитание: традиции, идеи, проблеми. София: Народна просвета, 1980. Гайтанджиев, Генчо. Александър Кръстев. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1962. Ганев, Георги. Новият черноморски летовищен комплекс „Балкантурист“ в местността „Златни пясъци“ край град Сталин. // Архитектура, № 4, 1956. Ганчев, Христо и др. България – 1900: Европейски влияния в българското градоустройство, архитектура, паркове и градини 1878–1918. / Други авт.: Григор Дойчинов, Иванка Стоянова, Тодор Кръстев. – София: Арх & Арт, Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2002. Гендов, Васил. Трънливият път на българския филм. – София: Фабер, Българска национална филмотека, 2016. Гендова, Жана. Това, което се премълчава в историята на българския филм. – София: Фабер, Българска национална филмотека, 2016. Генова, Ирина, Татяна Димитрова. Изкуството в България през 1920-те години. Модернизъм и национална идея. – София: Институт по изкуствознание, 2002. Генова, Ирина. Tempus fugit / Времето лети: За съвременното изкуство и визуалния образ / Tempus fugit / Time Flies: On Comtemprary Art and the Visual Image. – София: Алтера, 2007. Генова, Ирина. Историзиране на модерното изкуство в България през първата половина на ХХ век. Възможности за разкази отвъд модерността. – София: Нов български университет, 2011. Генова, Ирина. Модернизми и модерност. (Не)Възможност за историзиране. – София: Ида, 2004. Гео Милев. Нови изследвания и материали. – София: Български писател,1989. Георгиев, Йордан. Без маски. Интервюта. – Пловдив: Жанет 45, 2014. Георгиев, Йордан. Младите театрали говорят в „Без маски“. – Пловдив: Жанет 45, 2016. Георгиев, Никола. Препрочитайки „Диви разкази“. // Литературен фронт, № 24, 19 юни 1973. 606 607 Георгиев, Никола. Сто и двадесет литературни години. – София: Век 22, 1992. Георгиев, Никола. Името на розата и на тютюна. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов”,1992. Георгиев, Никола. Анализ на лирическата творба. – София: Просвета, 1986. Георгиев, Панчо. Любомир Пипков. Спомен. // Посмъртен лист. – София, 1941. Георгиева, Милена. Наздраве, Маестро! Бохемските часове на Иван Пенков. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата, 2013. Гергицов, Крум. Летопис на Драматичен театър „Сава Огнянов“ – Русе (септември 1907 – юни 2014). Издателска и рекламна къща „Парнас“, Русе, 2014. Големинов, Марин. За българския художествено-музикален стил. // А.С.О., I, бр. 6, 20.11.1935. Горбачов, Михаил. Доклад Генерального секретаря ЦК КПСС М.С.Горбачева „О созыве очередного XXVII съезда КПСС и задачах, связанных с его подготовкой и проведением“. // Правда, 24 април 1985, № 114. < http://historyru.com/docs/rulers/ gor- bachev/gorbachev-doc-3.html#/overview> Гочев, Гочо. Българският театър и системата на Станиславски. // Театър, 1953, кн. 8–9, с. 5–39. Гочев, Гочо. Българският театър и системата на Станиславски. Театър, 1953, кн. 8–9, с. 5–39. Гочев, Гочо. Сцена и живот. Избрани произведения. – София: Български писател, 1983. Гочев, Гочо. Сценични силуети. Литературнокритически очерци. – София: Български писател, 1989. Гражданската поезия – голямото наше завоевание. // Литературен фронт, № 43, 23 окт. 1975. Градска художествена галерия – Пловдив. Каталог – живопис. / Състав.: Красимир Линков, Владимир Харбалиев, Светла Москова, Галина Лардева – Пловдив: Летера, 2002. Грозев, Александър. Киното в България. Ч. І (1897–1956). – София: Фабер, 2011. Грозев, Александър. Началото. Из историята на българското кино 1895–1956. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. М. Дринов“, 1985. Гройс, Любен. Стихове, които ще се помнят. // Литературен фронт, № 36, 2 септ.1952. Гьорова, Севелина. Българският драматичен театър. – София: Септември, 1979. Гьорова, Севелина. Ловци на мигове: Основателите. – София: Дамян Яков, 2002. Гюлева, Веселина и др. Сатиричен театър „Алеко Константинов”. Летопис април 1957 – май 2007. / Други авт.: Никола Вандов, Мария Вандова и Вяра Младенова. Сатиричен театър „Алеко Константинов”. Летопис април 1957 – май 2007. – София: Валентин Траянов, 2007. Гюлева, Веселина. Фестивал на малките театрални форми – Враца. Летопис (1977–2010). – София: Валентин Траянов, 2011. Давчев, Орлин. Цифрови технологии в дизайна за архитектурата. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата, 2015. Давчева, Мария. Съвременните търговски сгради в България 1990–2010 г. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2013. Давчева, М., Ташева, С., Минеков, В. Символи и послания от гранит в мемориален комплекс „Априлци“ в гр. Панагюрище, – В: Град и памет, РИМ Пазарджик, 2017, с. 9–17 Дакова, Бисера. Яворов. Археология на автора. – София: Стигмати, 2002. Далчев, Атанас; Димитър Пантелеев. Мъртва поезия. // Развигор, № 188, 13 юни 1925. 608 Даниел, Исак. За театъра и литературната драма. // Съвременник, 11 март 1931. Даниел, Леон. Театър и зрител. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1964. Данова-Дамянова, Диана. Musica Nova в българската музикална култура. София: Изд. Вулкан 4, 2009. Дановски, Боян. Кръстопътища. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1988. Дановски, Боян. От двете страни на завесата. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1969. Дановски, Боян. Творческото наследство на К. С. Станиславски // Театър, 1953, кн. 8–9, с. 5–39. Дановски, Боян. Театър. София: Партиздат, 1945. Данчев, Пенчо. Върху програмата за български език и литература в училищата. – Литературен фронт, бр. 41, 7.11.1947, с. 3. Данчев, Пенчо. За идейния път на д-р К. Кръстев. – Философска мисъл, № 2, 1947, с. 119–131. Данчев, Пенчо. За идеологията на Пенчо Славейков. – Философска мисъл, № 3–4, 1947, с. 190–228. Данчев, Пенчо. Критически талант и критически принципи. – Септември, № 5, 1963, с. 221–242. Даскалов, Димитър. Изкуството на България // Избрани статии и студии за изобразителното изкуство. / Състав. Спас Даскалов. – София: Български художник, 1965. Даскалова, Красимира. Жени, пол и модернизация в България, 1878–1944. – София: Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 2012. Денизов, Борис Драматическа школа. – София, 1942. Державин, Константин, Болгарский театр. Очерк истории. Москва–Ленинград: Искусство, 1950 Дечева, Виолета. Българският театър между двете световни войни. Към проблема за режисурата. – София: Просвета, 2005. Дечева, Виолета. Театърът на 90-те. // Реплика от ложата идруги текстове. – София: СОНМ, 2001. Деянова, Гергина. Драматично-куклен театър „Константин Величков“ – Пазарджик. Летопис 1969–2009. – София: Валентин Траянов, 2009. Джуджев, Стоян. За стила в музиката и за българския стил. // А.С.О., I, № 5, 20 ноем. 1935. Димитров, Димитър Г. Голямото изкуство на плаката. // Изкуство, 1968, № 10. Димитров, Димитър Г. Изложбата „Полска съвременна живопис“. // Изкуство, 1967, № 9, с. 39–41. Димитровa, Татяна. Иван Ненов. – София: Български художник, 1998. Димитровa, Татяна. Художници евреи в България. – София: Български художник, 2002. Димитровa, Татяна. Между модернизма и тоталитаризма: проекциите на държавната културна политика върху българския художествен живот през 30-те – началото на 40-те години. // Проблеми на изкуството, 1996, № 1, с. 3–13. Димов, Васил. За българската академия на изкуствата. // Художествена култура: Месечно илюстровано списание за изкуство и изящна литература, № 21 и № 22, 1911. Димов, Васил. Модерната художествена сбирка на Народния музей. // Художествена култура: Месечно илюстровано списание за изкуство и изящна литература, № 9 и 10, 1910. Димитър Димов век по-късно. Сборник с нови изследвания по случай 100 години от рождението му. – София: Карина–М, 2012. Димчо Дебелянов. Юбилеен сборник с нови изследвания по случай 120 години от рождението му. – София: Захарий Стоянов, 2009. Димов, Венцислав. Етнопопбумът. София: Българско музикознание. Изследвания, Институт за изкуствознание – БАН, 2001. 39. Bulgarian 20th Century... 609 Димов, Венцислав, Лозанка Пейчева. Музика, роми, медии. София: Изд. Звездан, 2005. Динова-Русева, Вера. Българска сценография. – София: Български художник, 1985. Дневници от Третата редовна сесия на Областното събрание, Пловдив 1882, от 10.12.1881, 1022–1023. Добренко, Евгений. Метафора власти. Литература сталинской эпохи в историческом освещении, Verlag Otto Sagner, München, 1993. Дойнов, Пламен. Алтернативният канон: поетите. – София: НБУ, 2012. Дойнов, Пламен. Българската поезия в края на ХХ в. Ч. І–ІІ. – София: НБУ, 2007. Донев, Георги. Строители на българския театър. / Под ред. на Д. Б. Митов. – Плевен, 1944, 1947. Дончева, Теодора. Дискретният чар на рекламата. – София: Рива, 2015. Доросиев, Александър. Синтезът на архитектурата с другите изкуства. – В Сборник от материали на националния преглед „Българска социалистическа архитектура“. – София: САБ, ЦНИПЕТУГА, 1975, с. 104–105. Дудевски, Христо. Експеримент или … // Народна армия, № 36, 25 ноем. 1965. Държавен вестник, № 145 от 30 дек. 1949, гл. 1, чл. 3. Държавен вестник, № 253, 14 ноем. 1946. Министерство на информацията и изкуствата, Указ № 28. Държавна художествена академия. Годишник 1896–1926. – София: Държавна печатница, 1927. Ежегодник Московского художественого театра 1948. // Искусство, Т. 1, 1950, с. 145. Еленков, Иван. Културният фронт. – София: Институт за изследване на близкото минало, 2008. Еленков, Иван. Родно и дясно. – София: ЛИК, 1998. Елин Пелин. Защо не ми се ходи в Народния театър? // Развигор, № 1, 06.01.1921, с. 1–2. https://chitanka.info/text/17300-zashto-ne-mi-se-hodi-v-narodnija-teatyr Емануил Попдимитров – критически прочити. Сборник с изследвания. – София: Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 2007. Енциклопедия на българския театър. Състав. колектив. – София: Труд, 2005, 2008. Енциклопедия на изобразителните изкуства в България. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“. 1980–2006. Енциклопедия на българската музикална култура. Колектив. – София: Институт за музика – БАН, 1967. Ефремова, Т. Ф. Новый толково-словообразовательный словарь русского языка. – Москва: Дрофа; Русский язык, 2000. < https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/efre-mova/26602 4/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%85%D0%B0> Желева-Мартинс, Добрина. 2017. Летни експресии – културни маршрути 2017 – 2, <http://zheleva-martins.com/2017/10/09/>. Желева-Мартинс, Добрина и Юлий Фърков. История на българското градоустройство ХІХ–ХХ век. Първа част – диахронни анализи. – София: Валентин Траянов, 2009. Желева-Мартинс, Добрина. Биография на София. Исторически студии. Пространство и форма. // Български архитект, 2006. Желева-Мартинс, Добрина. Градоустройствени паралели: България и светът – хроника. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2004. Желева-Мартинс, Добрина. Димитровград: идеи и интерпретации. // Архитектура, № 5, 2010. Жечев, Тончо. „Диви разкази“ или опитомяване на мисълта. // Литературен фронт, № 24, 29 юни 1973. Жечев, Т. Критическо превъоръжаване и една кратка история. – Септември, № 1, 1966. Жечев, Т. Национални особености в литературното развитие. – В: Националното своеобразие в литературата, С., 1966. Живков, Тодор, Ив. Фолклорният бум. // Фолк панаир, 2/94. За дальнейший подъем сценического искусства. „Советское искусство“ – орган Министерства кинематографии СССР, Комитета по делам искусств и Комитета по делам архитектуры при Совете Министров СССР. 01. 09. 1951 , бр. 70. За някои черти на социалистическия стил в архитектурата на страните с народна демокрация. // Архитектура, София, 1960, № 7, с. 21–22. За романа „Тютюн“ и неговите критици. // Работническо дело, № 72, 16 март 1952. Задачи на списанието. // Театър, кн. 1, 1946, с. 3. Задачите на българския театър. // Театър, I, кн. 8, 1946, с. 2. Закон за закрила и развитие на културата. // Държавен вестник, № 50, 1 юни 1999, < https://www.ciela.net/svobodna-zona-darjaven-vestnik/document/2134664704/ issue/400/zakon-za-zakrila-i-razvitie-na-kulturata> Закон за театрите. // Държавен вестник, бр. 74 от 9.04.1942 Заповед № ХVII-Д-997 на Министерство на културата от 28.11.1956. Централен държавен архив, фонд 1555, опис 1, а. е. 11, лист 62. Зарев, Пантелей. За пълна победа над антиреалистичните влияния. // Литературен фронт, № 15, 6 март 1952. Захариева, Светлана. Свирачът в българската фолклорна култура. София: Изд. на БАН, 1981. Защо сме такива? Състав. Иван Еленков, Румен Дакалов. – София: Просвета, 1994. Зидаров, Камен. Звезди от голямата плеяда. Част І и ІІ. – София: Народна младеж, 1978. Знеполски, Ивайло. < http://bnf.bg/bg/odeon/movies/617/>. Иванов, Стефан. Българската детско-юношеска периодика. (1878–1944). – София: ИК „Ц. Церковски“, 1992. Иванова, Благовеста. Българският архитектурен комплекс на Златния рог. – София: Парадигма, 2018. Иванова, Венета. Българска монументална скулптура. – София: Български художник, 1978. Игов, Светлозар. История на българската литература 1878–1944. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 1990. Игов, Светлозар. История на българската литература. – София: Сиела, 2001. Из художествения свят. // Художествена култура, № 5–6, 1927–1928. Изказване на Тодор Живков. Протокол „А“ № 119 от 26 юли 1988 от заседанието на Политбюро на ЦК на БКП. http://prehod.omda.bg/page.php?tit- tle=ПРОТОКОЛ_А_№ _119,_26_юли _1988_г.&IDMenu=585&IDArticle=1256 Изкуство. Тема на броя: 40 години социалистическо изкуство, 1984, № 8. Илиев, Константин. Слово и дело. – София: ЛИК, 1997. Илиев, С. Отмъщението на сатирата. – Септември, № 2, 1966. Иречек, Константин. 10 ноември, понеделник. // Български дневник: 30 октомврий 1879 – 26 октомврий 1884 г.: Т. 1. Прев. от чеш. Ст. Аргиров. – Пловдив: Хр. Г. Данов, 1930 – 1932. <http://www.omda.bg/public/biblioteka/irechek/irechek_1_2.htm.> Йокимов, Пепи. Софийската елитна къща (1878–1920). // София – 120 години столица, Юбилейна книга. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“. Йокимов, Петър. Сецесионът и българската архитектура, София, Арх & Арт, 2005 Йорданов, Николай. Българският драматургичен канон. Формиране и пренареждане. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата, 2018. Депозиран научен ръкопис в НАЦИД. Инв. № Нд 020180061 Йорданов, Николай. Към дебата за 100-годишнината от основаването на Народния театър // Homo Ludens, № 8–9, 2003. <http://homoludens.bg/articles/ kam-debataza-stogodishninata-ot-osnovavaneto-na-narodnia-teatar/>. 610 611 Йорданов, Николай. Социалистическия реализъм в българското драматургично наследство. // Homo Ludens, № 21, 2018. Йорданов, Николай. Театралната реформа: двадесет и пет години стигат! Бр. 15, 2011 < http://homoludens.bg/articles/teatralna-reforma-dvadeset-i-pet-go/#_ftnref13> Йорданов, Николай. Театрите в България между двете световни войни. – София: П. Венедиков, 2004. Йорданов, Николай. Театърът в България 1989–2015. София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН , Фондация „Homo Ludens“, 2016. Йорданов, Николай и др. История на българския театър. Българският театър между двете световни войни на ХХ век. Т. 4. / Други авт.: Ромео Попилиев; Камелия Николова; Виолета Дечева; Йоана Спасова. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата, 2011. Искусство эпохи надлома империи: религиозные, национальные и философско-эстетические аспекты / Материалы Международной конференции (17–19 мая 2010 года), Москва: „Государственный институт искусствознания“, 2010 (ответственный редактор – д.ф.н. Н. Хренов) История на българите в документи, Т.1. / Състав. В. Стойчев и Ст. Трифонов. – София: Просвета, 1994. К. С. Станиславский, Собрание сочинений в 8 томах, М.: „Искусство“, 1954–1961 Кавалджиев, Любомир. Прогресът и музиката в подстъпите на една нова естетика. София: ДИ Музика, 1980. Казаков, Драгомир. Материали по историята на Народния театър и опера. – София: Държавна печатница, 1929. Калинова, Евгения. Българската култура и политическият императив 1944–1989. – София: Парадигма, 2011. Каменова, Зорница. Куклено-театралното представление (за възрастни и деца) от началото на XXI век в България. Дисертация – Институт за изследване на изкуствата, БАН, 2018 (ръкопис, архив на Институт за изследване на изкуствата) Каракостов, Стефан. Български артисти. – София: Български писател, 1985. Каракостов, Стефан. Българският театър. 1881/1891/1945. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1982. Каракостова, Румяна. Български оперетен театър в годините между двете световни войни. София: Институт за изкуствознание – БАН, 2004. Каракостова, Румяна. Идеята Държавен музикален театър и проекцията й в националния репертоар до края на ХХ век. – София: Марс-09, 2012. Каролев, Свилен. Петър Караангов. Литературна анкета. – София: Български писател, 1997. Кауфман, Димитрина. Съвременните сватбарски оркестри като „дисидентски“ формации. // Български фолклор, № 6, 1995. Кауфман, Николай. Български градски песни. – София: Българска академия на науките, 1968. Кино (Энциклопедический словарь). – Москва: Исскуство, 1986, с. 402. Кино и фото, 1948, № 14, с. 2. Кино и фото, 1949, № 4, с. 3. Кирова, Милена. Критика на прелома. Нови явления в българската литература в края на ХХ век. – Университетско издателство „Св. Кл. Охридски“, 2002. Кирова, Милена. Литературният канон. Предизвикателства. – София: Университетско издателство „Св. Кл. Охридски“, 2009. Кирова, Милена. Проблематичният реализъм. – София: Просвета, 2002. Клейман, Ребека. Исак Даниел. Дейността му в Българския театър. – София, 1970. Ковачев, Атанас. Градоустройство. – София, Москва: Пенсофт, 2003. Коева, Маргарита. Руски архитекти, работили в България през периода 1879– 1912 година. // Архитектурното наследство и съвременният свят. Сборник студии и статии. – Варна, 2003. LiterNet, 2003–2012. <http://liternet.bg/publish9/mkoeva/ nasledstvo/ruski.htm>. Козаров, Георги. Най-стария български архитектурен конкурс. // Списание на БИАД в София, 1–2, 1901, с. 27–29. Койчев, Пенчо. Народния театър в София. // Списание на БИАД. – София, № 11– 12, 1904. Коларов, Радосвет. В художествения свят на романа „Хоро“. – София: Български писател, 1988. Коларов, Радосвет. Елин Пелин. – София: Просвета, 2016. Коларов, Радосвет. Повторение и сътворение: поетика на автотекстуалността. – София: Просвета, 2009. Колевски, Васил. Сатирите на К. Павлов. // Литературен фронт, № 40, 15 ноем. 1965. Колевски, В. Свободният стих и социалистическия реализъм. – Пламък, № 8, 1963. Комплексен анализ на проблемите и насоките за развитие в театъра в светлината на Решението на Политбюро на ЦК на БКП за развитие на театралното дело на Комитет за култура, 1980. Конкурс – Сребърен плакет „Кольо Фичето“. Конкурсен проект № 1, Проект за проектантски институт „Енергопроект“. // Архитектура, 1964, № 3, с. 28. Константинов, Константин. Режисурата в Народния театър. // Златорог, № 5, 1920. Константинов, Константин. Път през годините. – София: Български писател, 1981. Конституция на Република България, чл. 1. (Изм., ДВ, бр. 29 от 1990 г., № 94 от 1990 г.). < http://www.constcourt.bg/bg/LegalBasis> Консулова, Виолета. Из историята на българския балет. София: Изд. на БАН, 1981. Конфорти, Йосиф. Гео Милев. Театър и време. Към проблема „Гео Милев в българския театър през 20-те“. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1975. Кратка история на българската архитектура. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 1956. Кристи, Григорий., Книга К. С. Станиславского „Работа актера над собой“, В: К. С. Станиславский, Собр. соч, т. 2, М., Искусство, 1954, с. vii http://az.lib.ru/s/ stanislawskij_k_s/text_0040.shtml Критическото наследство на българския модернизъм. / Състав. Едвин Сугарев, Цветанка Атанасова, Елка Димитрова. Т. I–IV. – София: Издателски център „Боян Пенев“, 2009. Кръстев, Венелин. Очерци по история на българската музика. – София: Музика, 1992. Кръстев, Венелин. Добри Христов. Живот и творчество. София: Изд. на БАН, 1975. Кръстев, Венелин. Петко Стайнов (1896–1977). Живот и творчество. София: Изд. на БАН, 1986. Кръстев, Кирил. Спомени за културния живот между двете световни войни. – София: Български писател, 1988. Кръстев, Кирил. Спомени за културния живот между двете световни войни. – София: Български писател, 1988. Кръстев, Кръстьо. Млади и стари. Критически очерки върху днешната българска литература. – Тутракан, 1907. Кръстев, Кръстьо. Съчинения. Т. І. – София, 1996. 612 613 Кръстев, Кръстьо. Съчинения. Т. ІІ. – София, 2004. Кръстев, Тодор, Архтектурното творчество. – София: Техника, 1979. Кръстьо Мирски. Театрал европеец. Избрано. Съставител и научен редактор Кристина Тошева. – София: Нов български университет, 2011. Кузмова-Зографова, Катя. Чавдар Мутафов. Възкресението на Дилетанта. – София: Ваньо Недков, 2001. Куюмджиев, К. „Диви разкази“ и „точните науки“. – Литературна мисъл, № 2, 1974. Куюмджиев, К. Лекарю, излекувай се сам. – Септември, № 3, 1965. Кърджиев, Драган. Народната опера и българското оперно творчество. // Родна песен, V, 1932, кн. 3. Кърджилов, Петър. Загадките и времената на „Българан е галант“. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2017. Кърджилов, Петър. Озарения в полите на Витоша. Летопис на ранното кино в София (1896–1915). – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2016. Кърджилов, Петър. Филмът „Балканската война“ в историята на българското кино. Кьорчев, Димо. Студии, статии, есета. – София: Български писател, 1992. Кьосев, Александър. „Пролетен вятър“ на Никола Фурнаджиев в художествения контекст на своето време. – София: Народна просвета, 1989. Лабов, Георги. Архитектурата на София. – София: Техника,1979. Леви, Клер. Диалогичната музика. Блусът, популярната култура, митовете на модерността. София: Институт за изкуствознание – БАН, 2005. Леви, Клер. Етноджазът: локални проекции в глобалното село. София: Институт за изкуствознание – БАН, 2007. Леви, Клер. Музикалната пародия в края на 20 и началото на 21 век. София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, 2012. Леви, Клер. Диалогичната музика. Блусът, популярната култура, митовете на модерността. – София: Институт за изкуствознание, 2005. Леви, Клер. Етноджазът: локални проекции в глобалното село. – София: Институт за изкуствознание, 2007. Леви, Клер. Музикалната пародия в края на 20 и началото на 21 век. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата, 2012. Леви, Клер. Изток, Запад и балканският фолк: парадокси на самосъзнанието. // Антропологически изследвания. Т. IV – София: Департамент „Антропология“, НБУ, 2003. Леви, Клер. Социокултурни процеси с особено съществено въздействие върху развитието на българската музикална култура (1878–1944). // Българско музикознание, № 3, 1994. Леви, Клер. Рокмузиката в България: Началото. // Българско музикознание № 3, 1993. Левчев, Любомир. Проблеми на свободния стих. // Литературен фронт, № 9, 1 март 1962. Ликова, Розалия. Проблеми на българския символизъм. – София: Български писател, 1985. Ликова, Розалия. Литературен живот между двете войни. Т. 2. – София: Иван Вазов, 1996. Липовецкий, Марк. Растратные стратегии, или Метаморфозы „чернухи“. // Новый Мир, 1999, № 11. <http://magazines.russ.ru/novyi_mi/1999/11/lipowez.html> Литературен фронт, № 33, 4 авг.1952. Лица на модернизма. Живопис от България, Гърция и Румъния. Състав. Вида, Мариана, Ирина Генова, Такис Мавротас. Каталог. – Атина – София, 2009. Луканов, Михаил. Мильо Басан. Живот и творчество. София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, 2017. Льондев, Петър. Никола Атанасов. София: Наука и изкуство, 1963. Мавродиев, Васил. Българските пътуващи театрални трупи. – // Годишник на ВИТИЗ, Т. ХІ, [1966] – София: Наука и изкуство, 1968. Мавродиев, Васил. Театрален летопис. 100 години български театър. – // Театър, год. 9, № 11, ноември 1956. Мавродинов, Никола. Новата българска живопис. – София: Българска книга, 1947. Малинова, Людмила. Български поетеси между двете световни войни. – София: Издателски център „Ваньо Недков“,1999. Мандева, Венета и Любомир Владков. Златният курорт на България. – Варна: Бряг Принт ЕАД, 1997, с. 36–38. Манифести на българския авангардизъм. – Велико Търново: Слово, 1995. Маринети, Филипо Томазо. Цанг Тумб Тумб. // Кресчендо, № 3–4, 1922. Маринска, Ружа [Състав.]. София – Европа – Национална художествена галерия. – София, 1996–1997. Маринска, Ружа. 20-те години в българското изобразително изкуство. – София: Отворено общество, 1996. Маринска, Ружа. Гео Милев рисува. – София: Христо Ботев, 1995 Маринска, Ружа. За границите на пластичното. Някои наблюдения върху развитието на съвременния живописен език. // Изкуство, 1984, № 8 и 9, с. 36–47; с. 2–11. Структура на пластическия образ. Докторска дисертация, 1983. Масалитинов. Николай О. Спомени, статии, писма. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1987. Мешеков, Иван. Есета. Статии. Студии. Рецензии. – София: Български писател, 1989. Милев, Гео. (Рубрика „Критичен преглед“, отзив за концерт на П. Владигеров в столицата). // Везни, № 6, 1919/1920. Милев, Гео. Избрани произведения в 2 т.: Т. 2. – София: Български писател, 1971. Милев, Гео. Посоки и цели. // Везни, № 2, 1919. Милев, Гео. Против реализма. // Слънце, № 5, 1919. <https://liternet.bg/publish7/ geo_milev/realizma.htm>. Милев, Гео. Родно изкуство. // Везни, № 1, 1920. Милев, Гео. Символизъм. // Везни, № 2, 1919 Милев, Гео. Съчинения в три тома, Т. 2. – София: Български писател, 1976. Милев, Гео. Театрално изкуство. Стара Загора. // Везни, 1918. http://www.znam.g/ com/action/showBook?bookID=920&elementID=487&sectionID=5 Милев, Гео. Фрагментът. // Везни, № 4, 1919. Министерство на информацията и изкуствата, Указ № 28. // Държавен вестник, № 253, 14 окт. 1946. Минков, Цветан. История на българската драма. – София: Факел, 1936. Минов, Валдимир. Окръжен младежки клуб „Компютър“ в Бургас. // Архитектура, 1986, № 10. Миролюбов, В. (Кръстьо Кръстев). Христо Ботйов – П. П. Славейков – П. Тодоров – П. К. Яворов. – София: Александъръ Паскалевъ и с-ие, 1917. Митева, Мария. Стефан Баджов. Биография на декоратор. – София: Института за изследване на изкуствата, 2014 Митов, Димитър Б. Театрални вечери. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1974. Михайлов, А. Архитектурата на социалистическия реализъм. // Съветската архитектура. – София: БАН, 1951. Михайлов, Анастас. Театърът: Изживяно и изстрадано. – София: Вулкан-4, 1994. Михайлов, Господин. Моден комплекс „Рила“ в град Толбухин. // Архитектура, № 2, 1986. 614 615 Михайлов, Димитър. Класически творби в българската литература. – В. Търново: Слово, 1997. Михайлов, Радослав. Историческият конгрес. // Списание на БИАД, 5, 1930. Михалчева, Ирина. Основни идейно-художествени насоки в българската живопис 1900–1918. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 1977. Михов, Никола. Forget Your Past Монументалните паметници от времето на комунизма. – София: Жанет 45, 2012. Младенов, Иван. Теодор Траянов в развитието на българския символизъм. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 1997. Модерният наратив: интертекстуални пресичания. Сборник в чест на проф. Е. Константинова. – София: Век 21, 2006. Момчилов, Петко. Зданието за държавна девическа гимназия и пансион „Мария Луиза“ във Варна. // Списание на БИАД в София, бр. 3–4, 1902, с. 42–43. Мутафов, Чавдар. // Нашето кино, № 44, 28 окт. 1925. Мутафов, Чавдар. Зеленият кон. // Везни, № 3, 1920. Мутафов, Чавдар. Линията в изобразителното изкуство. // Златорог, № 4, 1920. Мутафов, Чавдар. Мюнхенско изкуство. // Слово, № 668, 1924. Мутафов, Чавдар. Пейзажът и нашите художници. // Златорог, № 2, 1920. Мутафов, Чавдар. Рисунките на Сирак Скитник в книгата „Поеми от Едгар По“. // Везни, № 2, 1920–1921, с. 88–90. Мутафов, Чавдар. Фердинанд Ходлер. // Изток, № 38, 1926, с. 1. Наимович, Максим. Герой или жертва. // Литературен фронт, № 9, 5 март 1966. Националния статистически институт – София (http://www.nsi.bg/Census_e/ Census_e.htm) НДК 2018. История, http://ndk.bg/%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1 %81/%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F Найденова, Горица. Година – Живот – История. Битие и разпад на една традиционна култура през погледа на етномузиколога. София: Институт за изкуствознание – БАН, 2006. Найденова, Горица. От философия до фолклористика. Непознатият Стоян Джуджев. София: Изд. Марс 09, 2013. Неделчев, Михаил. Яворов. Сюжетите на последните години. – София: Хермес, 2016. Неделчев, Михаил. Ефектът на раздалечаването. – София: Кралица Маб, 2015. Неделчев, Михаил. Кръгът „Мисъл“ в годината на големите литературни юбилеи. – София: НБУ, 2016. Неделчев, Михаил. Кръгът „Мисъл“ в годината на големите литературни юбилеи. – София: Литературноисторическа школа „Д-р К. Кръстев“, НБУ, 2016. Николов, Минко. За истинската любовна лирика. // Литературен фронт, № 39, 30 септ. 1954. Николов, Минко. На разни адреси. // Литературен фронт, № 8, 21 март 1963. Николова, Камелия. Другото име на модерния театър. Произход и драматически основания на драматичната режисура. – София: Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 1995. Николова, Камелия, Николай Йорданов, Венета Дойчева и др. Българското драматургично наследство: нови прочити. – София: НАТФИЗ „Кръстьо Сарафов“, 2006. Николова, Камелия, Николай Йорданов, Ромео Попилиев, Аглика Стефанова, Мирослава Тодорова и др. Познатата / непозната българска драма. Справочник. / – София: Сдружение „Антракт“, 2001. Николова, Камелия. Експресионистичният театър и езикът на тялото. – София: Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 2000. Николова, Камелия. Модерната европейска драма в Народния театър между двете световни войни. – София: Фигура, 2004. Николова, Камелия. Режисьорът в българския театър: от социалистическия реализъм до постмодернизма. – София, 2015, НАЦИД, № Нд 020180072 Николова, Камелия. Театърът на границата на ХХ и ХХІ век. – София: Фигура, 2007 Николова, Румяна. Модел на функциониране на българския театър в периода 1956–1989 година. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата, 2018. (ръкопис, архив на Институт за изследване на изкуствата) Николова, Румяна. Модел на функциониране на българския театър в периода 1944–1956 година. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата, 2015. (ръкопис, архив на Институт за изследване на изкуствата) Ножарова, Весела. Въведение в българското съвременно изкуство 1982–2015. – Пловдив: Жанет 45, 2018. Обретенов, Александър. За българския стил. // А.С.О., I, № 4, 28 ян. 1935. Опозоряване на нашата държава пред чуждия свят. // Мир, № 2060, 08 февр. 1907. Откриването на Народния театър. Бурна студентска демонстрация. // Ден, бр. 1075, 05.01.1907, с. 3. Памукчиев, Станислав, Петер Цанев. Неразказаната българска абстракция. – София: Съюз на българските художници, 2014 Панова, Искра. Вазов, Елин Пелин, Йовков – майстори на разказа. – София: Български писател, 1967. Панова, Снeжина. Стъпала на комедията. – София: Български писател, 1980. Панова, Снежина. Молиер на българска сцена. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1975. Пеев, Георги. Изграждането на българското образование в началото на Третата българска държава. // Годишник на Департамент „Публична адмнистрация“, НБУ, 2014, №:9, < http://ebox.nbu.bg/pa2014/index2.html>. Пенев, Боян. Литературата около „Българан“. // Мисъл, № 1, 1907, с. 58–71. Пенев, Боян. Студии, статии, есета. – София: Български писател, 1985. Пенев, Пенчо. История на българския драматически театър. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1975. Первый Всесоюзный съезд советских писателей.: Стенографский отчет. – Москва: Госсударственое издательство „Художественная литература“, 1934. http://www. pseudology.org/Literature/1SiezdSovPisatStenogr_1934a.pdf Первый Всесоюзный съезд советских писателей.: Стеногр. отчет. М., Госсударственое издательство „Художественная литература“, 1934. <http://www.pseudology. org/ Literature/1SiezdSovPisatStenogr_1934a.pdf> Пенчев, Бойко. Българският модернизъм: моделирането на Аза. – София: Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 2003. Пенчо Славейков. 150 години от рождението му. Сборник с изследвания. – София: Издателски център „Боян Пенев“, 2017. Периодика и литература. Т. 1. 1878–1892; Т. 2. 1893–1901; Т. 3. 1902–1910; Т. 4. 1911–1917; Т. 5. 1918–1920. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“. Петров, Димитър. Сравнителна изложба на промишлени изделия. // Изкуство, 1968, № 1, с. 42–43. Петров, Здравко. Наследствените грехове. – Септември, № 3, 1965. Петров, Здравко. Порочни стихове. // Литературен фронт, № 37, 11 септ. 1952. Петрова, Ангелина. Композиторът Лазар Николов. София: Изд. Звездан, 2003. Петрова, Виолета. Сянката на Лай: метафори на властта в киното. – София: Титра, 2003. 616 617 Пипков, Любомир. За българския музикален стил. // А.С.О., I, № 2, 28 окт. 1934. Писарски, М., Класанов, М., Тодорова, М., Войников, Ц., Тенев, И., Аврамова, А. (1993) Алманах [на ВИАС–София]: Първите студенти и преподаватели по архитектура, 1943 г. – София: ВИАС. Попиванов, Иван. Драмата „Тревога“. Referati.org. <http://www.referati.org/dramata-trevoga-1/45359/ref/p8> Попилиев, Ромео. Драмите на Йордан Радичков, или едновременното неедновременно. – София, Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2005. Попилиев, Ромео. Историческата драма: траекториите на историята, мита и политиката. – София: Просвета, 2008. Попилиев, Ромео. Комичното и животът на българската комедия между двете световни войни. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2001. Попилиев, Ромео. Съпротивата на драмата в драмата за съпротивата. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2013. Попилиев, Ромео. Театралната критика на две критични десетилетия. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2003. Попилиев, Ромео. Цензурата по времето на комунизма, или режимът на забраняване–позволяване. – София: Рива, 2018. Попов, В. История и съвременност. – В: Националното своеобразие в литературата – София: Издателски център „Боян Пенев“, 1966. Попов, Иван. Миналото на българския театър – спомени и документи, Т. I–ІІ – София: Печатница „Борис Кожухаров”, 1939, 1942. Попов, Иван. Миналото на българския театър – спомени и документи, Т. ІІІ–V – София: Наука и изкуство, 1953, 1956, 1960. Попов, Чавдар. Постмодернизмът и българското изкуство от 80-те – 90-те години на ХХ век. – София: Български художник, 2009 Попов, Чавдар. Тоталитарното изкуство. Идеология. Организация. Практика. – София: Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 2002 Попов, Чавдар. Иконографски проблеми на съвременната историческа живопис. // Изкуство, № 10, 1978. Фигуралната композиция в българската живопис 1944–1980 (някои иконографски аспекти на нейната еволюция). Докторска дисертация, 1987. Попова, Кристина, и др. Жените и мъжете в миналото, XIX–XX век. / Други авт.: Петър Воденичаров и Снежана Димитрова. – Благоевград: Арт Принт, 2002. Попова-Мутафова, Фани. „Бялата сестра“. // Нашето кино, № 71, 1 окт. 1926. Цит. по Постановление на Министерски Съвет от 22 април 1904; Указ № 258 от 22 ноември 1904 г. на Фердинанд. Постановление № 23 на Министерския съвет от 18 февруари 1991 г. за усъвършенстване дейността на организациите с нестопанска цел в областта на културата. // Държавен вестник, № 16, 26 февр. 1991. <https://www.ciela.net/ svobodna-zonadarjaven-vestnik/document/-1088675328/issue/1066/postanovlenie-%E2%84%96-23na-ministerskiya-savet-ot-18-fevruari-1991-g-za-usavarshenstvuvane-deynostta-naorganizatsiite-s-nestopanska-tsel-v-oblastta-na-kulturata>. Постановление № 91 на Министерски съвет „Относно състоянието и задачите на българската кинематография“. Т. ІІ. Постановление на Министерския съвет: Относно състоянието и задачите на българската кинематография. // Известия на Президиума на Народното събрание, № 15, 19 февр. 1952. Правилник за капиталното строителство от 1951; чл. 44 Преосмисляйки историите на изкуствата през ХХ век. – София: Институт за изследване изкуствата – БАН, 2015. Протич, Андрей. Българан. // Мисъл, 1905, № 2, с. 127–136. Протич, Андрей. Изкуството в България. // Училищен преглед, [брошура], № IX, 1908. Протич, Андрей. Нашата битова картина. // Сборник в чест на Иван Шишманов. – София, 1920, с. 171–181. Протокол „А“ № 119 от 26 юли 1988 от заседанието на Политбюро на ЦК на БКП. < http://prehod.omda.bg/page.php?tittle=ПРОТОКОЛ_А_№ _119,_26_юли_1988_г. &IDMenu=585&IDArticle=1256.> Протокол „А“ № 557 от заседанието на Политбюро на ЦК на БКП от 11 юли 1972 г., ЦДА, фонд 1, опис 35, архивна единица 3304, лист 73–84 <http://politburo.archives.bg/bg/2013-04-24-11-12-48/dokumenti/1970-1979/1169--557--11—1972>. Радев, Симеон. Д-р Кръстев като литературен критик. // Художник, № 4–5, 19–42, 1906/1907. Радев, Симеон. Погледи върху литературата, изкуството и лични спомени. – София: Български писател, 1965. Радев, Стоян. Трябва да говорим днес за снощното тържество, а мисълта ни отива неотразимо към снощния скандал. // Вечерна поща, № 1930, 5 ян. 1907. Радославов, Иван. „Хиперион“ и българската литература. // Хиперион, № 1–2, 1931. Радославов, Иван. Българският символизъм (Основи – същност – възгледи). // Хиперион, № 1–2, 1925. Райнов, Николай. Лъчезарен свят. // Кино-звезда, № 9, 10 февр.1924. Райнов, Николай. Симбол и стил. // Везни, № 1, 1920. Рачева, Искра, Анна Илиева, Светлана Захариева. История на българската музикална култура. Т. 1. София: Изд. на БАН, 1998. Редакционна. Вредно произведение. // Работническо дело, № 301, 27 окт. 1952. Решение за откриване на частно висше училище – самостоятелен колеж с наименование театрален колеж „Любен Гройс“ със седалище София, Държавен вестник, бр. 20, 22.02.2002. < https://www.ciela.net/svobodna-zona-darjaven-vestnik/ document/-12047871/issue/2953/reshenie-za-otkrivane-na-chastno-visshe-uchilishte--sa-mostoyatelen-kolezh-s-naimenovanie-teatralen-kolezh-> Решение за състоянието на провинциалния драматичен театър и мерки за подобрение на неговата работа, Т. 6, Централен държавен архив, фонд 143, опис 2, архивна единица 300, листове 19–24. Русева, Виолета. Български символизъм: модуси на различимост. – В. Търново: Университетско издателство „Св. Св. Кирил и Методий“, 2014. Сагаев, Константин. Българска драматическа школа – София: П-ца „Независимост”, 1931. Сагаев, Константин. Българският народен театър 1931–1933. – София: Факел, 1934. Саев, Георги. История на българския театър. Т. 2. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 1997. Саев, Георги. Театралната критика – начало и основи на социалистическия реализъм. 1918–1948. – София, 1969. Сарандев, Иван. Български литературен авангард. – София: Наука и изкуство, 2001. Сарандев, Иван. Българска литература (1918–1945). Т. І. – София: Хермес, 2004. Сензацията на Бала в Дом на изкуствата и печата. // Илюстрована седмица, № 64, 16 март 1924. Сирак Скитник. Живопис. София и художниците. // Мир, № 12095, 26 ноем. 1940. Сирак Скитник. За детските играчки. // Слово, 11 ноем. 1926. 618 619 Сирак Скитник. Изкуство за всички. // Слово, № 2693, 1931. Сирак Скитник. Изкуството и улицата. // Златорог, № 7, 1937. Сирак Скитник. Изложбата на жените художнички. // Златорог, № 5, 1937. Сирак Скитник. Какво може театърът? // Нова България, № 2, 1934. Сирак Скитник. Конкурс за марки. // Слово, № 1587, 1927. Сирак Скитник. Надежди. // Слово, № 1350, 12.1936. Сирак Скитник. Слово, 1927, Централен държавен архив, фонд 44. Сирак Скитник. Сцена и екран. // Златорог, № 2, 1934. Сирак Скитник. Сцена и радио-сцена. // Златорог, № 1, 1937. Сирак Скитник. Тайната на примитива. // Манифести на българския авангардизъм. – Велико Търново: Слово, 1995. Славейков, Пенчо. Национален театър. // Мисъл, 1910, бр. 1. Славейков, Пенчо. Предговор към П. К. Яворов „Стихотворения”, 1904. Славейков, Пенчо. Събрани съчинения: 8 тома: Т. 5. Национален театър / под ред. на Ангел Тодоров. – София: Български писател, 1959. Славов, Атанас. Еснафското самодоволство в поезията. // Литературен фронт, № 47, 22 окт. 1962. Славов, Атанас. Българската литература на размразяването. – София, 1994. Сладкаров, Ангел. Българското оперетно изкуство. Мемоари. – София: Музика, 1975. Случаят Стаматов, Гестус, 1990, кн. 1/2, с. 43–193 Соцреалистически канон / Алтернативен канон. Поредица „Литературата на НРБ: история и теория“ – книга 2. Състав. Пламен Дойнов. – София: Пан, 2009. Спасов, Иван. С гръб към живота. // Работническо дело, № 325, 21 ноем. 1965. Спасов, Иван. Животът ми – опит за реконструкция на една разпиляна мозайка – Пловдив, 1993. Спасов, Росен. Периодични печатни издания за кино в България (1913–1944). Дисертация за получаване на научно-образователна степен „доктор“. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата. Спасова-Дикова, Йоана. Актьорски поколения в Народния театър. // Проблеми на изкуството, 2. – София: Институт за изкуствознание – БАН, 2005. Спасова-Дикова, Йоана. За две актьорски съзвездия. – София: Камея / Продуцентска къща две и половина, 2004. Спасова-Дикова, Йоана. Канони и/или съпротиви?. // Годишник на Народния театър „Иван Вазов“. – София: Народен театър „Иван Вазов“, 2016. Спасова-Дикова, Йоана. Концепцията за пресечните точки в съвременното историческо изследване на изкуствата. Преосмисляйки историята на изкуствата през ХХ век. – София: Институт за изследване изкуствата – БАН, 2015. Спасова-Дикова, Йоана. Масовост и младост в театъра на социализма. // Изкуствоведски четения. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, 2015. Спасова-Дикова, Йоана. Мелпомена зад желязната завеса. Народен театър: канони и съпротиви. – София: Камея, 2015. Спасова-Дикова, Йоана. Модерност, театрална режисура, социализъм и след това... // Изкуствоведски четения. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, 2011. Спасова-Дикова, Йоана. Образи на войната. Милитаристичната парадигма в театъра през първото десетилетие след Втората световна война. Изкуствоведски четения, – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, 2009. Спасова-Дикова, Йоана. Пенчо Славейков (1866–1912) – модернизатор на българския театър. // Пенчо Славейков. 150 години от рождението му. – София: Издателски център „Боян Пенев“, Институт за литература – БАН, 2017. Спасова-Дикова, Йоана. Семейната парадигма в театъра на социализма и образът на жената. // Изкуствоведски четения [Сб.] – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, 2015. Спасова-Дикова, Йоана. Театралната иконография и актьоркият образ. // Проблеми на изкуството 2. – София: Институт за изкуствознание – БАН, 2001. Спасова-Дикова, Йоана. Текстът, новият човек и актьорското тяло в тоталитарния театър. // Проблеми на изкуството 1. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, 2012. Спасова-Дикова, Йоана. Тенденции болгарского театра 1950–1960-х годов. Сборник Болгарское искусство ХХ века. – Москва: Государственый институт искусствознания, 2015. Стайков, Н. Действителна и мнима поезия. // Литературен фронт, № 42, 18 окт. 1962. Стайнов, Петко. По някои въпроси на съвременната българска музика // Българска музика, 1956, № 8. Стайнов, Петко; Кацарова, Райна; Кръстев, Венелин. Енциклопедия на българската музикална култура. – София: Институт за музика – БАН, 1967. Станимирова, Неда. Кинопроцесът –„замразен временно“. Български игрални филми 1950–1970 в документи, спомени, анализи. – София: Логис, 2012. Станимирова, Неда. Преглътнатата горчивина. // Кино, 1994, № 3. Станиславский, Константин С. Собрание сочинений в 8 томах – Москва: Искусство, 1954–1961. Станиславский, Константин С., Работа актёра над собой — Часть 1, III. Действие. „Если бы“. „Предлагаемые обстоятельства“, Собр. соч, т. 2, М., 1954. https:// www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/101744/7/Stanislavskiii_-_Rabota_aktera_nad_ soboii_%28Chast%27_I%29.html Стателова, Розмари, Чавдар Чендов. Попмузиката. Субективни разсъждения в опит за обективни преценки. София: ДИ Музика, 1983. Стателова, Розмари. Обърнатата пирамида. София: Изд. Едем 21, 1993. Стателова, Розмари. Преживяно в България. Рок, поп, фолк 1990–1994. София: Рива, 1993. Стателова, Розмари. Седемте гряха на чалгата. София: Просвета, 2003. Стенографически дневник. IX Обикновено Народно събрание, 39-то заседание, 15.12.1898. Стенографски протокол. Пленум на ЦК на БКП, 19–20 юли 1988 г., с. 66–74, ЦДА, Фонд 1Б; опис 65; архивна единица 88. http://politburo.archives.bg/bg/2013-04-24-1109-24/1980-1989/3283--------19--20--1988---i. Стефанов, Валери. Имената на времето. – София: Народна младеж,1988. Стефанов, Валери. Литературната институция. – София: Анубис, 1995. Стефанов, Валери. Българска литература XX век. – София: Анубис, 2003. Стефанов Васил и др. 100 години Народен театър. / Други авт.: Ромео Попилиев, Кристина Тошева, Виолета Дечева. – София: Дамян Яков, 2004. Стефанов, Васил. История на българския театър. Т. 1. – София: Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 1997. Стефанов, Васил. Литература и театър. Избрани произведения. – София: Български писател, 1983. Стефанов, Васил. Пътят на режисурата. – София: Валентин Траянов, 2011. Стефанов, Васил. Съвременен куклен театър. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1971. Стефанов, Петър. Детска литература. От възраждането до края на Втората световна война. – В. Търново: Абагар, 2012. Стефанов, Петър. Българска детска литература ХХ век. – В. Търново: Абагар, 2013. 620 621 Стефанов, Свилен. Процеси и тенденции в българското съвременно изкуство (Края на ХХ и началото на ХХІ век). – София: НХА, 2014. Стефанов, Свилен. Авангард и норма. – София: Агата-А, 2003 Стефанов, Христо и Максимилиян Киров. – София: Държавно издателство „Д-р Петър Берон“, 1986. Стефанова Аглика. Жанрови полета в българската драматургия на 90-те. – София: Аскони, 2004. Сто години български театър. Под редакцията на Димитър Б. Митов, Пенчо Пенев, Любомир Тенев. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1956. Сто и двадесет години години Пейо Яворов. – София: Международна фондация Европейски форум, 2000 (2002). 100 години организиран художествен живот в България 1894–1994. / Състав.: Бистра Рангелова, Весела Христова-Радоева, Ружа Маринска, Румяна Иванова, Светла Москова, Чавдар Попов. – София: Български художник, 1994. Стоилов Георги, Ангел Шарлиев. Архитектурата на нашите черноморски курорти: Бургаско крайбрежие – София: Техника, 1975. Стоилова, Любинка, Коцев, Георги. От Освобождението до Първата световна война. // Градоустройството на София. Пулсът на града във времето. – София: ИТУС-98 ЕООД, РИМ, София, 2016. Стоилова, Любинка. Българските архитектки между двете световни войни. Образование и социален статус на пионерките. // Граници на гражданството: Европейските жени между традицията и модерността: Сб. материали от международна конференция, съст. К. Даскалова, Р. Гаврилова. – София, 2001, с. 280–301. Стоян Камбарев. Огледала. / Състав.: Майя Праматарова, Никола Вандов. – София: Et cetera, 2000. Стоянов, Людмил. Две основни течения в българската литература. // Везни, № 1, 1920. Стоянов, А. Шрифт и архитектура. // Архитектура и строителство, 1951, София, бр. 8. Стоянов, Андрей. Национална музика. // Златорог, XV, кн. 7, 1934, с. 314-318. Стоянов, Веселин. За българския музикален стил. // Златорог, 1937, кн. 3, с. 121–127 Стоянов, Л. Поезията ни вчера и днес. // Литературен фронт, бр. 41, 11.10.1962. Стоянов, Стоян. Филип Кутев. София: Наука и изкуство, 1964. Стоянов, Ц. Българско, наистина българско. // Литературен фронт, № 3, 17 ян. 1963. Стоянов, Ц. По повод „духа на мястото“. – В: Националното своеобразие в литературата, С., 1966. Страшимиров, Антон. Град и село. // Наши дни, № 10, 1921. <https://liter-net.bg/ publish5/astrashimirov/grad.htm> Съвременно българско монументално изкуство 1956 – 1986. Съст. Христо Стефанов и Максимилиян Киров. – София: Държавно издателство „Д-р Петър Берон“, 1986, с. 71–105; 108–177. Съюзът на южнославянските художници „Лада“. Българското изкуство на южнославянските изложби 1904–1912. Състав. Милена Георгиева. Каталог. Национален исторически музей. – София: 1994. Суботич, Ирина. Сътрудничеството на списание Зенит с българските художници. // Изкуство, 1986, № 3. Сугарев, Едвин. Поезията на Ал. Вутимски: Паралелни прочити. – София: Алтера, 2009. Суботич, Ирина. Сътрудничеството на списание Зенит с българските художници. // Изкуство, 1986, № 3, с. 7-14. Тагарева, Албена. Сценографията в народния театър 1944–1968. Дисертация, Институт за изследване на изкуствата, БАН, 2018 (ръкопис, архив на Институт за изследване на изкуствата). Ташев, Петър. Новият градостроителен план на Димитровград. // Архитектура и строителство, 1962, № 2. Ташева, Стела. Проблеми и тенденции на българската архитектурна графика през XX век. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата, 2014. Ташева, С., Давчева, М. Съдебните палати на арх. Пенчо Койчев. Нови архитектурни типове за България в началото на XX век. 140 години от рождението на архитект Пенчо Койчев, Институт за изследване на изкуствата, БАН, 2016, с. 89–133. Ташева, С. Архитект Наум Торбов: в София и Букурещ. Наука, XXVI, 2, Съюз на учените в България, 2016, с. 53–59. Ташева, С. Първи стъпки на CAD революцията в България. Архитектура, 2, САБ, 2016, с. 48–51. Ташева, С. CAD И BIM средства в България – обучение и оценки. Архитектура, 5, САБ, 2017, с. 32–36. Ташева, С. Давчева М. Локално развитие на брутализма в България. – В: Светът на българина през XX век, Димитровград, 2018, с. 340–350. Театралната практика в края на 90-те. „Концепции България“, Сдружение „Антракт“, 1999. Театър, 1953, № 8–9, 1953. Театърът на „Моссовет“ в България. Октомври – ноември. Сборник. 1953. Под редакцията на Славчо Васев, Любомир Тенев, Юлия Огнянова. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1955. Телеграма на д-р Константин Иречек до д-р Любомир Милетич „Какви са тия работи... театрото убило университета“. // Ден, бр. 1081, 09.01.1907, с. 3. Тенев, Драган. Тристахилядна София и аз между двете войни. – София: Български писател, 1997. Тенев, Любомир, Срещи във вечерни часове. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1978. Тенев, Любомир. Критични откровения. С., Издателство Български писател, 1975, Т. 2. Осветени пространства. С., Български писател, 1985, Т. 3. Отчаяние и надежди. – София: Български писател, 1986. Тенев, Любомир. Актьори и роли. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1956. Тенев, Любомир. Драма и сцена. Театрални статии. – София: Български писател, 1959. Тенев, Любомир. Драматургия и съвременност. – София: Български писател, 1961. Тенев, Любомир. Избрани произведения в 3 тома. Т. 1. Тенев, Любомир. Избрани произведения. Т. 2. – София: Български писател, 1975. Тенев, Любомир. Конфликти и време. – София: Български писател, 1972. Тенев, Любомир. Маска и перо. – София: Български писател, 1968. Тенев, Любомир. Огледала. – София: Български писател, 1988. Тенев, Любомир. Пристанища за мигове. Театрални есета. – София: Български писател, 1981. Тенев, Любомир. Разкъсани мрежи. Литературно-критически статии. – София: Български писател, 1984. Тенев, Любомир. Срещи във вечерни часове. Статии за театралното изкуство и очерци.[Сб.] – София: Наука и изкуство, 1978. Тенев, Любомир. Те в пространството на сцената. Очерци. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1977. 622 623 Тенев, Любомир. Театрални светлини. – София: Български писател, 1965. Тенев, Любомир. Театрални сезони. Критически статии. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1984. Теодор Траянов и неговата епоха. Сборник с изследвания. – София: Издателски център „Боян Пенев“, 2008. Тиханов, Галин. Жанровото съзнание на кръга „Мисъл“. Към културната биография на българския модернизъм. – София: Академия,1998. Тихова, Надежда. Режисьорският проблем в Народния театър непосредствено след Първата световна война. // Годишник на ВИТИЗ, Т. ХІІ – София, 1972. Тихова, Надежда. Масалитинов. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1959. Тодоров, Тодор. Съвременност и народна песен. София: ДИ Музика, 1978. Тонев, Л. Едно посещение в ателиетата на академик Б. М. Иофан – Москва. Архитектура, 1947, № 3. Тонев, Любен. Архитектурата в България 1944–1960. – София: Академично издателство „ Проф. Марин Дринов“, 1962. Топалджикова, Анна, Разриви и нови посоки: българският театър от средата на 50-те до края на 60-те. – София: ИК „ Проф. Петър Венедиков“, 2009. Топалджикова, Анна. Фобии и утопии. – София: ИК „Проф. Петър Венедиков“, 2014. Топалджикова, Анна. Необходимото чудо. Митът в българската драма. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1988. Торньов, Антон. Инвалиден дом в столицата. // Списание на БИАД в София, 1, 1900, с. 24–25. Тошева, Кристина, Стефан Сърчаджиев. – София: Наука и изкуство, 1981. Тошева, Кристина. История на българския театър: Т. 3 – София: Академично издателство „Проф. М. Дринов“, 1997. Трайкова, Елка. Българските литературни полемики. – София: Карина М, 2001. Трендафилов, Трендафил. Архитект Петко Иванов Момчилов // Списание на БИАД, № 3, 1923. Трендафилов, Трендафил. Международните архитектурни конкурси за царския дворец, съдебната палата и музея с библиотека в столицата. // Списание на БИАД в София, серия публикации в тройните броеве № 33–36, 37–39, 40–42, 47–50, 1914. Трендафилов, Трендафил. Реализмът и нудизмът в архитектурата. // Известия на ДБА, 7, 1936. УАСГ, За университета, История, Висш институт по архитектура и строителство (ВИАС), (1977–1992) УАСГ, История, 2014. Указ № 3520 на Държавния съвет на НРБ от 30 декември 1987 г. Указ № 69 от 4.10.1943. „Държавен вестник“, бр. 233/16.10.1943. Указ № 960 от Президиума на 6 Велико Народно събрание от 15 юни 1948 г. Указ на Държавния съвет № 1094 за духовното стимулиране в НРБ. 1974. Указ на театрите. // Държавен вестник № 145 от 30 дек. 1949. Федотова, В. Н. Болгарская музыка ХХ века в контексте национальной художественной культуры. Москва: МУЗИЗДАТ, 2012. Фингарски, Петър. Читалище паметник „Отец Паисий“ в Самоков. Самоков: Приятел-Самоков, 2015 Фингов, Димитър. Рапорт от архитект Димитър Фингов изпратен за третия интернационален архитектурен конгрес. // Архитект, № 4–5, 1935. ФКЦ – Варна, За нас, История, <https://fccvarna.bg/%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81.html> Фурнаджиев, Н. Една вредна критика за романа „Тютюн“. // Литературен фронт, № 16, 13 март1952. 624 Хаджийски, Иван. Бит и душевност на нашия народ. – София: Български писател, 1966. Хаджийски, Иван. Избрани съчинения в три тома. Том I. Бит и душевност на нашия народ. – София: ЛИК Издания, 2002. Хаджикосев, Симеон. Българският символизъм. – София: Български писател, 1979. Хасер, Ханс. // Изкуство, 1964, № 7, с. 41–43. Хрисан Цанков. Наследство. Състав. Искра Цанкова, Кристина Тошева, Иван Драгошинов. – София: Валентин Траянов, 2003. Христова, Наталия. Българският случай: Култура, власт и интелигенция 1944–1989 г. – София: Нов български университет, 2015. Христоматия по история на българския драматичен театър. Т. 2. Състав. П. Пенев. – София: 1969. Хроника на ХХ век. Т. 1. – София: Абагар Холдинг, 1994. Хрушчов, Никита С. За широко внедряване на индустриалните методи, за подобряване на качеството и поевтиняване на строителството; Реч произнесена на 1.12.1954. – Архитектура, Отдел „Архитектура“ при СТНС, № 1, 1955. Цанев, Георги. Страници от историята на българската литература . Т. І–ІІІ – София: Наука и изкуство, 1967. Цанев, Стефан. Защита на свободния стих. // Литературен фронт, № 40, 4 окт. 1962. Цапенко, Михаил. Българската архитектура. // Архитектура и строителство, 1951, бр. 6. ЦДА, Института по строителна кибернетика съществува като самостоятелна организация в периода 1968–1976. В последствие функциите му се поемат от няколко отделни центъра и лаборатории. < https://www.google.bg/url?sa=t&rct=j &q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwifwoupjc7UA hU FlxoKHS5LAJ4QFggmMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.archives.government. bg%2Fimages%2F1249914456.doc&usg=AFQjCNGTPXXFVKfZI-zy62kH_9skV4hxiQ &sig2=mzoDWX0BTA1Y7xNOugwdkg> ЦДА, ф. 383, оп. 1, а. е. 137, л. 77. ЦДА, ф. 383, оп. 3, а.е. 6: Протокол от заседание на Сценарната комисия на 8.06.1950, с. 14. Централен държавен архив, фонд 195К, опис 1–3. Централен държавен архив. 3K „Монархически институт“, опис. 7, архивна единица 328, лист 5, Wikimedia Commons https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:BASA-3K7-328-5a-Sofia_Ivan_Vazov_National_Theatre,_1907.jpg. Център по архитектурознание – БАН. Пространството архитектура: Анализи и интерпретации в края на XX век. – София, Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2000. Център по архитектурознание – БАН. Пространството архитектура: Съвременната българска архитектура в контекста на еврпейската и световната. – София, Академично издателство „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2008. Членове на Българското инженерно-архитектно дружество в София. // Списание на БИАД в София, № 6–8, 1914. Шишманов, Иван. Програма за образование и култура. // Училищен преглед, 1903, № 6–7, с. 113–125. Шишманов, Иван. Ив. Вазов: Спомени и документи. – София: Български писател, 1976. Шоселов, Рашо. Киноизкуство, родено от свободата. // Киноизкуство, 1965, № 9. Щербина, Юлия. Автобиография реальности. // Сибирские огни, № 5, 2011. <http://www.sibogni.ru/magazines>. 40. Bulgarian 20th Century... 625 Щерн, Марчела. Архитект Фридрих Грюнангер. // Австрийски архитектурни влияния в София края на XIX – началото на XX век. Сборник. Двуезично издание. – София: Музей за история на София, 1998. Щерн, Марчела. Инженер – архитект Адолф Вацлав Колар. // Австрийски архитектурни влияния в София, края на XIX – началото на XX век. Сборник. Двуезично издание. – София: Музей за история на София, 1998. Юбилеен алманах на чехите в България 1868–1928. – София, 1928. Юбилеен годишник на Държавното рисувално училище, 1906. Яворов – литературни и биографични сюжети. Сборник с изследвания. – София: Издателски център „Боян Пенев“, 2009. Янев, Симеон. Българска детско-юношеска проза. – София: Отечество, 1987. Яворов, Пейо К. Събрани съчинения в 5 т.: Т. V. – София: Български писател, 1979. Янакиев, Александър. Българско кино. Енциклопедия. – София: Титра, 2000. Янакиев, Александър. Кинематографските салони в София. // Проблеми на изкуството, № 3, 2015, с. 7–9. Янакиев, Александър. Синема.bg. Сто години филмов процес: личности/филми/ кина. – София: Титра, 2003. Янакиев, Александър. Случи се! // Кино, бр. 4–5, 2011. Янакиев, Александър. Кино в България през 30-те г. на ХХ в. – София: Институт за изследване на изкуствата – БАН, 2001. Янев, Румен. Щурците. Вкусът на времето. – София : Парадокс, 2007. Япова, Кристина. Архивът на Добри Христов. София: Изд. Матом, 2002. Япова, Кристина. Църковност и музикално мислене. С примери от творчеството на Добри Христов. София: Институт за изкуствознание – БАН, 2006. Япова, Кристина. Музиката на горните сърца. София: Институт за изкуствознание – БАН, 2007. AUTHORS Ingeborg Bratoeva-Darakchieva (I. B.) Prof. Dr. Ingeborg Bratoeva-Darakchieva is Screen arts scholar in the Institute of Art Studies – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. She works in the areas of Bulgarian film history and of comparative film studies. She is a visiting professor in the National Academy for Theatre and Film Arts (2007 –), the New Bulgarian University (1999–2003) and the Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski” (2006 –), Masters program in Comparative film studies. Books: Bulgarian cinema from ‘’Kalin the Eagle” to “Mission ‘London” (2013) and European cinema – global and local (2013), both nominated for the Bulgarian Film Academy Award in 2013. In 2007 professor Bratoeva-Daraktchieva was awarded the Bulgarian Filmmakers’ Union Award in Film Criticism. Irina Genova (I. G.) Prof. Dr. Irina Genova is a research fellow and lecturer in art and visual studies at the New Bulgarian University and the Institute of Art Studies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. She has specialised in New Europe College, Bucharest (2004), National Institute of Art History (INHA), Paris (2005), Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, Munich (2009), Università degli Studi di Firenze (2012). Her publications discuss aspects of modernisms in Bulgaria and in neighbouring countries, as well as contemporary artistic practices. Among her books are Modernisms and Modernity – (Im)Possibility for Historicising (in English and in Bulgarian, Sofia, 2004), Tempus fugit. On Contemporary Art and Visual Image (in English and Bulgarian, Sofia, 2007), and Modern Art in Bulgaria: First Histories and Present Narratives beyond the Paradigm of Modernity (in English, Sofia 2013). She is a co-editor (with Angel V. Angelov) of the readers After-Histories of Art (Sofia, 2001) and Telling the Image (Sofia, 2003), as well as the compiler of Modern and Contemporary. On Art and its Histories (Sofia, 2010). Curator of a numerous exhibitions home and abroad. Claire Levy (C. L.) Prof. D.Sc. Claire Levy is a member of the Music Department at the Institute of Art Studies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. She received a post-doctoral Fulbright scholarship held at the Department of African American Studies, Indiana University, USA (1994–1995) and a short term specialization at the Institute of Popular Music in Liverpool, UK (1994). Her scholarly interests lie in the fields of Bulgarian musical culture, popular music studies and cultural theory of mu- 626 627 sic. Her publications include the books Dialogic Music: Blues, Popular Culture and the Myths of Modernity (2005), Ethnojazz: Local Prospects in the Global Village (2007), Musical Parody (2012), as well as numerous book chapters and articles published in Bulgaria, USA, UK, Finland, Holland, Romania, Germany, and Japan. A long-standing member of IASPM (The International Association for the Study of Popular Music) and its General Secretary and Chair in the period of 1999 ‒ 2005. She also served as the deputy director of the Institute of Art Studies (2004–2015), the deputy editor-in-chief of “Papers of BAS: Humanities & Social Sciences”, a member of the Editorial board of “Bulgarian Musicology” and the International advisory board of “Popular Music” (Cambridge University Press). She has won the Union of Bulgarian Composers’ book prize in the category of popular music studies (2012). Joanna Spassova-Dikova (J. S.) Prof. Dr. Joanna Spassova-Dikova is a research fellow at the Department of Theatre, Institute of Art Studies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. In 1992 she defended her PhD thesis at the St. Petersburg State Institute of Theatrе, Music and Cinematography and later specialized in Oxford, UK, and the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study. Since 2013 she has held the position of scientific secretary of BAS – Humanities and Social Sciences. Her publications include the books About Two Actors’ Constellations (Sofia, Kamea, 2004), Melpomene behind the Iron Curtain. Part I National Theatre: Canons and Resistances (Sofia, Kamea, 2015), Bulgarian Theatre between the Two World Wars during the 20th Century Volume 4 (in co-authorship, Sofia, Institute of Art Studies, 2011). The last two monographs have been awarded the Icarus Award for Best Critical Text by the Guild of Theatrе Scholars and Playwrights – Union of Bulgarian Artists. She is an author of numerous studies and articles on theatre in specialized encyclopedias and periodicals at home and abroad. Lecturer at various universities, leader and coordinator of scientific projects in the country and abroad. Teodora Stoilova-Doncheva (T. D.) Chief assistant Dr. Teodora Doncheva is Screen arts scholar in the Institute of Art Studies – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. She is educated from Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski” in the field of culturology. She is a screenplay writer and researcher in the field of screen arts and is interested in the Bulgarian cinema from its beginning, as well as in contemporary documentary cinema. In 2015, she defended her dissertation “Product Placement in Bulgarian TV Series. Relationships and Socio-Cultural Context”. Author of the book The Discreet Charm of Advertising (2015). Member of the Union of Bulgarian Film Makers, Filmautor and Union of Bulgarian Journalists. She publishes in a number of scientific and periodical issues, as well as in specialized cinema journals, such as “Kino” and “Artizanin”. 628 Stela Tasheva (S. T.) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Arch. Stela Tasheva graduated from the University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy in Sofia (2001) and defended her PhD thesis on the subject of “Semiotics of Architectural Graphics” at the Institute of Arts Studies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (2012), where one year later took the position of Assistant Professor, and in 2015 – associate professor. She is the author of the book Problems and Tendencies of Bulgarian Architectural Graphics in the 20th Century (2014). Her practical activities include participation in projects of residential and public buildings, developed individually or in team. Tasheva is a member of ICOMOS, Bulgarian Chamber and the Bulgarian Union of Architects. Elka Traikova (E. T) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Elka Traikova graduated from the “St. Kliment Ohridski” Sofia University with a degree in Bulgarian philology (1981) and defended her PhD thesis, entitled “The literary periodical press during the 1920s, at the Institute of Literature, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (1987). In 2003 she headed the Department of Modern and Contemporary Literature. During the period of 2001– 2012 she held the position of scientific secretary, and since 2013 – director of the Institute of Literature. In the period of 1990–1999 she headed a team engaged in a fundamental study of the literary periodicals in Bulgaria. In 1996–1998 she received a scholarship from the Central-European University, where she carried out an individual research project entitled “A History of literary polemics in Bulgaria and Russia in the period 1944–1989”. From 1996 to 1999 she delivered a series of lectures on modern and contemporary Bulgarian literature at a seminar of the American Research Foundation IREX. Since 2013 she has headed the research project “Virtual library “Ivan D. Shishmanov” – Bulgarian literature in translation”, financed by the National Science Fund. She is the compiler and editor of nine academic collections, including the analytical series Periodicals and Literature, published by now in five volumes. Her publications include the book Bulgarian Literary Polemics (2001) as well as a number of studies and articles in academic collections and literary journals. 629 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The team expresses their gratitude for the support and cooperation of The National Science Fund – Ministry of Education and Science, Bulgaria Institute of Art Studies – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Central Library – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Scientific Archive – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Institute of Literature – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Archive of the National Theatre Archive of the Satirical Theatre “Aleko Konstantinov” Archive of the Theatre “Bulgarian Army” Museum of History of Sofia Archive of the Union of Architects National Film Library Central State Archives, Sofia National Gallery, Sofia Sofia City Art Gallery Artists and Collectors, who provided photos from their personal archives 630 631 BULGARIAN 20th CENTURY IN ARTS AND CULTURE © TEAM, 2019 Reviewers Prof. Nadezhda Marinchevska, Prof. Kamelia Nikolova Editor Marinelli Dimitrova Translation Centre for Translations Rezon Ltd. Proofreader Margarita Spassova format 16/70/100 volume 632 pages Press: DIRECT SERVICES Ltd. 632