Abstract:

My research focuses on the development of the field of architecture, including projects and discourses, in Soviet Uzbekistan from the 1930s to the early 1950s. The establishment of new educational and creative architectural institutions in the republic after 1924 led to the reshaping of the professional field and the influx of the specialists from other parts of the Union. At the same time, the ustos (‘masters’ in Uzbek) who belonged to the local architectural traditions still remained and had to change their professional paths. On the other hand, the stylistic debates about the new architecture emerging throughout the country were exceptionally lively. Although it has been previously largely assumed that the transition to so-called socialist realist architecture (a term barely used in the professional circle, as I revealed) was clear-cut and designed top-down, I complicate the picture by showing a diverse range of various opinions on what Soviet Uzbek architecture should look like from those who were involved in the discussion: architects, ustos, restorers, Orientalists, and bureaucrats. I argue that (1) the question of how to define the ‘national’ in architecture as well as the ways and limits of applying such a quality in projects, was always central in professional discussions. Additionally, I show that (2) it was the ustos’ expertise that was desperately needed to create truly ‘national in form and socialist in content’ buildings and to develop the Soviet architectural school, so their skills were used in many different ways, from decorative works to restoration projects and teaching. Moreover, I state that (3) the search for the contemporary architectural language was mostly very much historically centered; the choice of different historical references for the projects as well as their critique was based on the interpretations of the ‘Uzbek national heritage’.

The paper is based on archival materials from the State Archive of the Republic of Uzbekistan, all the protocols of the creative discussions and reports of the Union of Soviet Architects of Uzbekistan for the period indicated. Additionally, I rely on a wide range of the published sources by the architects and critics as well as their memoirs.