Paper short abstract:

In the southern republics of the USSR, the Brezhnev era corresponds to a moment of awakening of the national consciousness and the architecture of this period reflects this aspect.

Paper long abstract:

The objects of the Soviet world that we will focus on in this article are architectural and concern the material culture of the southern Soviet republics under Brezhnev. They have in common that they were built for an anniversary (ûbilej in Russian) and their commemorative significance oscillates between two groups of celebrations: those of socialist mythology and those of the national pantheon. On the borderline between sovietology and architectural history, the theme of the project highlights the opposition between dates linked to the heroes of communism (Lenin, the October Revolution, etc.) and others linked to the national consciousness (pre-revolutionary events, famous people, etc.). Inaugurating a building to commemorate is a very Soviet practice and raises questions about the relationship of Soviet power, architects and citizens to the temporality in which their practices are embedded. The present and the past mingle with architecture around architectural festivities whose purpose is presumably unifying. The anniversary buildings (and their graphic representation) that we study (Armenian Genocide Memorial (1965) in Yerevan, Lenin Palace (1970) in Alma-Ata, Mirzo Tursunzoda Mausoleum (1981) in Dushanbe or Lenin Square (1984) in Bishkek) are remarkable because they mark the Soviet landscape and present singular architectural qualities mixing modern properties, kitsch attributes and inspirations of the capitalist world. In the post-Soviet period, these architectures were sometimes destroyed in the context of "decommunization" but were also sometimes taken up as symbols of independence, which raises the question of their heritage value. From a methodological point of view, this research combines architectural analysis, ethnographic interviews and state and personal archives, which are indispensable tools for the study of material culture. The main result of this research is the idea that the architectural calendar reflects the contradictory temporal paradigm in which Soviet citizens are locked in this Brezhnevian period of "stagnation". These conclusions are in continuity with the research of many scholars such as Boris Chukhovitch, Jean-Louis Cohen and Richard Klein in the history of modern architecture, Edwin Bacon, Mark Sandle, Catherine Poujol, Isabelle Ohayon and Taline Ter Minassian in the history of the late Soviet Union.