UDC 72.03(497.

11)

ALEKSANDAR KADIJEVI

On the later architecture of Leskovac and its place in Serbian architecture

ABSTRACT: The paper concisely and clearly considers the position of the architecture of Leskovac in the later Serbian architecture. Besides evaluating the major architectural achievements and their builders, the results of the historiographical research thus far are assessed. The paper also raises questions of the protection of this in many ways neglected architectural stock. KEY WORDS: architecture, Serbia, Leskovac, sacral and profane buildings, historiography, protection

Historiographic research of various epochs of the later architecture of Leskovac has shown significant increase in the last twenty years. The numerousness, thoroughness and a high degree of currentness of the monographs and reviews have considerably contributed to the knowledge about typical buildings in Leskovac dating in the 19th and 20th centuries.1 Besides the architectural and urbanistic heritage of the town on the Veternica, the latest research includes the places in its vicinity, such as Vuje, Grdelica, Lebane, Vlasotince, the Sijarinska Spa, Bojnik, Bujanovac, Vranje, etc. As regards to the methodology, historiographers have primarily observed monuments in respect to historicity, economics and their artistic impression in space. One group of interpreters focused on the issues of protection. Until the end of the 1980's and the beginning of the 1990's, when research was conducted in a larger scope under the initiative of the curator of the National Museum Sran Markovi, there were few rare and partial papers on the architecture of Leskovac. The periods of the later architecture have not only been initially unresearched, but also inadequately differentiated and imprecisely defined temporally. Alongside Markovi's initiative, which resulted in a range of papers, books and presentations on conferences of historians of architecture from Belgrade and Leskovac, another important influence comes from the conservator Milorad Vojinovi (19371998), who, late in his life,
1 See Leskovac Proceedings from 1985 to 2007, as well as several monographs on the architectural heritage and cultural and historical development of Leskovac, published by the National Museum of Leskovac during that period.

265

ALEKSANDAR KADIJEVI

maintained a high level of historiographic currentness of the Leskovac architectural heritage. Through the activities of a large number of historiographers from 1985 onwards numerous buildings from the later architecture in Leskovac and the vicinity have been historiographically portrayed. With regard to structure and scientific importance, these papers can be divided into initial and exemplary (strategic) and with regard to scope into concise and detailed. The majority of observed buildings have been monumental public and typical private buildings as well as the more prosperous periods in the town construction (the beginning of the 20th century, the period between World War I and World War II). In addition to the monographs analyzing well-known buildings and reviews of the activities of the leading Serbian architects in Leskovac and its vicinity, the literature contains comments on the genesis of styles that can be found in the stock of buildings. Although the contributions of historiographers added significantly to the rehabilitation of the later heritage of Leskovac after a long period of scientific neglect in the modern architectural and urbanistic practice, many issues important for understanding its wider historical and cultural value have remained unrectified. One such issue relates to the place of the Leskovac architecture in the later history of architecture in Serbia. The answer to that question is inextricably bound to the genesis of the later architecture in Leskovac, which is still unravelled enough (a larger number of buildings have not been analyzed, attributed and dated). Since the cultural and economic development of the town on the Veternica had a changeable and qualitatively uneven history with many ups and downs, it can be said that the level of architecture oscillated during different periods. It is noticeable that the greatest achievements happened during the longer peaceful periods despite the internal political instability and economic crises. Nonetheless, this does not mean that all longer peaceful periods implied the rise in the Leskovac architecture and urbanism. On the contrary. The later period is understood as the period of the renewal of the Serbian state and its culture after several centuries of oppression of the Ottomans. That is the reason why the periodization of the later Serbian architecture begins with the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, when the construction of the own stock in Serbia gained momentum. The later period, according to competent historiographers, lasted until 1918 when the modern period began. It lasted until 1945, which was the beginning of the contemporary architecture. The last decade of the 20th century and the first one in the 21st century can be considered the period of the latest, current architectural production. The qualitative level of the architecture of Leskovac was essentially determined by general cultural and historical circumstances in southeast Serbia during the last two centuries. Since the end of the 18th century until the beginning of World War I the later architecture of Leskovac was not much different from the architecture in other parts of east and south Serbia, Macedonia, Raka Region, Kosovo and Metohija. The burden of the Ottoman heritage, who ruled this area longer than central

266

ON THE LATER ARCHITECTURE OF LESKOVAC AND ITS PLACE IN SERBIAN ARCHITECTURE

Serbia and Vojvodina, slowed down the emancipatory processes in the Leskovac of the 19th century. A few Turkish lodgings (konak), parts of the former centre of town, the old church Odaklija as well as Damjanov's churches in Peenjevac and Turekovac are the most important monuments of the Leskovac architecture of that time. The end of the century and the beginning of another were marked by a full emancipation and europeization of the Leskovac architecture with the purpose of establishing institutions of the independent Kingdom of Serbia. At that time in Leskovac worked prominent Serbian architects, like Vladimir Nikoli, Svetozar Ivakovi and Svetozar Jovanovi Senior. The period between the two wars was an even more fruitful and successful time for the Leskovac architecture. Besides local, less famous architects (like Branko Tasi), at that time in Leskovac and the vicinity worked leading Serbian architects of modern academic and national stylistic orientation Branislav Koji, Momir Korunovi, ura Bajalovi, Mia Manojlovi, Isak Azriel, as well as the renowned Russian immigrant architects Vasilij Androsov and Grigorije Samojlov. After World War II and a short period of socialistic bureaucratized architecture, since mid 1960's until late 1980's rose buildings in the late modern style. Besides the initial urbanistic impulses of architects Ratomir Bogojevi and Momilo Belobrk, in that long and financially stable period there were paradoxically no significant contributions to the contemporary Serbian architecture and no projects of any well-known Serbian architects (except the reconstruction of the National Museum of the architect Aleksandar Radojevi). Neither did postmodernism leave any significant marks on Leskovac, or, for that matter, deconstructivism, neomodernism and other styles which emerged at the turn of the century. The state of the later and contemporary architecture of Leskovac shown so far, which can be studied in more detail through historiographic books, indicates that the cultural visionariness of those who commissioned buildings in Leskovac was connected with their economic position and, therefore, most notable in the period between the two wars. Although this was a period of only 23 years, at that time Leskovac was quite outstanding in the architecture of Serbia. Never before or after did the initiatives of its citizens attract attention of so many significant architects from government and private sectors. The rise was seen both in the profane and sacral architecture, in the application of new ideas and materials and in the dominant high quality technical and aesthetic ideas. The stated positive evaluations oblige us to ask a range of questions which should be answered in more detail through future research. What is the position of the architecture of Leskovac in relation to other regions of Serbia and in relation to the whole period of two centuries? Has Leskovac been on the periphery or was it some kind of a centre of architectural activities? Can its stock be compared with other places in Serbia? What attracted some of the most significant Serbian architects to work there? Why was the development so uneven and discontinuous? What has been the role of the protection committee in the preservation and revitalization of cultural monuments thus far? What can be expected in the future?

267

ALEKSANDAR KADIJEVI

The architecture of Leskovac under the Turkish rule was not much different from that in other occupied places in Serbia and the surrounding area. It can be classified on the higher end of the scale within the frames of Turkish-Balkans styles. Not even the Odaklija Church can be classified as one of the better; it is an average achievement of the Serbian sacral architecture in the areas under the Turkish rule. On the other hand, the churches in Peenjevac and Turekovac are of much greater value because they were built by the most prestigious group of builders (tajfa) at the time, the Damjanov Tajfa. In the period of europeization until 1918 Leskovac became radically more noticeable on the architectural map of Serbia. At that time it was established as an important regional centre, but it was still less influential than Ni and Skoplje. In the period between the two world wars, this was even more pronounced and Leskovac became more important than most towns in Serbia. Due to their size and geostrategic position, Ni and Skoplje (the centres of the regional units, banovinas) still excelled, but Leskovac was more prominent than other towns of the similar size. After World War II a period of urbanistic growth and modernization began, which, unfortunately, did not bring the change in quality. There was a rise in the standard of collective living and work and traffic infrastructure was improved, but no projects were undertaken that would stand out in the national and regional terms. Those projects that were realized simply blended into the Yugoslav average. Sacral architecture was particularly marginalized unlike memorial sculptures and architecture, which became increasingly ideologized. It can be concluded that, after Ni, Leskovac has always been the second centre of architecture in east and south Serbia. When compared to other larger Yugoslav administrative and cultural centres Belgrade, Novi Sad, Skoplje, Zagreb, Sarajevo and Ljubljana, as well as the regional giants Sophia, Bucurest, Athens, Thessaloniki and Istanbul, Leskovac was a natural periphery because of its position. What is noticeable, however, is that in the period between the two world wars it rose above most of similar Serbian towns Pritina, Kosovska Mitrovica, Prizren, Pirot, Kragujevac, Poarevac, Kraljevo, Smederevo and Uice. Only aak, abac and Zrenjanin could compare with Leskovac in respect to the accomplished level of architecture. Besides the demolition of old buildings and transformation of the Ottoman Leskovac into a European and Serbian town, when several priceless examples of Turkish-Balkans style disappeared, the most devastating to the architecture of Leskovac was the allies bombing in 1944, which destroyed a large number of various buildings. Similarly, in some urbanistic undertakings after World War II many valuable buildings built in the past were torn down. Leading Serbian architects from the private sector were attracted to the town on the Veternica both by lucrative business offers and by the surroundings, the culture of its Europe-oriented leaders and energetic industrials, entrepreneurs and experts in various fields. The lack of dogmatism and a pluralistic relation towards all relevant styles, the inclination towards high quality and the permanence of the stock, quite expressed on the side of the commissioners, attracted the architects from the state sector and inspired them to build in Leskovac and its vicinity. It is important to

268

ON THE LATER ARCHITECTURE OF LESKOVAC AND ITS PLACE IN SERBIAN ARCHITECTURE

stress that they have rarely built outside of Belgrade, the centre towards which all architectural activities in Serbia gravitate. The future development of the architecture of Leskovac will depend on the degree of emancipation of its builders and cultural workers. Financial assets have not been as crucial as the awareness of the importance of architecture for the cultural rise of an area. Relying on the local tradition and on the ideas of modern architects from around the world can bring an acceptable result in the fields of projecting and engineering. Of great significance is the engagement of the Leskovac architects in the popularization of their profession in a wider context. The once successful tradition of attracting prominent experts from other regions should also be renewed. Although the monument protection committee has been successful in the area of Leskovac and its vicinity in the period after World War II, still a great deal of building stock with a historical and artistic value remains out of its reach. This has been contributed by the fact that there have been no solid criteria which, due to the lack of historiographical evaluation, could not have been established in the first place. On the basis of the present state and conservatorial experiences thus far, it can be concluded that the stock of Leskovac and its vicinity deserves a special institute for the protection of the monuments of culture according to many parameters, or at least a branch of the Regional Institute for the Protection of the Monuments of Culture. This would enable a thorough and complete investigation and protection of the complex heritage in cooperation with scientific institutions in Serbia.2

MAIN LITERATURE 1. M. Vojinovi, Arhitektonsko naslee Leskovca (1878. do 1940. god.), Leskovaki zbornik HH, Leskovac 1985, 321333. 2. Z. Manevi, O vrednovawu graditeqskog naslea novijeg doba u Leskovcu, Leskovaki zbornik HHHH, Leskovac 1989, 4748. 3. A. Kadijevi S. Markovi, Graditeqstvo Leskovca i okoline izmeu dva svetska rata, Leskovac 1996. 4. D. Maskareli, Istraivawa novijeg graditeqskog naslea Leskovca i okoline, Leskovaki zbornik H, Leskovac 2002, 233240.

2 This paper resulted from work on the Artistic Topography of Leskovac, initiated by the Arts Division of the Matica Srpska in 2005.

269

ALEKSANDAR KADIJEVI

Pasha's Palace in Leskovac

The County Court in Leskovac

270

ON THE LATER ARCHITECTURE OF LESKOVAC AND ITS PLACE IN SERBIAN ARCHITECTURE

The House of Sotir Ili

271

ALEKSANDAR KADIJEVI

The Grammar School in Leskovac

A View of King Petar Street

272

ON THE LATER ARCHITECTURE OF LESKOVAC AND ITS PLACE IN SERBIAN ARCHITECTURE

The Cathedral of the Holy Trinity

273

ALEKSANDAR KADIJEVI

Aleksandar Kadijevi O NOVIJOJ ARHITEKTURI LESKOVCA I WENOM MESTU U SRPSKOM GRADITEQSTVU Rezime Istoriografska istraivawa razliitih epoha novijeg leskovakog graditeqstva u posledwih dvadeset godina u upadqivom su usponu. Svojom brojnou, analitinou i visokim stepenom aktuelizacije, monografski i pregledni radovi znatno su obogatili saznawa o reprezentativnim leskovakim zdawima iz devetnaestog i dvadesetog veka. Osim arhitektonsko-urbanistikog naslea grada na Veternici, u novijim istraivawima zahvaena su i mesta u wegovom okruewu, kao to su Vuje, Grdelica, Lebane, Vlasotince, Sijarinska bawa, Bojnik, Bujanovac, Vrawe i dr. Delovawem veeg broja istoriografa od 1985. godine do danas, mnogobrojni spomenici novije arhitekture u Leskovcu i okolini dobili su svoj istoriografski prikaz. U metodolokom pogledu, istoriografi su spomenike prevashodno razmatrali sa stanovita istorinosti, ekonominosti i wihovog umetnikog doivqaja u prostoru. Deo tumaa usredsredio se i na pitawa zatite. Po strukturi i naunom znaaju wihovi prilozi se mogu podeliti na inicijalne i egzemplarne (strateke), a po obimu na saete i iscrpne. Prednost su po pravilu dobili monumentalni javni i reprezentativni privatni objekti, kao i prosperitetniji periodi u izgradwi grada (poetak dvadesetog veka, period izmeu dva svetska rata). Osim monografskih prikaza znamenitih zdawa, osvrta na delovawe vodeih srpskih arhitekata u Leskovcu i okolini, u literaturi je bilo i komentara o genezi stilova koji su zastupqeni na izgraenom fondu. Iako su prilozi istoriografa znatno doprineli rehabilitaciji novijeg leskovakog naslea nakon dugog razdobqa wegove naune neistraenosti i zapostavqawa u savremenoj arhitektonsko-urbanistikoj praksi, mnoga pitawa od znaaja za razumevawe wegove ire istorijske i kulturoloke vrednosti ostala su neraspravqena. Jedno od wih se odnosi na mesto leskovake arhitekture u novijoj graditeqskoj istoriji Srbije. Odgovor na to pitawe neraskidivo je vezan za jo uvek nedovoqno rasvetqenu genezu novije arhitekture u Leskovcu (definitivno nije analizovan, atribuiran i datovan vei broj objekata). S obzirom na to da je kulturno-ekonomski razvoj grada na Veternici imao promenqivu, kvalitativno neujednaenu istoriju, punu uspona i padova, moe se rei da je i nivo arhitekture oscilirao tokom wenih razliitih perioda. Upadqivo je da je najvie ostvareno u duim razdobqima mira, uprkos unutrawoj politikoj nestabilnosti i ekonomskim krizama. Ipak, to ne znai da su svi dui mirnodopski periodi podrazumevali i uspon leskovake arhitekture i urbanizma naprotiv. Kvalitativni nivo arhitekture Leskovca sutinski je bio determinisan optim kulturno-istorijskim prilikama koje su vladale u jugoistonoj Srbiji u posledwa dva veka. Od isteka osamnaestog stolea do kraja Prvog svetskog rata, novija arhitektura Leskovca se nije mnogo razlikovala od one u drugim delovima istone i june Srbije, Makedonije, Rake oblasti, Kosova i Metohije. Teret otomanskog naslea, ija se vlast na tom podruju due odrala nego u centralnoj Srbiji i Vojvodini, usporio je emancipatorske procese u devetnaestovekovnom Leskovcu. Nekoliko konaka, delovi nekadawe arije i stara crkva Oxaklija, kao i Damjanovqeve cr-

274

ON THE LATER ARCHITECTURE OF LESKOVAC AND ITS PLACE IN SERBIAN ARCHITECTURE

kve u Peewevcu i Turekovcu, najznaajniji su spomenici leskovake arhitekture tog razdobqa. Kraj veka, kao i poetak sledeeg, oznaen je punom emancipacijom i evropeizacijom leskovake arhitekture u funkciji utemeqewa ustanova nezavisne Kraqevine Srbije. Tada u Leskovcu grade istaknuti srpski arhitekti, poput Vladimira Nikolia, Svetozara Ivakovia i Svetozara Jovanovia Starijeg. Period izmeu dva rata predstavqao je jo plodnije i uspenije razdobqe za leskovaku arhitekturu. Osim domaih mawe poznatih graditeqa (poput Branka Tasia), tada su u Leskovcu i okolini gradili vodei srpski arhitekti moderne, akademske i nacionalne stilske orijentacije Branislav Koji, Momir Korunovi, ura Bajalovi, Mia Manojlovi, Isak Azriel, kao i renomirani ruski neimari emigranti Vasilij Androsov i Grigorije Samojlov. Posle Drugog svetskog rata i kratkotrajnog razdobqa socrealistike birokratizovane arhitekture, od sredine este decenije do kraja osamdesetih godina podiu se objekti u duhu kasne Moderne. Osim poetnih urbanistikih impulsa arhitekte Ratomira Bogojevia i Momila Belobrka, u tom dugom i finansijski stabilnom periodu paradoksalno nije ostvaren znaajniji primer savremene srpske arhitekture, niti je zabeleen rad nekog istaknutijeg domaeg graditeqa (sem rekonstrukcije Narodnog muzeja arhitekte Aleksandra Radojevia). Ni postmodernizam nije zabeleio vanije rezultate u Leskovcu, kao ni dekonstruktivizam, neomodernizam i drugi pravci na razmei posledwih vekova. Ukratko prikazano stawe u novijoj i savremenoj arhitekturi Leskovca, koje se moe podrobnije upoznati iz dostupne literature, pokazuje da je kulturno vizionarstvo leskovakih naruilaca, vezano i za wihovu ekonomsku afirmaciju, bilo najizraenije u periodu izmeu dva svetska rata. Iako se radilo o razdobqu od svega dvadeset tri godine, Leskovac se tada posebno izdvojio u arhitekturi Srbije. Nikada ranije, a ni kasnije, inicijative wegovih graana nisu privukle pawu toliko znaajnih arhitekata iz dravnog i privatnog sektora. Uspon se ogledao u profanoj i sakralnoj arhitekturi, primeni novih ideja i materijala, prevlasti kvalitetnih tehnikih i estetskih reewa. Arhitektura Leskovca pod Turcima se nije posebno isticala u odnosu na druga okupirana mesta u Srbiji i okruewu. Moe se svrstati u vii prosek u okvirima tursko-balkanskog stila. Ni crkva Oxaklija ne spada u uspenija, nego pre u prosena ostvarewa srpskog crkvenog graditeqstva na prostorima pod turskom vlau, dok crkve u Peewevcu i Turekovcu imaju veu vrednost, jer ih je podigla tada najuglednija balkanska tajfa Damjanov. Period evropeizacije do 1918. godine Leskovac radikalno uzdie na arhitektonskoj karti Srbije. On se tada konstituie kao znaajni regionalni centar, ali ipak mawe uticajan od Nia i Skopqa. U razdobqu izmeu dva svetska rata afirmacija je jo naglaenija; tada Leskovac pretie veinu gradova u Srbiji. Ni i Skopqe zbog svoje veliine i geostratekog znaaja (banovinski centri) i daqe predwae, ali se Leskovac istie u odnosu na mesta sline veliine. Posle Drugog svetskog rata poiwe period urbanistikog proirewa i modernizacije grada na Veternici, to mu ne donosi i kvalitativni pomak u arhitekturi. Podignut je nivo kolektivnog stanovawa i rada, unapreena saobraajna infrastruktura, ali nisu izvedeni projekti koji bi se isticali u nacionalnim i regionalnim okvirima. Oni realizovani samo su se utopili u jugoslovenski prosek. Posebno je marginalizovana sakralna arhitektura, za razliku od memorijalne skulpture i arhitekture koje su dobile naglaeno ideologizovanu notu.

275

ALEKSANDAR KADIJEVI

Moe se zakquiti da je Leskovac uvek bio drugi centar, posle Nia, arhitekture u istonoj i junoj Srbiji. U odnosu na vee jugoslovenske administrativno-kulturne centre Beograd, Novi Sad, Skopqe, Zagreb, Sarajevo i Qubqanu, kao i regionalne gigante Sofiju, Bukuret, Atinu, Solun i Istambul, Leskovac je zbog svog poloaja prirodno predstavqao periferiju. Ali upadqivo je da se on izmeu dva rata uzdigao iznad veine slinih srpskih gradova Pritine, Kosovske Mitrovice, Prizrena, Pirota, Kragujevca, Poarevca, Kraqeva, Smedereva i Uica. Samo se aak, abac i Zrewanin donekle mogu porediti sa wim u pogledu nivoa ostvarene arhitekture. Vodee srpske arhitekte iz privatnog sektora, osim primamqivih poslovnih ponuda, privlaili su i ambijent grada na Veternici, kultura wegovih evropski orijentisanih elnika i preduzimqivih naruilaca (industrijalaca, preduzetnika i struwaka razliitih profila). Nedogmatinost i pluralistiki odnos prema svim relevantnim stilovima, tewa ka kvalitetu i postojanosti fonda, izraeni kod investitora, privukli su i arhitekte iz dravnih biroa da grade u Leskovcu i okolini. Vano je istai da su oni veoma retko gradili izvan Beograda, u kojem se odvijala i kanalisala celokupna arhitektonska delatnost u Srbiji. Osim ruewa i transformacije otomanskog Leskovca u evropski-srpski grad, kada je nestalo vie dragocenih primera tursko-balkanskog stila, najrazornije su se po arhitekturu Leskovca odrazila saveznika bombardovawa 1944. godine, koja su unitila velik broj objekata razliitih namena. Isto tako, u pojedinim urbanistikim zahvatima posle Drugog svetskog rata devastirano je mnogo vrednih graevina nastalih u minulim epohama.

276