Urban landscapes as interpretative instruments to express political power

Daniela DUMBRVEANU1, Aurel GHEORGHILA1, Anca TUDORICU1 University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geography, Human and Economic Geography Department Romania

Abstract: This article is interested in presenting the principle of using landscape, especially urban landscape to express identities and political power. It discusses the fact that the process of understanding landscape is a matter of interpreting a meaning which is always based on founded assumptions and speculations. It is also discussing the idea that different things will hold a different meaning to different people emphasizing perception as an important aspect in social constructs of landscapes. Starting form the point were world is considered a huge album and society is basically a visual culture, the importance of images of places is presented and considered as a base for further development for how landscapes are both managed and communicated to people. Several case studies are considered to illustrate the argument of how urban landscapes can become instruments to interpret and express political power. Key words: urban landscape, interpretation, landscapes of power, national identity

1.INTRODUCTION Despite what most of the people think and believe, landscape, weather natural, rural or urban, it is not easy to decipher and understand. Landscape is easy to look at and find attractive, boring or dull. But it is certainly difficult to understand its degrees of complexity, its functions and the messages it might be communicating to public, visitors or tourists. In other words, landscape is difficult to interpret, due to the fact that reading it is not a matter of finding a typical cultural area, but a matter of seeing how landscapes come to mean different things to different people and how their meanings change and are contested (Crang, 1998). Understanding landscape is a matter of interpreting a meaning which is always based on founded assumptions and speculations due to the complexity of the concept. Even the natural landscape would imply assumptions when it comes to be interpreted by humans, but this paper it is mainly interested and focused on human built landscapes. Normally all landscapes incorporate a built, tangible

environment, and also an immaterial dimension attached to it which is normally given by the readers point of view. This is called perception. According to Crang (1998) and Holloway & Hubbard (2001), people make sense of places or construct places in their minds through three processes. First, through planned interventions such as planning, urban design; second, through the way in which they or others use specific places; and third, through various forms of place representations such as films, novels, paintings, news reports and so on. It is generally acknowledged that people encounter places through perceptions and images. As Holloway & Hubbard (2001, p. 48) describe this, interactions with places may be through direct experience of the environment or indirectly through media representations. However, what is critical is how this information is processed, namely, via mental processes of cognition, to form stable and learned images of place, which are the basis in peoples everyday interactions with the environment, built or natural. It is the mental representations either in the form of maps or images, that individuals create to

allow them to navigate through complex reality, because our surroundings are often more complex than the sense we make of them. Reading landscapes deals specifically with such mental images. Understanding landscapes centres on peoples perceptions and images and puts them at the heart of constructed, orchestrated activities, designed to shape the place and its future. When it comes to managing the landscape situation could become an attempt to influence and treat those mental maps in a way that is favourable to the present circumstances and future needs of the space. 2. URBAN LANDSCAPES AS SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS Present society it is definitely dominated by its visual culture. Therefore world can be looked at through its visual dimension, red through it and also understood. Hence it can be seen as an album with a multitude of landscapes including the landscapes: of everyday life, of power, of conflict, even of the body, which are in a strong interdependence, creating a vision of reality for each one of its members. According to anthropologist Appadurai (1986), things create people as much as people create things; therefore a social relationship doesnt necessarily exist exclusively between human beings the components of landscapes hold metaphorical meanings that can convey understanding and insight into past, present and future societies. In this respect, the urban landscape is probably the most interesting case. City is the point of maximum concentration for the power and culture of a community. The city does not simply happen; it is rather the a cumulative product, the creation of many lifetimes of creative efforts(Lewis Mumford, cited in Bowman 1995:44). The city is a palimpsest and a landscape of power; it is a composite the sum of all the erasures and overwritings, an overview of the societys history. Urban landscape is a result of a temporal process; each of its layers is a symbol of an

era. Cities are complex places, they never present a clear historical picture that can be comprehended at a glance; they are a collage of landscapes changing through time that embody meaning. Sometimes urban landscapes are more than just a creation, they are psychological tools, which can subtly impose points of view. According to Winchester (2003:66) one of the key ways in which power can be expressed, maintained and indeed, enhanced, is through the control and manipulation of landscapes and the practices of everyday life. This is how the powerful social groups are trying to impose their versions of reality to the others, shaping the environment after their own interests and affecting the entire axiological system of the community by proposing their own values. Therefore the landscapes of power are meant to reflect and reveal the power of those who construct, define and maintain them, having the capacity to legitimise the powerful by affirming the ideologies that created them in the first place(Winchester, 2003:67). Cities provide many examples of landscapes of power, such as buildings, monuments and even street names. Architecture has always been an easy way to express political power since the ancient times; pyramids were built to shelter the coffins of the kings, symbolising their rank and importance. Magnificent churches and cathedrals were constructed to express faith of communities, fortresses, monuments and other edifices were built to reflect power, to celebrate importance, to commemorate golden ages. Buildings have been used to express power of communities, power of events and also to evoke history, normaly through style, size, colour, shape etc.. 3. CASE STUDIES OF LANDSCAPES OF POWER Nowadays some buildings have kept size to expressing and suggesting the power of their creator. Size it is also used in buildings to

express meaning, either the meaning of a certain message, such as the greatness of a nation, its golden ages, the foreseen future etc. frequently it is also the case of the creator being one person identifying himself or herself with the nation or with the power or with both. Such a relevant example is, for thie case, is the House of the People(Casa Poporului) from Bucharest, Romania. The edifice was built at Nicolae Ceauescus idea, after he has visited North Korea where he developed an admiration for the grandiose personality cult encountered there and especially for the monumental totalitarian architecture. (Light, 2001). The initiative was sustained by the devastating earthquake from 1977, which damaged severely Bucharest and allowed the dictator to remake the city in his own image. (Light, 2001:1059) The central point of his creation was the Civic Centre, which was built to impress the foreign visitors with its magnitude. Bulevardul Victoria Socialismului (The Victory of Socialism Boulevard) was projected to surpass in size the Parisian Champs Elysees, being 3,5 km long and 96m wide, lined with tremendous apartments designed especially for the senior Communist Party officials. The notorious Casa Republicii (The House of Republic) has guerdoned Ceauescus plan, being the second largest building in the world, with a surface area of 300,000 square metres and occupying a land area of 6,3 ha. In order to accomplish this major project, during the period of its construction the Romanian population had to face serious problems (such as food rationing) because of Ceauescus decision to pay the countrys external debt by reducing the energy consumption and maximizing the exports without raising the production. Meanwhile, around 400 architects were designing Casa Republicii and the 20,000 persons involved in its construction were using one million cubic metres of marble, 900,000 cubic metres of hardwood

and 5kg of gold leaf in order to create a landscape of power, despite the hard period Romanians were going through. (Light, 2001)

Figure 1: Bulevardul Victoria Socialismului (today, Bulevardul Unirii - The Unity Boulevard) Source: http://www.peteava.ro/datafiles/storage/imagini/2007/180/b0639dffd9af6ca4649fe1d348 ff6bde7d0b3185-resize.jpg

In a paradoxical manner, the actual House of Parliament does express through its dimension the drama of the nations sacrifice. The whole process of building this edifice was of considerable length, implied huge amount of resources, particularly human resources. It also meant loss of a historical landscape and a community loss. After the fall of communism (in 1989) the enormous structure gained the name The House of the People, probably in recognition that the building was something for which all Romanians had endured considerable hardship (Light, 2001:1061) or symbolising the fact that the power of decision was finally in the hands of the demos. Today the construction shelters the post-socialist parliament, negating this way its totalitarianism connotation and being renamed as the Parliament Palace.

Figure 2: Casa Poporului The House of the People, today: Source:

http://theraconteur.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html

Frequently this type of building goes hand in hand with creating a whole urban landscape through which the political power is suggested. Commemorative street names, especially in urban areas are the most used element to evoke power. Their reading and interpretation could also be difficult, as they are public memorialisation of a nation, introducing the national history into the everyday consciousness of the urban populace(Light, 2004:155). According to Azaryahu (1997:479), as a ritual of revolution, the <renaming of the past> is a demonstrative act of substantial symbolic value and political resonance, introducing the political-ideological shift into ostensibly mundane and even intimate levels of human activities and settings. Hence, the commemorative street names are not only instrumental for mapping of the geography of the city, but also provide an official and authorised mapping of history(Azaryahu, 1997:480). The collapse of communist regime has involved the redefinition of whole life, society economy, political system, including the axiological system of the population and its national identity.

The reborn society focuses on rejecting the socialist past as much as on shaping a new reality. This also implies the reconfiguration of the landscapes, which includes the removal of the public statuary and monuments relevant for the communism and the reconstructions of the iconic buildings that had previously been demolished by socialist regimes. (Light, 2004) Moreover, the renaming of the streets is an important exercise of power for the new authorities, being meant to bury the recent past and to commemorate the relevant events for the history of the nation. For example, in Bucharest there were 288 street name changes between 1990 and 1997 in order to demonstrate Romanias post-socialist orientation and aspiration(Light, 2004:161). Some of these streets names have focused on the commemoration of the 1989 revolution when more than 1000 persons lost their lives in order to put the basis of a new Romania. Places like the location of the former Communist Party headquarters (and a main field of battle during the revolution) became national symbols: Revolution Square. Even in front of the massive building of House of the People the street signs celebrate the new era Romania has entered Bulevardul Libertii (Liberty Boulevard) and Bulevardul Naiunilor Unite (United Nations Boulevard). (Figure 3)

Figure 3 - Street signs in front of the House of the People; Source:

http://theraconteur.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html

Other streets were renamed after cities where many had died in the fighting (Timioara, Braov, Sibiu) or after individuals who have died in the revolution. On the other hand, pre-socialist political personalities overshadowed by the communism regime were also commemorated, important boulevards being named after liberal politicians (like Ion C. Brtianu) or after Romanias kings (Carol I, Ferdinand). Moreover, figures from culture and science especially from the period of Greater Romania (1918-1938, when Romania was as its great territorial extent) were celebrated, including musicians (George Enescu), painters (Theodor Pallady), architects (Petre Antonescu, Ion Mincu), actors (George Vraca), philosophers (Constantin Stere), scientists and many others. The same change happened in Berlin after the fall of the wall; the German reunification that followed led to the renaming of East Berlins GDR past, demonstrating the political transformation and emphasizing the aspect of democratisation as the quintessence of the process (Azaryahu, 1997:491). The process of decommemoration had two different stages the first one, in 1991, represented the effort of the district politicians to erase the Stalinist past from the cityscape, and the second one, more complex, was prompted by the Senate later on. The Independent Commission which was set up in 1993 was meant to examine the street names in the city centre and to suggest alternatives where needed. After the decision that Pierk, Marx and Engels must disappear(Berliner Zeitung, cited in Azaryahu, 1997:490) and many disputes among the politicians, MarxEngels Platz and Wilhelm-Pieck-Strasse were renamed, restoring their former names: Schlossplatz and Torstrasse. In this way, the traces of the former communist German state were erased from the cityscape, showing the beginning of a new era. Another way in which the political power can be materialized is through the monuments that can contribute to the social

constructions of ideologies. Although most are emblems of the past, the present still offers examples of using prominent sites to make political statements. Danish architect Johan Otto von Sprecklesens Arche de La Dfense (Figure 4) is one of the recent symbols of Paris, which contributes to the citys collection of monumental architecture. Part of Francois Mitterands ambitious building program, les Grands Travaux, the Grande Arche is situated in the centre of the new Parisian business and financial district, stating its signification in the realm of French capitalism. It is obvious that the building embodies public investment, but it accentuates governmental control and imposes its political power through its manipulation of the past. The Grande Arche is related to the Arch de Triomphe and uses this symbolism not only to identify the citys northwestern extension, but also to welcome new business interests to La Dfense (Chaslin, 1989). Moreover, the success of this monument made Francois Mitterrand continue the series of grand projects, including the extension of Louvre, adaptive reuse of Muse dOrsay, various projects for la Villete, LInstitute du Monde Arabe, Le Ministre des Finances and LOpra de la Bastille.

Figure 4 - La Grande Arche de la Dfense Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Grande_Arche_d e_La_D%C3%A9fense_et_fontaine.jpg

Furthermore, La Grande Arche de la Dfense is expressing Francois Mitterrands intention to create modern monuments that underline Frances central role in art, politics, and the world economy at the end of the 20th Century. One another significant concerning the reading of the landscape is the fact that the monuments are used to communicate along history specific messages. Normally, monuments are designed by artists who are using suggestion and symbols to communicate to express their signification, commemorating the period or the personality they represent, while the buildings amplify more their architectural value. Referring back to capital City of Bucharest one significant example is the Revolution Square with a complex of monuments. The most visible monument is also the most recent, namely Memorial of Rebirth or Revivals Memorial as its interpretation states. Revolution Square also accommodates Iuliu Manius statue, Corneliu Coposu statue and the Memorial Flame.

Figure 5: Revolution square. Source : http://tibinews.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/piatarevolutiei.jpg

The Square it is a typical case of a landscape being used to commemorate a historical period/event and people. Memorial

of Rebirth though heavily contested does communicate the whole message of the place. Firstly it has been designed to be land mark of the 1989 Romanian Revolution and the core of the historical space from within the square. Secondly it was specifically designed to continue in telling the modern story of the nation by subtly and unconventionally incorporating the other statues already existing in the area. The other two statues, of Iuliu Maniu and Corneliu Coposu, on one hand are evoking the personalities of the famous politicians on the other are the symbol of anti communist battle, both during interwar and post communist period. The lay out of the whole square with former Royal Palace on its western side (presently Romanian National Museum of Art); Central Committee of the Communist Party on the eastern one (presently Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reform); was the explanation of the events of the Romanian Revolution. The same lay out it is presently very convenient to express the story of those events in a commemorative way. The Memorial of Rebirth through its four components , design and inclusion of all the other square memorial elements is an example of using urban landscape to interpret history and national identity. The very first memorial component is The Victory Path, routed in the painful failure of Iuliu Maniu (prominent Romanian politician, National Peasant Christian Democratic Party, well known for his anti communist idea) to defeat communism, under the sad looks of Corneliu Coposu ( same Peasant Christian Party, anti communist, better known after 1989 as politician and for his actions to reform post communist politics), leads the young heroes The Reminiscence Wall and Recollection Square. Reminiscence Wall does list the name of all people who died during December 1989 events. Recollection Square is restating the faith of the nation through the orthodox cross cast in wooden inside the marble pavement of the square. The core of

the Recollection Square and the Revolution Square is the core of the orthodox cross from which it springs The Pyramid of Victory to commemorate both the people who have obtained it and the collapse of communism and express hope of a free future. 4. CONCLUSIONS The power of this landscape and the symbols used to express it, is complex. This space evokes history, commemorates events and people, states national identity and tells the story of the place. Interpreting such a landscape is a challenge and almost always a controversy, which has been the case of Revolution Square and the Memorial of Rebirth. As mentioned above, power is constructed through space; landscape is a social creation, a consequence of attitudes and actions and a witness of a nations layers of life. According to Bourdieu (1997), the construction and the distribution of the built environment allow the transmission of the meaning from one generation to the next, therefore landscape can only be interpreted in its own context, in terms of time and space. This is one of the reasons that make the public memorialisations of a nation become a subject to multiple readings and interpretations (Bell, 1999, cited in Light, 2004:155). 5. REFERENCES Appadurai, A., 1986, The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge: Polity Press Azaryahu, M., 1997, German reunification and the politics of street names:the case of East Berlin, Political Geography, vol. 16, no. 6, 479-493 Bourdieu, P., 1997, Pascalian meditations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bowman, A. and Pagano, M., 1995, Cityscapes & Capital, The Politics of Urban

Development, Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press Chaslin, F., 1989, A monument in perspective, La Grande Arche de la Dfense, Electra Moniteur, 19-125 Holloway L. & P. Hubbard (2001), People and Place: The Extraordinary Geographies of Everyday Life. Harlow Light, D., 2001, Facing the future: tourism and identity-building in post-socialist Romania, Political Geography 20, 1053-1074 Light, D., 2004, Street names in Bucharest, 1970-1997: exploring the modern historical geographies of post-socialist change, Journal of Historical Geography, 30, 154-172 Winchester, H., 2003, Landscapes: Ways of imagining the world, Pearson Education