Begin forwarded message:
From: Mikheil Svanidze <[email protected]>
Date: Feb 07, 2013 1:54:31 PM EET
Subject: Conference on modernism and the post-socialist city in
Tbilisi
Dear all,
(Deadline is extended to February 15 I think and late submissions
may be possible)
Session proposal for the 5th International Urban Geographies
Conference of Post-Communist States: CATference 2013
Urban Research, Urban Theory and Planning Practice Tbilisi,
11th-13th September 2013
Modernism and the (post-)socialist city
In this session, we want to look at the (post-)socialist city from
the perspective of modernism. The goal is to explore the different
ways in which historically socialist and post-socialist cities have
been conceived and represented in their relation to modernism
(demarcation, embracement, modification etc.).
In this session, we heed to Berman’s (1983) distinction of three
component parts of “modernism”: the visions of urban living that
constitute modernism; the methods of modernization employed to
realize those visions; and the resultant lived modernity. This
division into three parts supports a more nuanced reassessment of
modernism and its legacies and suggests a critical position that
falls somewhere between ‘modernolatry’ and modernist-bashing
(Jencks, 2007). While accepting that many twentieth- century modern
dreams ended in catastrophe, Susan Buck-Morss argues that we should
work through the ruins of twentieth century modern dreams to
retrieve and reassess the modern ideas behind them (Buck-Morss,
2000). Such reassessment also has to question the predominant
limitation of modernism to a range of Western-centric concepts alone
(Robinson, 2006; also Gaonkar, 2001; Mitchell, 2001) and open
towards the idea of different modernities.
We are interested in the different ways in which modernism has been
articulated and negotiated in constituting the socialist city, from
Latin America to Eastern Europe, Africa, Central and Southeast Asia.
What role have different socialist conceptualizations (Soviet,
Maoist, Titoist, etc.) and their transformations played in this? How
was the Soviet understanding of the city as “the cradle of progress
and (…) a generative model of transformative modernity” (Alexander &
Buchli, 2007) implemented and which repercussions did this ambition
bring about? Do contemporary post-socialist cities, striving for
competitiveness in a globalised economy, use modernist legacies as
an asset – or do they, to the contrary, erase this heritage? If
urban life continues to be perceived as “modern”, how have the
articulations of modernism changed? If modernism is no longer a lens
onto urban life, what has come in its stead? This session is
therefore open to a variety of contributions, empirically or
theoretically focused. We particularly welcome accounts that make
comparative links as well as contribute to a critical understanding
of modernity/ies.
Please send your abstracts to the organisers by 10 February 2013.
Markus Kip (York University, Toronto): [email protected] Wladimir Sgibnev
(Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde): [email protected]
Vladimir US
CHIOSC | curator
http://chiosc.oberliht.com
http://plic.oberliht.com
http://chisineu.wordpress.com
http://bucuresti68.wordpress.com
http://www.facebook.com/Oberliht
Proiectul CHIOSC este realizat cu suportul financiar al Fundatiei
Culturale Europene http://www.eurocult.org
--
Moldova Young Artists Association "Oberliht"
http://oberliht.com
tel/fax: + (373 22) 286317
email: [email protected]
. . . . . . . . . . .
https://lists.idash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/oberlist
portal informational pentru arta si cultura din Moldova
information gateway for arts and culture from Moldova
_______________________________________________
oberlist mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.idash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/oberlist
