l'Archive Ouverte de l'ICOMOS : e-publications sur le patrimoine culturelTalot pysyvät, ihmiset vaihtuvat: sosialistisen yhteiskunnan rakentaminen entisessä suomalaisessa Kurkijoen kirkonkylässä NeuvostoliitossaNettaBöökauthor[Title: Houses stay, people move. Building a socialist society in a former Finnish settlement in Kurkijoki in the Soviet Union] The study examines the construction of a socialist society from an architectural point of view in the former Finnish settlement of Lopotti in the municipality Kurkijoki as part of the Karelian-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic after the territorial cessions of Finland following the Winter War (1939–1940) and the Continuation War (1941–1944). It sheds light on the norms, goals and principles of construction and planning in the rural areas of the Soviet Union, both at the time of the cessions and later on, which also determined the shaping of the former Finnish territories after the wars. As a subject of study, Lopotti or, since the cessions, Kurkijoki, offers rare opportunities to examine the fates of buildings representing foreign culture within the context of a new state, because almost all the buildings of the pre-war period have been exceptionally well preserved, both through the wars and the Soviet era. Sovietisation meant bringing all aspects of society under the direction and control of the Communist Party and a complete change of population. The restructuring of the countryside was guided by the division between industrial and military towns and rural areas created in the 1920s, and by the classification of collective farms and the ideal of the collective village created in the 1930s. The Finnish buildings were exploited as a resource, hybridised or adapted to the needs of socialism, both in terms of their function and architecture. After Finland temporarily retook the area in 1941, it was returned to Finnish normalcy, that is, dehybridised. After the cession of territory in autumn 1944, the process of sovietisation was repeated. For Kurkijoki, however, sovietisation did not bring about the modernisation of living conditions and society in the same sense as in post-revolutionary Russia; on the contrary, compared to the Finnish period, its material development stagnated or even took a step backwards. Thanks to the rare survival of its built environment, the Kurkijoki settlement also provides an exceptional starting point for examining the cultural encounter or clash and the reception of the buildings of a foreign culture within a new state context amidst the process of Sovietisation and after the reconquest in 1941. Many factors influenced the way in which this building resource was dealt with in the Soviet Union, especially the position of the individual in a socialist society, the ambivalent attitude of the authorities, the blurring of the Finnish history of the area and rootlessness. Nevertheless, the case of Kurkijoki shows that even buildings of a foreign culture with contradictory connotations can be extensively hybridised when, at the same time, they are cleansed of culturally or ideologically alien features. However, it may be difficult or take several generations to incorporate such a resource into the national building heritage. In the Soviet Union, the Kurkijoki settlement had the status of the local and central village of the Kurkijoki sovkhoz, for which an extensive town and building plan was drawn up in 1975 in line with the then current ideal of an agrotown. However, by the time of the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, the plan had only been implemented to a limited extent and ultimately, in the postsocialist period, there was no longer any justification for the implementation of the Kurkijoki urban development plan. The pre-war building stock in the actual settlement survived the Soviet era almost intact. On the Soviet scale, the case of the Kurkijoki settlement is just one example of the failure of rural modernisation and urbanisation. The large-scale plans did not match the available financial resources, and the rigid and hierarchical administrative system did not really allow for the specificities of the local building tradition and the use of local resources.04. Histoire06. Histoire de l'architecture01. Généralités02. Patrimoine agricole04. Ensembles architecturaux05. Europe2024Aalto University;Department of ArchitectureThèse

Pour les travaux déposés par leur propre auteur: L'Archive Ouverte de l’ICOMOS est un auto-archivage. ICOMOS n'est pas responsable de l'exactitude des informations fournies dans les documents déposés. Les opinions exprimées et les données contenues dans les documents déposés, ainsi que leurs métadonnées associées, n’engagent l'ICOMOS en aucune façon et relèvent de la seule responsabilité de leurs auteurs. Les documents déposés ne sont pas automatiquement approuvés par l'ICOMOS. ICOMOS respecte le droit d'auteur et tous les documents déposés dans l’Archive Ouverte de l'ICOMOS restent la propriété de leurs auteurs. Lorsque les auteurs auto-archivent leurs documents et les métadonnées associées, ils déclarent posséder la propriété intellectuelle du matériel qu'ils déposent. Ils accordent à l'ICOMOS le droit de le conserver dans l’Archive Ouverte et de le rendre accessible en ligne au public de façon permanente et gratuite. ICOMOS n'assume aucune responsabilité en cas de violation du droit d'auteur dans la distribution des documents ou des métadonnées.

Pour les travaux déposés par une personne autre que leur auteur: En déposant des documents et métadonnées associées qui ne sont pas son propre travail, la personne qui dépose déclare qu’elle a été nommée par l’auteur ou le détenteur du droit d’auteur pour réaliser le dépôt dans l’Archive, ou que le matériel est dans le domaine public, et accepte la pleine responsabilité de toute violation du droit d’auteur que la distribution de ces fichiers ou des métadonnées pourrait entraîner.

Si vous acceptez ces termes, cliquer sur le bouton de dépôt.