During the first half of the social history ХХ century of European countries and the Soviet Union as a reaction to world events: the First World War, the revolutionary outbreaks in many European countries, the political, economic and cultural crisis, the disappointment of various segments of the population in the existing political regimes − in the European countries were born national-socialist parties that in some states formed totalitarian political regimes on the basis of a single party headed by a leader. From the side of state power, the replacement of the system of government led to the need for the formation of the urban environment as a carrier of a new state ideology, from the side of society there was a birth of a new social consciousness, which inevitably reflected in new directions of development of culture and architecture During the 1930s, the Soviet Union, both theoretically and practically, consolidated itself in positions of totalitarianism of the authorities with corresponding changes in architecture. Due to the common features in the system of governance, European states and the USSR certainly had common directions in architecture − axial symmetry, which as an architectural means always proclaims the order in the state, the large scale of buildings − a sign of strength and invincibility, composition based on the subordination of parts as a whole, reflecting the need for praise of power. But the differences in social stratification, which is natural in European countries, created on the basis of taking into account the property status of the owner, and artificial, adopted in the USSR, on the basis of the rise of the social role of the worker as a social hegemonic, led to the embodiment to the architecture a different state-ideological goal: in European countries − the ideal of strength, power, order, national superiority over other peoples; in the Soviet Union − equality, reliability of the protection of the state, a bright future in the life of the people.
During the first half of the social history ХХ century of European countries and the Soviet Union as a reaction to world events: the First World War, the revolutionary outbreaks in many European countries, the political, economic and cultural crisis, the disappointment of various segments of the population in the existing political regimes − in the European countries were born national-socialist parties that in some states formed totalitarian political regimes on the basis of a single party headed by a leader. From the side of state power, the replacement of the system of government led to the need for the formation of the urban environment as a carrier of a new state ideology, from the side of society there was a birth of a new social consciousness, which inevitably reflected in new directions of development of culture and architecture During the 1930s, the Soviet Union, both theoretically and practically, consolidated itself in positions of totalitarianism of the authorities with corresponding changes in architecture. Due to the common features in the system of governance, European states and the USSR certainly had common directions in architecture − axial symmetry, which as an architectural means always proclaims the order in the state, the large scale of buildings − a sign of strength and invincibility, composition based on the subordination of parts as a whole, reflecting the need for praise of power. But the differences in social stratification, which is natural in European countries, created on the basis of taking into account the property status of the owner, and artificial, adopted in the USSR, on the basis of the rise of the social role of the worker as a social hegemonic, led to the embodiment to the architecture a different state-ideological goal: in European countries − the ideal of strength, power, order, national superiority over other peoples; in the Soviet Union − equality, reliability of the protection of the state, a bright future in the life of the people.
It is need to make comparison of the architectural heritage of European countries and the USSR that in the first half of the twentieth century belonged to states with totalitarian political regimes, to establish the main tendencies in their architecture − the common features and differences − and to find out the reasons for their appearance. This time, beginning in the 1920s, marked the emergence of totalitarian regimes in European life as a reaction on the political turmoil that took place in a number of countries after the First World War. The war led to a major political, economic and cultural crisis, in the background of which there was a change of political regimes. A wave of formation of reactionary parties was sweeping through Europe, and Spain, Italy, Portugal and Germany formed a system of government which was based on a one-party system that led by the leader. For these countries it was characterized by rigorous control from the top of power absolutely in all aspects of life − the economy on the basis of private property and market relations, a policy of categorical non-perception of other political forces and movements, culture, which reflected in various forms the idea of creating a social consciousness on the basis of feeling the exclusivity of the nation, and therefore the priority right to resolve the fate of other peoples. What distinguished the Soviet political system from European political regimes? First, the idea of democracy in the form of local councils of people's deputies (the authorities from below, from the people - upwards) was absorbed by the party system, formed on the principle "on the contrary", as a command system (from the helmsman to the people). Therefore, in the process of perfection, it turned into a conglomerate in which the legislative branch of power became a puppet and completely dependent on the main party component of the system of government [1, 2]. Second, there was no private property in the USSR. Land and other natural resources, all means of production belonged to the state, were at the disposal and under the strict control of the authorities. Thirdly, public consciousness was formed in the spirit of patriotism, love for national culture, faith in the bright future, which would determine the party leadership (which meant the transfer of responsibility for its own fate to the representatives of the authorities) and friendly relations with other peoples. The public consciousness forming the direction of the development of culture was a consequence of the embodiment of the state-ideological essence of social life to thinking of the society, which was programmed by the leadership of the state. The means of architecture that are under the influence of state ideology, the specifics of the economic system, the formed psychology of society and social consciousness, forms an artificial environment of human being, which, on the one hand, reflects socio-political processes, on the other, creates an environment that educates a person in a certain the corresponding direction. Under totalitarian systems, both sides are pushing for a person stronger in the direction desired by the ruling power, limiting its freedom is felt stronger than in a democratic political system. Consequently, the first half of the twentieth century was marked both in Europe and in the Soviet Union by the creation of totalitarian regimes, which were clearly reflected in the formation of the architectural environment. So whether the common features in the political-economic system, political events and the development of the culture of European states and the USSR influenced onto architecture, its form and style? Have any cardinal differences been observed? When were they, what caused their appearance? Where did the causal link between the political-economic system and architecture look? An overview of the architectural and urban heritage has shown that for all European countries, where reactionary regimes were established, the following was typical: giantomania in the size of objects that were prestigious for the authorities and the state; style building based on national, ancient traditions; purism, asceticism, lapidary and, at the same time, simplicity and monumental forms; axial symmetry of city-building ensembles; moderate, but accurate, in the main places of use of state symbols; application of additional decorative symbols emphasizing the connection with the ancient past: figures of a physically strong man, a bull, horses, more often in the form of sculptures, less often − bas-relief; monotonous interpretation of the wall − without cavities or with identical cutouts, which served as a monumental background for a separate sculpture, emphasizing its symbolic meaning. The rationalism of architectural forms was manifested in the purity and concordance of the plan, the architectonics of the building, which brightly and precisely helped to focus the viewer's attention and emphasized the value of a single symbol. The simplicity of the formation of European functionalism, which was combined with the symmetry of the architectural-spatial composition and the neoclassical manifestations of the warrant, the great-power symbols and monumental forms, as well as expensive materials, created a special direction of the open-mindedness of the state-ideological content of architecture. By such means, the architecture articulated outside clearly demonstrative and ideological reference to an absolutely indisputable order in the state, based on conquering the authorities, carrying the order to other peoples and deciding their fate at the discretion of this power. Before the war, the Soviet Union embarked on a path of rebirth and creative rethinking of the classical heritage. Withdrew from the tendencies of the spread of constructivist industrial forms in the urban environment, Soviet architecture moved through the formation of the Russian empire. Thanks to the desire to glorify the existing system of government at that time, the USSR chose the classic principles in architecture: the classical perimeter building of quarters and the symmetrical structure of the facades were revived; the mandatory formation of the main city center on the basis of the axis of symmetry and the main buildings with towers and spikes in completion, with many state symbols, which looked like an explicit selection of decorative forms and details. In the postwar period, state symbols that had to remind of the role of the Soviet state in the life of the people and to demonstrate the differences between Soviet architecture and the architecture of the Russian Empire, began to appear anywhere. The unlimited number of that symbolism simply shouted about the ideological purpose, but at the same time it reduced its value. In addition to such obsessive use of symbolism, the psychological effect was enhanced by other decorative elements that performed an additional auxiliary function. It is a variety of symbols of fertility, labor, a bright future that awaits the people in the form of justice, equality, peaceful life, and well-being. The combination of a heavy order with a richly decorated facade created in the architecture of a fairy tale about a strong, reliable, mighty state, which promised protection and happiness to its people. An unlikely architectural form and style that did not correspond to real situations (repressions in the country and arms race among the states) formed a decorative screen that covered the real state-ideological content of the formed urban environment. Consequently, the architectural and urban heritage frankly reflected the true manifestations of the state-ideological goal of countries with totalitarian political regimes. The architectural legacy of European states significantly differed from that of the USSR by the fact that European states frankly proclaimed the ambition of their own political programs, and the Soviet state with the help of architectural means created an idyll of peacefulness and a bright future.
Сучасні тенденції обумовлюють значну роль візуалізаційного механізму символічної політики. Символ не лише репрезентує дійсність, він тотожний їй. Механізмом її формування визначено сприйняття символічного об'єкту, обумовлене соціальним позиціонуванням. Зв'язок архітектури та політики продемонстровано на прикладах президентських резиденцій Туреччини, пам'ятників Т. Шевченку, а зміну інформаційного наповнення об'єкту - площі Згоди та Вандомської колони. ; Современные тенденции обусловливают значительную роль визуализационного механизма символической политики. Символ не только представляет действительность, он тождественен ей. Механизмом ее формирования определено восприятие символического объекта, обусловленное социальным позиционированием. Связь архитектуры и политики продемонстрирована на примерах президентских резиденций Турции, памятников Т. Шевченко, а изменение информационного наполнения объекта - площади Согласия и Вандомской колонны. ; Problem setting. The architecture has the powerful potential of impact on political consciousness of citizens. This role is reinforced due to the development of high technologies, growing data streams, etc. The policy of national memory in Ukraine is the testimony of this phenomenon.Recent research and publications analysis. The researches, devoted to the relations between the architecture and politics, including the problem of human rights, are spread recently. The studying of architecture impact on formation of symbolic policy, are spread within Urban Studies. O. Hatherley, S. Low et al. study the impact of city squares on political communications. The significant contribution into study on impact of architecture on social relations was made by neuropsychologist C. Ellard. Some researchers have analyzed the political the political aspects of the government institutions architecture. N. Khoma develops the theoretical principles for political Urban Studies in Ukraine. However, there are the contradictions in national researches; they often pay attention only to reflection of tendencies for political development in architecture.Paper objective. The paper objective is to analyze the mutual impact of architecture and social political relations, in particular, architecture ability not only to reflect the tendencies in social political development but to impact on them.Paper main body. A symbol not only represents the social actuality, it is such actuality and it forms it within dynamic aspect. This stipulates not only the propagandist but social organizing functions of architecture. Hereby, the architectural objects produce the senses, which their creators have not anticipated. Moreover, they can change the symbolic load with time. The mechanism to form the actuality through symbolization is the embodiment of new sense into symbolic object by its consumer, and the discrepancies in perception relate to different social positioning of consumers. The theoretical substantiation of these phenomena is the concept by M. McLuhan, in particular, his principle according to which the medium is the message the medium is amputated from its creator. As a result of this, the architecture can refer to other actuality, namely to society with its range of persuasions, emotions, etc.The history of president's residencies in Turkey is analyzed in the paper as the example for impact of form on development of political relations. Moving of the President to the new residence was preceded to constitutional implementation of president's government. Place de la Concorde and Vendome Column in Paris were chosen as the example for change in information content of architectural objects. The authors explain the discrepancies in shapes for T. Shevchenko monuments in Ukraine with discrepancies in concepts of nation, which are defended by different regional communities in Ukraine.Conclusions of the research. The authors refer the perspectives for researches on role of architecture in formation ofpolitical relations to accumulation of actual material both as to symbolization of certain architectural elements and mechanisms to form the senses of architectural spaces.
Сучасні тенденції обумовлюють значну роль візуалізаційного механізму символічної політики. Символ не лише репрезентує дійсність, він тотожний їй. Механізмом її формування визначено сприйняття символічного об'єкту, обумовлене соціальним позиціонуванням. Зв'язок архітектури та політики продемонстровано на прикладах президентських резиденцій Туреччини, пам'ятників Т. Шевченку, а зміну інформаційного наповнення об'єкту - площі Згоди та Вандомської колони. ; Современные тенденции обусловливают значительную роль визуализационного механизма символической политики. Символ не только представляет действительность, он тождественен ей. Механизмом ее формирования определено восприятие символического объекта, обусловленное социальным позиционированием. Связь архитектуры и политики продемонстрирована на примерах президентских резиденций Турции, памятников Т. Шевченко, а изменение информационного наполнения объекта - площади Согласия и Вандомской колонны. ; Problem setting. The architecture has the powerful potential of impact on political consciousness of citizens. This role is reinforced due to the development of high technologies, growing data streams, etc. The policy of national memory in Ukraine is the testimony of this phenomenon.Recent research and publications analysis. The researches, devoted to the relations between the architecture and politics, including the problem of human rights, are spread recently. The studying of architecture impact on formation of symbolic policy, are spread within Urban Studies. O. Hatherley, S. Low et al. study the impact of city squares on political communications. The significant contribution into study on impact of architecture on social relations was made by neuropsychologist C. Ellard. Some researchers have analyzed the political the political aspects of the government institutions architecture. N. Khoma develops the theoretical principles for political Urban Studies in Ukraine. However, there are the contradictions in national researches; they often pay attention only to reflection of tendencies for political development in architecture.Paper objective. The paper objective is to analyze the mutual impact of architecture and social political relations, in particular, architecture ability not only to reflect the tendencies in social political development but to impact on them.Paper main body. A symbol not only represents the social actuality, it is such actuality and it forms it within dynamic aspect. This stipulates not only the propagandist but social organizing functions of architecture. Hereby, the architectural objects produce the senses, which their creators have not anticipated. Moreover, they can change the symbolic load with time. The mechanism to form the actuality through symbolization is the embodiment of new sense into symbolic object by its consumer, and the discrepancies in perception relate to different social positioning of consumers. The theoretical substantiation of these phenomena is the concept by M. McLuhan, in particular, his principle according to which the medium is the message the medium is amputated from its creator. As a result of this, the architecture can refer to other actuality, namely to society with its range of persuasions, emotions, etc.The history of president's residencies in Turkey is analyzed in the paper as the example for impact of form on development of political relations. Moving of the President to the new residence was preceded to constitutional implementation of president's government. Place de la Concorde and Vendome Column in Paris were chosen as the example for change in information content of architectural objects. The authors explain the discrepancies in shapes for T. Shevchenko monuments in Ukraine with discrepancies in concepts of nation, which are defended by different regional communities in Ukraine.Conclusions of the research. The authors refer the perspectives for researches on role of architecture in formation ofpolitical relations to accumulation of actual material both as to symbolization of certain architectural elements and mechanisms to form the senses of architectural spaces.
The phenomenon of media formation of architecture and urban spaces as their informative essence is considered. Nowadays media formation in architecture complements the conceptual approach to the creation of new objects, formation and development of urban spaces and helps to maintain communication with historical objects. The genesis of media architecture and its evolution during the human history is studied. Media formation is analyzed on three levels: a level of the city, a level of the public space and the level of architectural objects. Their features are identified. The connection between the media formation of architecture and political, social, cultural events that took place in the life of society has been established. Information is revealed as constant characteristics of architecture and urban spaces. The idea of the semantics of architecture and urban spaces is formed. The role of historical conditions of media formation in modern architectural practice is clarified because there are new requirements to the information essence and role of architecture in the life of society in conditions of modern design. ; Розглянуто феномен медійності архітектури та міських просторів через їх інформативну сутність. Медійність в архітектурі доповнює концептуальний підхід до створення нових об'єктів, формування та розвитку міських просторів у сьогоденні, а також допомагає підтримувати зв'язок з історичними об'єктами. Досліджено генезис медійності архітектури та просторів міста, її еволюцію протягом історії людства. Медійність проаналізовано на трьох рівнях: рівні міста, громадського простору та окремих архітектурних об'єктів, і визначено їх особливості. Встановлено зв'язок медійності архітектури та міських просторів з політичними, соціальними, культурно-духовними подіями, які відбувались в житті суспільства. Виявлено інформаційні константи як сталі характеристики архітектури. Сформовано уявлення про семантичність архітектури та просторів міст. З'ясовано роль історичних умов формування медійності у сучасній ...
The article determines the peculiarities of introducing national symbols into the architecture of modern diplomatic legations with the aim of reflecting identity and uniqueness of different states of the world. In the context of globalization, multiculturalism, development of supranational institutions, and terrorist threats, the problem related to the means of expressing national identity in the architecture of diplomatic legations, which are the representation platform for each state worldwide, has appeared. The interpretation conciseness and artistic rethinking of national symbols is the major tool applied by architects and building constructors of diplomatic legations of the XXI century. From this perspective, it is particularly important to understand that, on the one hand, the mentioned architectural objects should be treated as symbols of state and nation, but on the other hand, should go in line with local traditions of building construction and architecture, cooperation with local culture, and surrounding environment of host country. For the sake of self-identification, each state worldwide uses national symbols that become an integral part of their international image brand. During the course of research, the following types of national state symbols have been distinguished: The main: Secondary: - flag; - coat of arms. - fauna and flora; - peculiarities of natural resources; - national identity and social order; - architectural style, fine arts, ornamentation; - symbols of religion and state regalia; - ideology and policy of the state. Official symbols (state symbols) are determined and enshrined at the constitutional and legal level. They are being created during the process of state establishment. Informal symbols are not always enshrined in law and are not mandatory to be used. However, namely these symbols are the full-fledged reflection of uniqueness of nature, culture, religion, history, traditions, politics, and ideology of nation and state. Embassy is the diplomatic legation of the highest rank by means of which any state conducts its official activity abroad. The analysis of architectural composition, dimensional and spatial structure, artistic and aesthetic decisions of exterior and interior elements of embassy buildings has enabled the possibility of demonstrating different methods and approaches to solving the problems of using and providing artistic interpretation of national symbols as the element of state identity representation. ; У статті висвітлено особливості застосування національних символів в архітектурі сучасних дипломатичних представництв різних держав світу, з метою вираження їх ідентичності та самобутності.
The article determines the peculiarities of introducing national symbols into the architecture of modern diplomatic legations with the aim of reflecting identity and uniqueness of different states of the world. In the context of globalization, multiculturalism, development of supranational institutions, and terrorist threats, the problem related to the means of expressing national identity in the architecture of diplomatic legations, which are the representation platform for each state worldwide, has appeared. The interpretation conciseness and artistic rethinking of national symbols is the major tool applied by architects and building constructors of diplomatic legations of the XXI century. From this perspective, it is particularly important to understand that, on the one hand, the mentioned architectural objects should be treated as symbols of state and nation, but on the other hand, should go in line with local traditions of building construction and architecture, cooperation with local culture, and surrounding environment of host country. For the sake of self-identification, each state worldwide uses national symbols that become an integral part of their international image brand. During the course of research, the following types of national state symbols have been distinguished: The main: Secondary: - flag; - coat of arms. - fauna and flora; - peculiarities of natural resources; - national identity and social order; - architectural style, fine arts, ornamentation; - symbols of religion and state regalia; - ideology and policy of the state. Official symbols (state symbols) are determined and enshrined at the constitutional and legal level. They are being created during the process of state establishment. Informal symbols are not always enshrined in law and are not mandatory to be used. However, namely these symbols are the full-fledged reflection of uniqueness of nature, culture, religion, history, traditions, politics, and ideology of nation and state. Embassy is the diplomatic legation of the highest rank by means of which any state conducts its official activity abroad. The analysis of architectural composition, dimensional and spatial structure, artistic and aesthetic decisions of exterior and interior elements of embassy buildings has enabled the possibility of demonstrating different methods and approaches to solving the problems of using and providing artistic interpretation of national symbols as the element of state identity representation. ; У статті висвітлено особливості застосування національних символів в архітектурі сучасних дипломатичних представництв різних держав світу, з метою вираження їх ідентичності та самобутності.
The article determines the peculiarities of introducing national symbols into the architecture of modern diplomatic legations with the aim of reflecting identity and uniqueness of different states of the world. In the context of globalization, multiculturalism, development of supranational institutions, and terrorist threats, the problem related to the means of expressing national identity in the architecture of diplomatic legations, which are the representation platform for each state worldwide, has appeared. The interpretation conciseness and artistic rethinking of national symbols is the major tool applied by architects and building constructors of diplomatic legations of the XXI century. From this perspective, it is particularly important to understand that, on the one hand, the mentioned architectural objects should be treated as symbols of state and nation, but on the other hand, should go in line with local traditions of building construction and architecture, cooperation with local culture, and surrounding environment of host country. For the sake of self-identification, each state worldwide uses national symbols that become an integral part of their international image brand. During the course of research, the following types of national state symbols have been distinguished: The main: Secondary: - flag; - coat of arms. - fauna and flora; - peculiarities of natural resources; - national identity and social order; - architectural style, fine arts, ornamentation; - symbols of religion and state regalia; - ideology and policy of the state. Official symbols (state symbols) are determined and enshrined at the constitutional and legal level. They are being created during the process of state establishment. Informal symbols are not always enshrined in law and are not mandatory to be used. However, namely these symbols are the full-fledged reflection of uniqueness of nature, culture, religion, history, traditions, politics, and ideology of nation and state. Embassy is the diplomatic legation of the highest rank by means of which any state conducts its official activity abroad. The analysis of architectural composition, dimensional and spatial structure, artistic and aesthetic decisions of exterior and interior elements of embassy buildings has enabled the possibility of demonstrating different methods and approaches to solving the problems of using and providing artistic interpretation of national symbols as the element of state identity representation. ; У статті висвітлено особливості застосування національних символів в архітектурі сучасних дипломатичних представництв різних держав світу, з метою вираження їх ідентичності та самобутності.
The study of the periodization of the development of architecture of non-formal education institutions (hereinafter NFEI) combines the following aspects: pedagogical aspect (is the decisive one, according to the author), social, political, scientific and technical aspects that are inherent in the era. The author investigates the developmental periods of architecture of non-formal education institutions. The time limits studied in the article from 1917 to 1940 belong to the second stage of development of NFEIs and their architecture - the period of development and formation. Many scholars and educators note that in Ukraine the existence of non-formal education covers the following areas: extracurricular education; postgraduate education and adult education; civil education; school and student self-government; educational initiatives aimed at developing additional skills and abilities; universities of the third age that provide educational services to the elderly. Given the modern interpretation and combination into a single concept - "lifelong learning" - all forms of education, this article examines the formation of the architecture of additional education institutions for all ages, i.e. analyzes the conditions that led to the creation of appropriate architectural forms, and the main, according to the author, examples and characteristics. This stage of development of NFEIs and their architectural and typological links is the period after the First World War and the beginning of the Soviet Union era. The nature of functioning remains mainly compensatory and educational. During this period, a unique world-renowned system of extracurricular activities is developed. Educational institutions and institutions of additional education in public houses and public schools continue to function. Various professional associations were born in the Soviet Union, and clubs, houses, and palaces of culture began to be built for them. In addition, during this period in Ukraine, religious institutions are gradually losing their influence, and educational functions are transferred to other institutions: libraries, houses and palaces of culture and so on. The beginning of the youth movement, stations of young nature lovers are created. The organization of seasonal (summer) children's camps takes new pedagogical and ideological forms. At this stage, specialized institutions started to form that carried out extracurricular educational work in one specific direction: stations for young naturalists, young technicians, children's railways, children's theaters and cinemas, libraries, sports and music schools - specialized non-formal education institutions. Institutions of a wide profile continued to function and had an appropriate number of offices and workshops - clubs of various types. ; Стаття представляє ретроспективний аналіз розвитку архітектури закладів неформальної освіти та закладів, що схожі за функціями, у період з 1917 по 1940 роки на території України. Надані визначення та основні характеристики вказаного етапу, виявлені основні ключові аспекти розвитку архітектури таких закладів, що формувалися відповідно до історико-соціальних та педагогічних умов та вимог цього періоду. Відомості проілюстровані архітектурними прикладами відповідного часового періоду.
The article is dedicated to the 90th anniversary of Kharkоv national t Annotation. The article is dedicated that all changes, significant stages in the development of the construction and architectural industry in Ukraine were an integral part of the activities of the KHISI – KDTUBA – KNUSA team, and often originated thanks to the scientific and scientific and methodological activities of scientific and pedagogical workers. Today, Kharkiv National University of Civil Engineering and Architecture (KHNUSA), thanks to the work that was performed and performed by its employees at a high scientific and scientific-methodological level, occupies a leading place among higher educational institutions of the construction profile. Over its 90-year history, KNUSA has trained more than 60 thousand specialists. The article reflects the main directions of the university's activities - educational, scientific, international, innovative, educational and sports-mass. It was noted that training is carried out in licensed and accredited specialties at the first (bachelor's) level of higher education from 17 specialties, at the second (master's) level - in 12 specialties, at the third (educational and scientific) level – 5 specialties. Special attention is paid to the achievements in the scientific and methodological solution of innovative educational problems and their implementation in the educational process. Attention is focused on the fact that professional training, a democratic way of life of students are combined with the all-round development of the personality. ; Статья посвящена 90-летию Харьковского национального университета строительства и архитектуры. Все изменения, значительные этапы развития архитектурно-строительной отрасли Украины были неотъемлемой составляющей деятельности коллектива ХИСИ – ХГТУСА – ХНУСА. Сегодня Харьковский национальный университет строительства и архитектуры – это ведущее высшее учебное заведение Украины, где за 90-летнюю историю подготовлено более 65 тысяч специалистов с высшим образованием. Отражены основные направления деятельности университета: учебная, научная, международная, инновационная, воспитательная, спортивная и другие виды деятельности. Особое внимание уделено достижениям и инновациям в образовательном процессе, обеспечивающим повышение качества образования. Отмечено, что все виды деятельности университета направлены на формирование высококвалифицированного специалиста, всесторонне развитой личности. ; Статтю присвячено 90-річчю Харківського національного університету будівництва та архітектури. Усі зміни, значні етапи розвитку архітектурно-будівельної галузі України були невід'ємною складовою діяльності колективу ХІБІ – ХДТУБА – ХНУБА. Сьогодні Харківський національний університет будівництва та архітектури – це провідний заклад вищої освіти України, який за 90 років існування підготував понад 65 тисяч фахівців з вищою освітою. Висвітлено основні напрями діяльності університету: навчальна, наукова, міжнародна, інноваційна, виховна, спортивна та інші види діяльності. Особливу увагу приділено здобуткам та інноваціям в освітньому процесі, що забезпечують підвищення якості освіти. Відмічено, що усі види діяльності університету направлені на формування висококваліфікованого фахівця, всебічно розвиненої особистості.
The article is dedicated to the 90th anniversary of Kharkоv national t Annotation. The article is dedicated that all changes, significant stages in the development of the construction and architectural industry in Ukraine were an integral part of the activities of the KHISI – KDTUBA – KNUSA team, and often originated thanks to the scientific and scientific and methodological activities of scientific and pedagogical workers. Today, Kharkiv National University of Civil Engineering and Architecture (KHNUSA), thanks to the work that was performed and performed by its employees at a high scientific and scientific-methodological level, occupies a leading place among higher educational institutions of the construction profile. Over its 90-year history, KNUSA has trained more than 60 thousand specialists. The article reflects the main directions of the university's activities - educational, scientific, international, innovative, educational and sports-mass. It was noted that training is carried out in licensed and accredited specialties at the first (bachelor's) level of higher education from 17 specialties, at the second (master's) level - in 12 specialties, at the third (educational and scientific) level – 5 specialties. Special attention is paid to the achievements in the scientific and methodological solution of innovative educational problems and their implementation in the educational process. Attention is focused on the fact that professional training, a democratic way of life of students are combined with the all-round development of the personality. ; Статья посвящена 90-летию Харьковского национального университета строительства и архитектуры. Все изменения, значительные этапы развития архитектурно-строительной отрасли Украины были неотъемлемой составляющей деятельности коллектива ХИСИ – ХГТУСА – ХНУСА. Сегодня Харьковский национальный университет строительства и архитектуры – это ведущее высшее учебное заведение Украины, где за 90-летнюю историю подготовлено более 65 тысяч специалистов с высшим образованием. Отражены основные направления деятельности университета: учебная, научная, международная, инновационная, воспитательная, спортивная и другие виды деятельности. Особое внимание уделено достижениям и инновациям в образовательном процессе, обеспечивающим повышение качества образования. Отмечено, что все виды деятельности университета направлены на формирование высококвалифицированного специалиста, всесторонне развитой личности. ; Статтю присвячено 90-річчю Харківського національного університету будівництва та архітектури. Усі зміни, значні етапи розвитку архітектурно-будівельної галузі України були невід'ємною складовою діяльності колективу ХІБІ – ХДТУБА – ХНУБА. Сьогодні Харківський національний університет будівництва та архітектури – це провідний заклад вищої освіти України, який за 90 років існування підготував понад 65 тисяч фахівців з вищою освітою. Висвітлено основні напрями діяльності університету: навчальна, наукова, міжнародна, інноваційна, виховна, спортивна та інші види діяльності. Особливу увагу приділено здобуткам та інноваціям в освітньому процесі, що забезпечують підвищення якості освіти. Відмічено, що усі види діяльності університету направлені на формування висококваліфікованого фахівця, всебічно розвиненої особистості.
The aim of the article is to reveal the ideological features that where characteristic of post-communist circumference, which formed the basis of the architectural worldview of the period 1990-2010; to determine the correctness of the term "postmodernism" to the buildings created at this time and the feasibility of its alternative. The specific character of the architecture of post-communist circumference, marked by the tendency to historicism and retrospectivism. The author cites significant differences between such architecture and traditional Western postmodernism. Chief among them is the utopia of feudalism as an ideal past, which was perceived by post-communist circles as an obligatory ideological dogma. This was significantly different from Western postmodernism, which proclaimed the end of any ideology and monopoly of a single correct doctrine. In addition, the article reveals the complicated process of switching the relationship between modern values from architectural modernism to the architecture of historicism. This paradoxical phenomenon of post-communist culture is due to the fact that the socialist system itself built within the Soviet "camp" a feudal and hierarchical content, which was materialized in the architectural forms of modernism, which, in its time, emerged as a style of democratic and socially responsible society. Thus, the protest against modernism in post-communist societies and the shift to historicism was in fact based on a desire for a modern society that was paradoxically associated with feudal one. ; Стаття присвячена явищу неоісторичної архітектури в середовищах посткомуністичних країн, передовсім, досі мало вивченим аспектам її світоглядних основ та, пов'язаних із ними спробами вписання у контекст стилістичної класифікації.
The aim of the article is to reveal the ideological features that where characteristic of post-communist circumference, which formed the basis of the architectural worldview of the period 1990-2010; to determine the correctness of the term "postmodernism" to the buildings created at this time and the feasibility of its alternative. The specific character of the architecture of post-communist circumference, marked by the tendency to historicism and retrospectivism. The author cites significant differences between such architecture and traditional Western postmodernism. Chief among them is the utopia of feudalism as an ideal past, which was perceived by post-communist circles as an obligatory ideological dogma. This was significantly different from Western postmodernism, which proclaimed the end of any ideology and monopoly of a single correct doctrine. In addition, the article reveals the complicated process of switching the relationship between modern values from architectural modernism to the architecture of historicism. This paradoxical phenomenon of post-communist culture is due to the fact that the socialist system itself built within the Soviet "camp" a feudal and hierarchical content, which was materialized in the architectural forms of modernism, which, in its time, emerged as a style of democratic and socially responsible society. Thus, the protest against modernism in post-communist societies and the shift to historicism was in fact based on a desire for a modern society that was paradoxically associated with feudal one. ; Стаття присвячена явищу неоісторичної архітектури в середовищах посткомуністичних країн, передовсім, досі мало вивченим аспектам її світоглядних основ та, пов'язаних із ними спробами вписання у контекст стилістичної класифікації.
The aim of the article is to reveal the ideological features that where characteristic of post-communist circumference, which formed the basis of the architectural worldview of the period 1990-2010; to determine the correctness of the term "postmodernism" to the buildings created at this time and the feasibility of its alternative. The specific character of the architecture of post-communist circumference, marked by the tendency to historicism and retrospectivism. The author cites significant differences between such architecture and traditional Western postmodernism. Chief among them is the utopia of feudalism as an ideal past, which was perceived by post-communist circles as an obligatory ideological dogma. This was significantly different from Western postmodernism, which proclaimed the end of any ideology and monopoly of a single correct doctrine. In addition, the article reveals the complicated process of switching the relationship between modern values from architectural modernism to the architecture of historicism. This paradoxical phenomenon of post-communist culture is due to the fact that the socialist system itself built within the Soviet "camp" a feudal and hierarchical content, which was materialized in the architectural forms of modernism, which, in its time, emerged as a style of democratic and socially responsible society. Thus, the protest against modernism in post-communist societies and the shift to historicism was in fact based on a desire for a modern society that was paradoxically associated with feudal one. ; Стаття присвячена явищу неоісторичної архітектури в середовищах посткомуністичних країн, передовсім, досі мало вивченим аспектам її світоглядних основ та, пов'язаних із ними спробами вписання у контекст стилістичної класифікації.
