A. Kadijevic L.odzaklija

UDC 72.03(497.11)

ALEKSANDAR KADIJEVIÃ

On the later architecture of Leskovac andits place in Serbian architecture

ABSTRACT: The paper concisely and clearly considers the position of thearchitecture of Leskovac in the later Serbian architecture. Besides evaluating themajor architectural achievements and their builders, the results of the historio-graphical research thus far are assessed. The paper also raises questions of the pro-tection 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 Lesko-vac has shown significant increase in the last twenty years. The numerousness,thoroughness and a high degree of currentness of the monographs and reviews haveconsiderably contributed to the knowledge about typical buildings in Leskovacdating in the 19th and 20th centuries.1 Besides the architectural and urbanistic heri-tage of the town on the Veternica, the latest research includes the places in its vi-cinity, such as Vuåje, Grdelica, Lebane, Vlasotince, the Sijarinska Spa, Bojnik, Buja-novac, Vranje, etc.

As regards to the methodology, historiographers have primarily observed mo-numents 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 the1980's and the beginning of the 1990's, when research was conducted in a largerscope under the initiative of the curator of the National Museum Srðan Markoviã,there were few rare and partial papers on the architecture of Leskovac. The periodsof the later architecture have not only been initially unresearched, but also inadequa-tely differentiated and imprecisely defined temporally. Alongside Markoviã's initia-tive, which resulted in a range of papers, books and presentations on conferences ofhistorians of architecture from Belgrade and Leskovac, another important influencecomes from the conservator Milorad Vojinoviã (1937—1998), who, late in his life,

265

1 See Leskovac Proceedings from 1985 to 2007, as well as several monographs on the archi-tectural heritage and cultural and historical development of Leskovac, published by the National Museumof Leskovac during that period.

maintained a high level of historiographic currentness of the Leskovac architecturalheritage.

Through the activities of a large number of historiographers from 1985 on-wards numerous buildings from the later architecture in Leskovac and the vicinityhave been historiographically portrayed. With regard to structure and scientific im-portance, these papers can be divided into initial and exemplary (strategic) and withregard to scope into concise and detailed. The majority of observed buildings havebeen monumental public and typical private buildings as well as the more prospe-rous periods in the town construction (the beginning of the 20th century, the periodbetween World War I and World War II). In addition to the monographs analyzingwell-known buildings and reviews of the activities of the leading Serbian architectsin Leskovac and its vicinity, the literature contains comments on the genesis ofstyles that can be found in the stock of buildings.

Although the contributions of historiographers added significantly to the reha-bilitation of the later heritage of Leskovac after a long period of scientific neglect inthe modern architectural and urbanistic practice, many issues important for under-standing its wider historical and cultural value have remained unrectified. One suchissue relates to the place of the Leskovac architecture in the later history of architec-ture in Serbia. The answer to that question is inextricably bound to the genesis ofthe later architecture in Leskovac, which is still unravelled enough (a larger numberof buildings have not been analyzed, attributed and dated). Since the cultural andeconomic development of the town on the Veternica had a changeable and quali-tatively uneven history with many ups and downs, it can be said that the level ofarchitecture oscillated during different periods. It is noticeable that the greatestachievements happened during the longer peaceful periods despite the internal poli-tical instability and economic crises. Nonetheless, this does not mean that all longerpeaceful periods implied the rise in the Leskovac architecture and urbanism. On thecontrary.

The later period is understood as the period of the renewal of the Serbian stateand its culture after several centuries of oppression of the Ottomans. That is thereason why the periodization of the later Serbian architecture begins with the end ofthe 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, when the construction of theown stock in Serbia gained momentum. The later period, according to competent hi-storiographers, lasted until 1918 when the modern period began. It lasted until 1945,which was the beginning of the contemporary architecture. The last decade of the20th century and the first one in the 21st century can be considered the period of thelatest, current architectural production.

The qualitative level of the architecture of Leskovac was essentially determinedby general cultural and historical circumstances in southeast Serbia during the lasttwo centuries. Since the end of the 18th century until the beginning of World War Ithe later architecture of Leskovac was not much different from the architecture inother parts of east and south Serbia, Macedonia, Raška Region, Kosovo and Meto-hija. The burden of the Ottoman heritage, who ruled this area longer than central

ALEKSANDAR KADIJEVIÃ *

266

Serbia and Vojvodina, slowed down the emancipatory processes in the Leskovac ofthe 19th century. A few Turkish lodgings (konak), parts of the former centre oftown, the old church Odÿaklija as well as Damjanov's churches in Peåenjevac andTurekovac are the most important monuments of the Leskovac architecture of thattime. The end of the century and the beginning of another were marked by a fullemancipation and europeization of the Leskovac architecture with the purpose ofestablishing institutions of the independent Kingdom of Serbia. At that time in Le-skovac worked prominent Serbian architects, like Vladimir Nikoliã, Svetozar Ivaå-koviã and Svetozar Jovanoviã Senior. The period between the two wars was an evenmore fruitful and successful time for the Leskovac architecture. Besides local, lessfamous architects (like Branko Tasiã), at that time in Leskovac and the vicinityworked leading Serbian architects of modern academic and national stylistic orienta-tion — Branislav Kojiã, Momir Korunoviã, Ðura Bajaloviã, Miša Manojloviã, IsakAzriel, as well as the renowned Russian immigrant architects — Vasilij Androsovand Grigorije Samojlov. After World War II and a short period of socialistic bu-reaucratized architecture, since mid 1960's until late 1980's rose buildings in thelate modern style. Besides the initial urbanistic impulses of architects Ratomir Bogo-jeviã and Momåilo Belobrk, in that long and financially stable period there wereparadoxically no significant contributions to the contemporary Serbian architectureand no projects of any well-known Serbian architects (except the reconstruction ofthe National Museum of the architect Aleksandar Radojeviã). Neither did post-modernism leave any significant marks on Leskovac, or, for that matter, deconstruc-tivism, 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 thecultural visionariness of those who commissioned buildings in Leskovac was con-nected with their economic position and, therefore, most notable in the periodbetween the two wars. Although this was a period of only 23 years, at that time Le-skovac was quite outstanding in the architecture of Serbia. Never before or after didthe initiatives of its citizens attract attention of so many significant architects fromgovernment and private sectors. The rise was seen both in the profane and sacral ar-chitecture, in the application of new ideas and materials and in the dominant highquality technical and aesthetic ideas.

The stated positive evaluations oblige us to ask a range of questions whichshould be answered in more detail through future research. What is the position ofthe architecture of Leskovac in relation to other regions of Serbia and in relation tothe whole period of two centuries? Has Leskovac been on the periphery or was itsome kind of a centre of architectural activities? Can its stock be compared withother places in Serbia? What attracted some of the most significant Serbian archi-tects to work there? Why was the development so uneven and discontinuous? Whathas been the role of the protection committee in the preservation and revitalizationof cultural monuments thus far? What can be expected in the future?

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

267

The architecture of Leskovac under the Turkish rule was not much differentfrom that in other occupied places in Serbia and the surrounding area. It can be clas-sified on the higher end of the scale within the frames of Turkish-Balkans styles.Not even the Odÿaklija Church can be classified as one of the better; it is anaverage achievement of the Serbian sacral architecture in the areas under the Tur-kish rule. On the other hand, the churches in Peåenjevac and Turekovac are of muchgreater 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 1918Leskovac became radically more noticeable on the architectural map of Serbia. Atthat time it was established as an important regional centre, but it was still less in-fluential than Niš and Skoplje. In the period between the two world wars, this waseven more pronounced and Leskovac became more important than most towns inSerbia. Due to their size and geostrategic position, Niš and Skoplje (the centres ofthe regional units, banovinas) still excelled, but Leskovac was more prominent thanother towns of the similar size. After World War II a period of urbanistic growthand 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 infra-structure was improved, but no projects were undertaken that would stand out in thenational and regional terms. Those projects that were realized simply blended intothe Yugoslav average. Sacral architecture was particularly marginalized unlike me-morial sculptures and architecture, which became increasingly ideologized.

It can be concluded that, after Niš, Leskovac has always been the second centreof architecture in east and south Serbia. When compared to other larger Yugoslavadministrative and cultural centres — Belgrade, Novi Sad, Skoplje, Zagreb, Sarajevoand Ljubljana, as well as the regional giants Sophia, Bucurest, Athens, Thessalonikiand Istanbul, Leskovac was a natural periphery because of its position. What is noti-ceable, however, is that in the period between the two world wars it rose abovemost of similar Serbian towns — Priština, Kosovska Mitrovica, Prizren, Pirot, Kra-gujevac, Poÿarevac, Kraljevo, Smederevo and Uÿice. Only Åaåak, Šabac and Zrenja-nin could compare with Leskovac in respect to the accomplished level of architecture.

Besides the demolition of old buildings and transformation of the Ottoman Le-skovac into a European and Serbian town, when several priceless examples of Tur-kish-Balkans style disappeared, the most devastating to the architecture of Leskovacwas the allies bombing in 1944, which destroyed a large number of various buil-dings. Similarly, in some urbanistic undertakings after World War II many valuablebuildings built in the past were torn down.

Leading Serbian architects from the private sector were attracted to the town onthe Veternica both by lucrative business offers and by the surroundings, the cultureof its Europe-oriented leaders and energetic industrials, entrepreneurs and experts invarious fields. The lack of dogmatism and a pluralistic relation towards all relevantstyles, the inclination towards high quality and the permanence of the stock, quiteexpressed on the side of the commissioners, attracted the architects from the statesector and inspired them to build in Leskovac and its vicinity. It is important to

ALEKSANDAR KADIJEVIÃ *

268

stress that they have rarely built outside of Belgrade, the centre towards which allarchitectural activities in Serbia gravitate.

The future development of the architecture of Leskovac will depend on the de-gree of emancipation of its builders and cultural workers. Financial assets have notbeen as crucial as the awareness of the importance of architecture for the culturalrise of an area. Relying on the local tradition and on the ideas of modern architectsfrom around the world can bring an acceptable result in the fields of projecting andengineering. Of great significance is the engagement of the Leskovac architects inthe popularization of their profession in a wider context. The once successful tradi-tion of attracting prominent experts from other regions should also be renewed.

Although the monument protection committee has been successful in the areaof Leskovac and its vicinity in the period after World War II, still a great deal ofbuilding stock with a historical and artistic value remains out of its reach. This hasbeen contributed by the fact that there have been no solid criteria which, due to thelack of historiographical evaluation, could not have been established in the firstplace. On the basis of the present state and conservatorial experiences thus far, itcan be concluded that the stock of Leskovac and its vicinity deserves a special insti-tute 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 ofCulture. This would enable a thorough and complete investigation and protection ofthe complex heritage in cooperation with scientific institutions in Serbia.2

MAIN LITERATURE

1. M. Vojinoviã, Arhitektonsko nasleðe Leskovca (1878. do 1940. god.), Leskovaåki

zbornik HH¢, Leskovac 1985, 321—333.

2. Z. Maneviã, O vrednovawu graditeqskog nasleða novijeg doba u Leskovcu, Lesko-

vaåki zbornik HHH¡H, Leskovac 1989, 47—48.

3. A. Kadijeviã — S. Markoviã, Graditeqstvo Leskovca i okoline izmeðu dva svetska

rata, Leskovac 1996.

4. D. Maskareli, Istraÿivawa novijeg graditeqskog nasleða Leskovca i okoline, Le-

skovaåki zbornik H£¡¡, Leskovac 2002, 233—240.

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

269

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

ALEKSANDAR KADIJEVIÃ *

270

Pasha's Palace in Leskovac

The County Court in Leskovac

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

271

The House of Sotir Iliã

ALEKSANDAR KADIJEVIÃ *

272

The Grammar School in Leskovac

A View of King Petar Street

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

273

The Cathedral of the Holy Trinity

Aleksandar Kadijeviã

O NOVIJOJ ARHITEKTURI LESKOVCA I WENOM MESTU

U SRPSKOM GRADITEQSTVU

Rezime

Istoriografska istraÿivawa razliåitih epoha novijeg leskovaåkog graditeq-

stva u posledwih dvadeset godina u upadqivom su usponu. Svojom brojnošãu, anali-

tiånošãu i visokim stepenom aktuelizacije, monografski i pregledni radovi znat-

no su obogatili saznawa o reprezentativnim leskovaåkim zdawima iz devetnaestog i

dvadesetog veka. Osim arhitektonsko-urbanistiåkog nasleða grada na Veternici, u

novijim istraÿivawima zahvaãena su i mesta u wegovom okruÿewu, kao što su Vuåje,

Grdelica, Lebane, Vlasotince, Sijarinska bawa, Bojnik, Bujanovac, Vrawe i dr.

Delovawem veãeg broja istoriografa od 1985. godine do danas, mnogobrojni spo-

menici novije arhitekture u Leskovcu i okolini dobili su svoj istoriografski pri-

kaz. U metodološkom pogledu, istoriografi su spomenike prevashodno razmatrali sa

stanovišta istoriånosti, ekonomiånosti i wihovog umetniåkog doÿivqaja u prosto-

ru. Deo tumaåa usredsredio se i na pitawa zaštite. Po strukturi i nauånom znaåaju

wihovi prilozi se mogu podeliti na inicijalne i egzemplarne (strateške), a po

obimu na saÿete i iscrpne. Prednost su po pravilu dobili monumentalni javni i

reprezentativni privatni objekti, kao i prosperitetniji periodi u izgradwi grada

(poåetak dvadesetog veka, period izmeðu dva svetska rata). Osim monografskih prika-

za znamenitih zdawa, osvrta na delovawe vodeãih srpskih arhitekata u Leskovcu i

okolini, u literaturi je bilo i komentara o genezi stilova koji su zastupqeni na iz-

graðenom fondu.

Iako su prilozi istoriografa znatno doprineli rehabilitaciji novijeg lesko-

vaåkog nasleða nakon dugog razdobqa wegove nauåne neistraÿenosti i zapostavqawa u

savremenoj arhitektonsko-urbanistiåkoj praksi, mnoga pitawa od znaåaja za razumeva-

we wegove šire istorijske i kulturološke vrednosti ostala su neraspravqena. Jedno

od wih se odnosi na mesto leskovaåke arhitekture u novijoj graditeqskoj istoriji

Srbije. Odgovor na to pitawe neraskidivo je vezan za još uvek nedovoqno rasvetqenu

genezu novije arhitekture u Leskovcu (definitivno nije analizovan, atribuiran i

datovan veãi broj objekata). S obzirom na to da je kulturno-ekonomski razvoj grada na

Veternici imao promenqivu, kvalitativno neujednaåenu istoriju, punu uspona i pa-

dova, moÿe se reãi da je i nivo arhitekture oscilirao tokom wenih razliåitih peri-

oda. Upadqivo je da je najviše ostvareno u duÿim razdobqima mira, uprkos unutra-

šwoj politiåkoj nestabilnosti i ekonomskim krizama. Ipak, to ne znaåi da su svi

duÿi mirnodopski periodi podrazumevali i uspon leskovaåke arhitekture i urbani-

zma — naprotiv.

Kvalitativni nivo arhitekture Leskovca suštinski je bio determinisan op-

štim kulturno-istorijskim prilikama koje su vladale u jugoistoånoj Srbiji u po-

sledwa dva veka. Od isteka osamnaestog stoleãa do kraja Prvog svetskog rata, novija

arhitektura Leskovca se nije mnogo razlikovala od one u drugim delovima istoåne i

juÿne Srbije, Makedonije, Raške oblasti, Kosova i Metohije. Teret otomanskog na-

sleða, åija se vlast na tom podruåju duÿe odrÿala nego u centralnoj Srbiji i Vojvo-

dini, usporio je emancipatorske procese u devetnaestovekovnom Leskovcu. Nekoliko

konaka, delovi nekadašwe åaršije i stara crkva — Oxaklija, kao i Damjanovqeve cr-

ALEKSANDAR KADIJEVIÃ *

274

kve u Peåewevcu i Turekovcu, najznaåajniji su spomenici leskovaåke arhitekture tog

razdobqa. Kraj veka, kao i poåetak sledeãeg, oznaåen je punom emancipacijom i evro-

peizacijom leskovaåke arhitekture u funkciji utemeqewa ustanova nezavisne Kraqe-

vine Srbije. Tada u Leskovcu grade istaknuti srpski arhitekti, poput Vladimira

Nikoliãa, Svetozara Ivaåkoviãa i Svetozara Jovanoviãa Starijeg. Period izmeðu

dva rata predstavqao je još plodnije i uspešnije razdobqe za leskovaåku arhitekturu.

Osim domaãih mawe poznatih graditeqa (poput Branka Tasiãa), tada su u Leskovcu i

okolini gradili vodeãi srpski arhitekti moderne, akademske i nacionalne stilske

orijentacije — Branislav Kojiã, Momir Korunoviã, Ðura Bajaloviã, Miša Manoj-

loviã, Isak Azriel, kao i renomirani ruski neimari emigranti — Vasilij Androsov

i Grigorije Samojlov. Posle Drugog svetskog rata i kratkotrajnog razdobqa socreali-

stiåke birokratizovane arhitekture, od sredine šeste decenije do kraja osamdesetih

godina podiÿu se objekti u duhu kasne Moderne. Osim poåetnih urbanistiåkih im-

pulsa arhitekte Ratomira Bogojeviãa i Momåila Belobrka, u tom dugom i finansij-

ski stabilnom periodu — paradoksalno — nije ostvaren znaåajniji primer savremene

srpske arhitekture, niti je zabeleÿen rad nekog istaknutijeg domaãeg graditeqa (sem

rekonstrukcije Narodnog muzeja arhitekte Aleksandra Radojeviãa). Ni postmoderni-

zam nije zabeleÿio vaÿnije rezultate u Leskovcu, kao ni dekonstruktivizam, neomo-

dernizam i drugi pravci na razmeði posledwih vekova.

Ukratko prikazano stawe u novijoj i savremenoj arhitekturi Leskovca, koje se

moÿe podrobnije upoznati iz dostupne literature, pokazuje da je kulturno vizionar-

stvo leskovaåkih naruåilaca, vezano i za wihovu ekonomsku afirmaciju, bilo naj-

izraÿenije u periodu izmeðu 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 graðana nisu privukle paÿwu toliko zna-

åajnih arhitekata iz drÿavnog i privatnog sektora. Uspon se ogledao u profanoj i sa-

kralnoj arhitekturi, primeni novih ideja i materijala, prevlasti kvalitetnih teh-

niåkih i estetskih rešewa.

Arhitektura Leskovca pod Turcima se nije posebno isticala u odnosu na druga

okupirana mesta u Srbiji i okruÿewu. Moÿe se svrstati u viši prosek u okvirima

tursko-balkanskog stila. Ni crkva Oxaklija ne spada u uspešnija, nego pre u proseå-

na ostvarewa srpskog crkvenog graditeqstva na prostorima pod turskom vlašãu, dok

crkve u Peåewevcu i Turekovcu imaju veãu vrednost, jer ih je podigla tada najugled-

nija balkanska tajfa Damjanov. Period evropeizacije do 1918. godine Leskovac radi-

kalno uzdiÿe na arhitektonskoj karti Srbije. On se tada konstituiše kao znaåajni

regionalni centar, ali ipak mawe uticajan od Niša i Skopqa. U razdobqu izmeðu

dva svetska rata afirmacija je još naglašenija; tada Leskovac pretiåe veãinu grado-

va u Srbiji. Niš i Skopqe zbog svoje veliåine i geostrateškog znaåaja (banovinski

centri) i daqe predwaåe, ali se Leskovac istiåe u odnosu na mesta sliåne veliåine.

Posle Drugog svetskog rata poåiwe period urbanistiåkog proširewa i moderniza-

cije grada na Veternici, što mu ne donosi i kvalitativni pomak u arhitekturi. Po-

dignut je nivo kolektivnog stanovawa i rada, unapreðena saobraãajna infrastruktu-

ra, 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 arhi-

tekture koje su dobile naglašeno ideologizovanu notu.

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

275

Moÿe se zakquåiti da je Leskovac uvek bio drugi centar, posle Niša, arhitek-

ture u istoånoj i juÿnoj Srbiji. U odnosu na veãe jugoslovenske administrativ-

no-kulturne centre — Beograd, Novi Sad, Skopqe, Zagreb, Sarajevo i Qubqanu, kao i

regionalne gigante Sofiju, Bukurešt, Atinu, Solun i Istambul, Leskovac je zbog

svog poloÿaja prirodno predstavqao periferiju. Ali upadqivo je da se on izmeðu dva

rata uzdigao iznad veãine sliånih srpskih gradova — Prištine, Kosovske Mitrovi-

ce, Prizrena, Pirota, Kragujevca, Poÿarevca, Kraqeva, Smedereva i Uÿica. Samo se

Åaåak, Šabac i Zrewanin donekle mogu porediti sa wim u pogledu nivoa ostvarene

arhitekture.

Vodeãe srpske arhitekte iz privatnog sektora, osim primamqivih poslovnih

ponuda, privlaåili su i ambijent grada na Veternici, kultura wegovih evropski ori-

jentisanih åelnika i preduzimqivih naruåilaca (industrijalaca, preduzetnika i

struåwaka razliåitih profila). Nedogmatiånost i pluralistiåki odnos prema svim

relevantnim stilovima, teÿwa ka kvalitetu i postojanosti fonda, izraÿeni kod in-

vestitora, privukli su i arhitekte iz drÿavnih biroa da grade u Leskovcu i okolini.

Vaÿno je istaãi da su oni veoma retko gradili izvan Beograda, u kojem se odvijala i

kanalisala celokupna arhitektonska delatnost u Srbiji.

Osim rušewa i transformacije otomanskog Leskovca u evropski-srpski grad,

kada je nestalo više dragocenih primera tursko-balkanskog stila, najrazornije su se

po arhitekturu Leskovca odrazila savezniåka bombardovawa 1944. godine, koja su uni-

štila velik broj objekata razliåitih namena. Isto tako, u pojedinim urbanistiåkim

zahvatima posle Drugog svetskog rata devastirano je mnogo vrednih graðevina nasta-

lih u minulim epohama.

ALEKSANDAR KADIJEVIÃ *

276