S A J _ 2012 _ 4 _
original scientific article
approval date 01 08 2012
UDK BROJEVI: 725.8.01 ID BROJ: 194949900
ARCHITECTURE THROUGH SPORT
A B S T R A C T
We can find certain parallelism between architecture and sport
in history (Rome) and in contemporaneity with spectacular sport
as most global kind of entertainment, and recognizable sport
architecture as sign of its universal presence. London Olympic
Games 2012 followed slogan „Architecture for Humanity”,
adding ecological and social concern to more traditional idea
of sport objects as modern cathedrals. Sport architecture has
become a statement, and it embodies ideology which turns sport
into reason for hope. Sport architecture is created on the field
where standardization of space (and time) exists for more than
hundred years, together with concentration of power in sport
associations which, during these hundred years, changed their
identity from civil society movements into capital enterprise
institutions. Original meaning of “sport” (desportes, deport) as
activity deported beyond regular and ordinary everyday life was
extended into new region of space and time where mass media
entertainment is produced. Contemporary sport architecture
has to follow specifically sport rules for playground space, and
rules of media presence. Sport places are spaces where massive
audience watches the game, and were it watches itself watching
– to be seen by massive media audience whose virtual presence is
perhaps today the most important concern of architectural design
for sport.
176
Lev Kreft
University of Ljubljana - Faculty of Arts
Key words
sport architecture
globality
standardization of space
deportation
massive audience
media presence
S A J _ 2012 _ 4 _
We can find similar parallelism between architecture and sport in history. Ancient
Rome, step by step conquering the Mediterranean region and beyond, spreading
around the recognizable pattern of imperial architecture, and the system of games
which expanded even more than Rome’s territorial reach.1 At the beginning,
games were something important for Rome’s identity, but rare and special,
organized just few times a year. At the end, in calendar there were more festive
days for games than the ordinary ones. At their start, the games were popular, but
humble spectacles, if compared with excessive magnitude and cost they reached
when the Empire was powerful, and later, when it was already in decay. Rome
conquered other nations and cultures, but left them to live with their culture after
they were believed to be powerless enough. Rome’s hegemony, i.e. rule without
permanent use of pressure and violence, consisted of few constant pillars, and
one of them were greater and more and more numerous spectacles staged in
monumental buildings. Initially, as Lukian has it, spectacles were multiplied
to keep poor Roman populus in good mood, but they served for all the other
peoples as well, especially after all grown up men in the Empire became Roman
citizens from 212 on.2 Presence of spectacles and of imperial architecture was
a sign of power, and symbolic sign of control over life itself. This sign was
inviting, attractive and popular, which means that it served its purpose very well,
much better than any possible kind of oppressive Romanization. With the first
emperors, spectacles became privilege of state and of the emperor personally:
many of them, especially the gladiator games in amphitheaters, became
completely monopolized and personalized by the emperor himself. The games,
together with a system of buildings for them, spread all over the country to allow
each and every inhabitant to have one of them within easy reach and were a tool
of hegemony and of governance.3
Today, sport and sport architecture are everywhere, and their presence is a sign of
belonging to global unified civilization. Stadiums are the most visible and visited
places everywhere around the world.4 It is possible not to have a museum, but
not to have a place for sports would be a sign of real backwardness. The sport
network is spread all around the world. The International Olympic Committee
Lev Kreft _ Architecture through Sport
During the last fifty years, sport has become a global phenomenon. So has
architecture. Global is not the same as international: it is not managed by nation
states system exclusively. And it is not just a refreshed version of “international
style”. It might be risky to try recognizing “global style” in these two omnipresent
signs of unified earthly empire. What there is without any doubt is global
competition: citius, altius, fortius. In this competition, there are no preordained
hierarchies: Qatar can prevail over United States of America, and West Indies can
beat Great Britain at its own game. No authoritative center exists, but symbolic
power of world’s unification is felt both in architecture and in sport.
177
S A J _ 2012 _ 4 _
has 68 global sport federations included and 204 National Olympic Committees
in member states; FIFA has 209 national football associations as its members.
Currently, there are 193 members of the United Nations, which makes sport
associations and football associations among them more international and global
than any other organized relationship of global human race. Sport has become
one of signs of the presence of global unity, and the symbol of unified global
culture. This includes recognizable patterns of sport architecture all around
the world. Not as a kind of imperial style, because there are less monumental
stadiums, as Sir John Guise Sport Stadium built and donated by China to Port
Moresby of Papua New Guinea for the 1991 South Pacific Games (which still
can host 50.000 spectators), and more monumental ones, as Rungrado May
Day Stadium in Pyongyang where, beside national football team and sporadic
athletic competitions, it is the place of Arirang festival which honors Kim IlSung’s birthday each April with a month long gymnastic exercises performed
with precision and colorful movement of masses of people – something well
known to those who still remember Tito’s birthday – The Day of Youth festivals
at The Yugoslav People’s Army Stadium in Belgrade on May 25.5 Of course,
there is also a huge number of other sport facilities and buildings, not all of them
architecturally meaningful or great, but in ideal competition they all have their
place at the chart which shows a growing network of unified and standardized
appearance of sport and its specially designed spaces and places.
178
The recent crisis and a bit older ecological and ethical concerns have changed
sport architecture in at least two aspects. One aspect is that there is a move from
eternal monumentality which often becomes a desert after a big event has passed
by to temporary structures which can partly or completely disappear or turn
into “multifunctional” ones. They are not made for one use only. As flexible
and complex structures, these sport facilities are functional, but not as a kind
of traditional “purity”: what they want to achieve is social response which
accepts them. Another one brings understanding of sport and its architecture
as a space of alternative culture or at least a place of difference from ordinary
life. This alternative is neither radical nor revolutionary; it is just creation of
space which is on the other side of competing individualisms and different from
troubled communion of labor and capital. This two-fold change has a slogan:
“Architecture for humanity”. It is reflected in London 2012 Olympic Games
architecture which is predominantly simple and built without desire to excel and
perplex. With two exceptions to the rule: Aquatic Center (Zaha Hadid Architects)
and Velopark (Hopkins Architects) planned to become permanent buildings for
municipal recreational use. But even they, quite attractive and monumental, have
to pay tribute to demand of low energy costs and overall ecological concerns.
Their sport use is different (cycling, BMXs competition; swimming, diving etc.),
but they have something else in common: simple symbolic structure; in case of
Aquatic Center it is the water wave, in case of Velopark it is velodrome cycling
curve. It already got a popular name: “The Pringle”. Different sources of symbolic
shape but the result is quite similar. Still, these symbolic structures would like to
express Coubertin’s idea that what we need are cathedrals of sport, because they
have to become new targets of mass pilgrimage, and because they represent a
place of hope. Here, ethical concerns of sport are directly translated into aesthetic
result: beautiful efficiency, where everything is designed ergonomically,
ecologically and on friendly terms with its surroundings (people and nature
included) and financially sustainable. That is what is meant by contemporary
functional architecture: it is not just adapted to immediate function but it has to
show many social functional concerns, and at the same time offer sport as parttime solution to most if not all of contemporaneity troubles. Charles Jencks6,
visiting the Olympic Village (which, as usual, should become new London
neighborhood after the Games), disappointed by the main stadium but thrilled
by Aquatic Center and Velopark, said that it was nice to see that London and
England decided to use Olympic Games and their architecture for Europeization
and egalitarianism. He may be right or wrong, but sport architecture has become
a statement and more than a statement: embodied ideology which turns sport into
reason for hope in times when there are not many other reasons. This kind of
ideology is not aggressive as physical culture and sport ideologies used to be in
times of nationalism, militarism and/or totalitarianism. Aesthetically speaking,
this ideology, when confronted with realities of elite sport or inaccessibility of
sport and health culture to most people, sounds sleazy but not aggressive.
Of course, these grandiose buildings are just the tops of the iceberg, with
hundreds of sport halls and other sport and recreational facilities built for
schools, municipalities and other institutions, but also they mark the trend, and
this trend is global.
But how can something like sport become global, unified, and omnipresent and
even an object of special type of architecture which makes our global culture
recognizable and sport something typically universal and monumental? And
what power is symbolized by global sport and its architecture?
MASSIVE AND FINE
First and obvious condition, typical for sport during the last hundred years, is
standardization of space. There are certain rules which determine how each kind
of sport has to be practiced, including playground measures. There are other
rules which apply, like those of security, as in other public buildings, but these
Lev Kreft _ Architecture through Sport
S A J _ 2012 _ 4 _
179
S A J _ 2012 _ 4 _
are determined by state authorities mostly. Standard shape of sport playground
is, however, determined by sport authorities, and is the same for any place on the
Earth. For most important international competitions these rules include even
more prescripts which go well beyond measurements of their playgrounds and
determine number of seats, comfort for athletes and judges and journalists and
general audience, accessibility, and facilities for grand media coverage. Those
sports which do not have global authority with power to standardize their rules
all around the globe, all facilities included, are not members of “the family”.
Standardization of organization of space and of its functionality has reached
much higher level than any other rules and prescripts, for instance those for
theaters or museums, hospitals and even airports.
180
This leads to another condition, that of concentration of power. There is no
global standardization, including guidelines for global architecture, without
global power to install and sustain equal rules for sport games all around the
world, with comparability of results but also with ability to judge, punish and
regulate, to manage and to sign good contracts. This power grew from a situation
when in different localities different sports were played, rules were loose and
negotiable and there were no authorities above single competition. Basic entity
was sport club, and from there on, during the last 150 years, local, national,
and finally continental and global associations were constituted step by step.
This pyramid is extremely hierarchical if examined from civil society access,
but also extremely flexible if approached from business side. No other part of
culture accepted prescriptions of market and media orientation so willingly and
so completely in short period of time. Sport was the first domain to install global
concentration of power constructed from national civil societies’ organizations
into global institutions with all prerogatives of independent and sovereign power
but without genuine internationality which can be constructed by nation states
only. At sport field the sport law governs as much as it concerns game itself but
some out-of-game concerns too. For instance, universal anti-doping control is
done everywhere according to sport associations guidelines and rules including
out-of-competition control and even anti-racism rules for behavior of audiences
are modeled according to international associations and Olympic Committee
prescriptions. Concentration of power in sport created certain state of exception:
spaces where legal and capital power belongs to civil society associations and
not only to nation state authorities. This does not mean that things did not change
considerably from the first days when sport was more or less completely in hands
of clubs, athletes, veteran athletes and those who helped them with sponsorship.
If hundred years ago sport power emerged from civil society associationism, now
it resides within capital flow. Ancient sport management consisted of veteran
athletes and representatives of fans; nowadays, sport associations and clubs
S A J _ 2012 _ 4 _
Sport, however, is not just elite sport covered by global media attention. Looked
upon from this point of view, it resembles proverbial icebergs which have much
more of their structure hidden below water. One of important features of this
massive structure is mass itself. Mass is not just any grouping of people, not even
if they appear in great numbers. Mass is a huge group of people representing
all strata of population, a mixture of different classes, sexes, ages, ethnic and
national groups, races etc. Mass is non-stratified appearance of otherwise
stratified society and sport is very good opportunity for masses because it is on
the other side of ordinary life with its divisions and grouping. This mixture, a
typical product of modernity, is at the same time the nightmare of modern order,
believed to be inclined to excess and explosion.7 In high culture, even during
democratization of culture as official politics, mass groupings were prevented
or put into framework of some kind of regulation. To regulate sport masses, all
kinds of regulations were introduced, including architectural set-up and actual
fences. Architectural rules now include urbanization of whole areas around
greatest sport objects, including special access corridors where different parts
of audience are isolated in their approach to events and complete turn-around in
presence of masses at objects themselves. In the old times, some fifty years ago,
fans were concentrated around playground, more or less in touch with players,
while socially privileged parts of public were watching from a greater distance
and height. New sport objects do not allow for direct contact between audience
and sport field and put most privileged people near playground while “masses”
are under supervision and control, isolated in their special segments and sectors.
But, for sport, massive presence of people has another characteristics as well: that
of huge number of real and potential consumers who practice sport and therefore
buy sport requisites, come to sport events as those who consume even more than
proverbial urban one-day guests and are ready to pay for healthy image sport as
Lev Kreft _ Architecture through Sport
are governed by capital management. Sport associations, sport clubs and sport
recreation: they are all now part of management of capital and their organization
changed into post-industrial quasi civil society surplus value enterprise. Nation
state authorities and local political power enter this field with taxpayer’s money
to produce development effects, share the glory of sport festivals and achieve
much cherished sport victories for their national and local communities. They
fight to become politically influential but have to accept sport associations rules
even in that respect, as proved by conflict over Bosnia and Herzegovina football
association leadership which was not allowed to apply “Dayton” idea of giving
presidential position to representative of each entity for a while during one term.
For the sake of national success and to prevent expulsion they had to obey global
FIFA and UEFA law and change their football constitution, which in this country
could never happen in any other domain. No Dayton in sport.
181
S A J _ 2012 _ 4 _
way of life offers. What now already ancient Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy” and even
his later follower “Playgirl” propagated is that play is first sport and then sex
and other pleasures: one has to look good and healthy, or, one has to pretend it.8
182
This change of social structure on stadiums for mass sport entertainment was
facilitated by another characteristic which is mentioned in connection with
contemporary sport from the early days of mediatization and on.9 Today, easy
accessible sport programs are everywhere in virtual space, in every home, at
anybody’s desk(top). Experience of sport at the spot became closer to that of
theatre: to share the same physical space is the elite difference if compared with
plebeian and ordinary being plugged-in by media, where you can get much
more visual and other information, special support by image and voice to make
even most dull events sensational and get connected with movement from
perspectives which are out of reach for those physically present at the event.
One of the results of this change was that fans (“real fans”, as they would define
themselves as opposed to those who watch from their armchairs) are now the
prevailing part of sport audience at the spot, another is that sport facilities and
buildings are planned and executed with much more care about visitors’ comfort
– and comfort of media (especially accessibility and visibility for cameras and
infrastructural support), with a consequence that physically present audience
appears as “representative” group for those watching from media distance, which
turned spectators on the spot into theatrical group appearing on TV, similar to
those who applaud or laugh at sitcoms and other TV programs (or, if we want to
get atavistic, to ancient Greek chorus). But those who laugh at TV sitcoms are
usually invisible whereas sport spectators appear. The whole sport facility with
its architectural support is now a stage. This is the most important change for
sport because all mediatized sports changed their rules to make themselves both
more watchable from the armchair and more theatrical in their physical presence.
New sport architecture has to support this total staging of the event, players and
audience included. And it appears itself as monumental background, at moments
as the front even as with the help of air view used at the biggest events to create a
feeling of monumentality and importance. As a result, even architecture is made
not just for the beholder who approaches and occupies the building. It is created
for the eye of the camera much more than any other kind of architecture. Is there
any kind of architecture to appear as globally and as often as sport architecture?
Not even White House or Bilbao museum can compete with football stadiums
and grand halls of spectacle.
Standardized global models, concentration of (civil society, state and
international) power, mass entertainment with need to control public space and
public response and total mediatization: all these together are circumstances
quite favorable for architectural approach, but less open for experiments and
S A J _ 2012 _ 4 _
postmodern manifold architectural languages: even oil station can survive with
postmodern architecture’s approach, including mazes, mirroring and mixture of
languages, but sport premises cannot. Starting from the field which has to be
done according to the rules, things are functionally defined, but this functionality
does not have to be minimization of space and its shapes to bare functionality as
in functionalism. Quite contrary, monumentality now goes together with comfort
and visual pleasure. Taken all together, sport architecture is expected to support
and make appearance of sport and sport events co-operate as massive and fine
at the same time.
Where did this massive and fine sport arrive from historically?
Word sport is the English form developed from older French and other Roman
languages de(s)portes, from Latin deportare, a member of well-developed family
which today includes port, import and export, transport, support, deportation and
many others. How can sport and deportation belong to the same roots? Initially
there is a verb, a movement which involves carrying from one side to another,
across dividing line and which, however, has its opening which allows for
passage. It involves, of course, a change of location, but together with a change
of location it involves a change of regime as well: for better or for worse. In
deportation, obviously, change for the worse prevailed, and it now means that a
person was expelled from its “home” somewhere else against his or her will, and
was put under control of special regime, usually administered by the nation state.
It is not a situation, as that of exile, but movement from one regime to another.
It is similar with sport/de(s)portes: it denotes those pastimes and practices which
cannot enter the territory of ordinary life. Ordinary life is life put under certain
order, usually supported by legislation and always administered by power of
some kind. To be inside space of administered order is safe but less free. Outside
the space of administered order are those activities which are not allowed to
enter the space where power reigns but are allowed to go on beyond its limits.
This was a case of the theater in Shakespeare’s time: it was not allowed inside
city walls, so it had to exist on the other side of the Thames, where all other
sports from prostitution to May carnivals had their place. Revolution wanted to
get rid of theater, even art as such: it was a Puritan event. Only after Glorious
Revolution theater was allowed inside London’s walls. At the same time, it was
tamed by architecture and entered its progress towards Italian theater model,
where hierarchy of audience put all visitors in their proper places to represent
society as such together with social capital and social divides each stratum
represented and inhabited.
Lev Kreft _ Architecture through Sport
DEPORTATION
183
S A J _ 2012 _ 4 _
Sport, however, remained on the other side of order for quite some time, until
the 20th century. And it did change its scope from all kind of activities which
were conducted without restraint of public order or realms discipline at the same
time. Which means that “sport”, at the end of the 19th century even in England
could still mean an easy way to understand the laws of mathematics, or, all
kinds of activities we call “hobbies” nowadays. What “sport” amounted to was
not only physical activity spent in competition, it covered all activities which
belonged to leisure time. This, by the way, exemplifies how division of space
(territory of order vs. territory of lewdness) turned into division of time (labor
time vs. free time), but it also makes visible how architecture entered sport: as
one of the tools which had to turn plebeian wild and free entertainment into “fine
sport”, and at the same time allow for its entrance into organized and supported
leisure. Organization of space, which enters theater (earlier) and sport (later) as
a result of specific cultural turn from plebeian to fine entertainment is essential
for modern society in which people have to be free and under control at the same
time. They have to be free because they are expected to appear on the market,
at least with their ability to exchange labor for capital, but they also have to be
under control even during their free time to make private ownership of the means
of production safe.
CONCLUSION
184
The process which took sport away from its plebeian roots to produce mass
sport recreation and sport mediatization, which put sport under control of
international associations turned into capital corporations and which developed
sport into global sensation and spectacle is at the same time a process which
produced sport architecture as part of global investment in sport economy and in
“sportization” of urban environment. That sport turned into profitable business
on grand scale and at the same time managed to become grand global spectacle,
are the two fundamental moves which changed sport and its architecture during
the last fifty years. During this change, it was however most important to keep
and even inflate sports’ attractiveness, especially media attractiveness, and its
“democratic” accessibility to all strata of society, again, especially through
media. We remember Walter Benjamin with his claims that masses demand
aesthetic pleasure to get as near as possible and that they demand technical
reproducibility of aesthetic pleasure and thrill. There is no doubt that these two
directions shaped contemporary sport. But, important even in architectural terms:
How near is near? To be near represents a break between my body and the object
which is near to it: minimal break perhaps but still a break and not immediate
access or even a direct touch. It seems that the most important change in sport
architecture during the last decades is constant and persistent introduction of
“break” and “gap” in sports’ public space. Spectatorship, obviously, is so
different from traditional presence at sport games that it demands a gap between
audience and event even if it is near to invisible. And most of the time it is
not invisible anyway, quite the contrary, because these breaks and gaps were
introduced together with safety concerns so that these obstructions and fences
are not just like English garden’s “ha-ha” but real and quite visible thing. Those
who remember previous arrangements, some fifty years ago, could say that then
it was possible for audience and players to get together immediately after the
game came to an end. This was sometimes awkward and unwelcome, sometimes
even violent but the need to install the line of divide did not burst out just for
safety reasons. It was installed to divide two scenes which both became so
important for mediatized spectacle: physically present public which embodies
representation of all the others who watch without physical presence at the spot
of the game and physically present players. The division between media public
and live audience demands that this division is enacted to mark the importance
of media audience through representation. Masses want their aesthetic pleasure
to be as near as possible but not without division: what they want is theatricality,
and not (physical) absorption. If we think about the idea behind fan groups,
which are something very different from much older supporters of the club, this
idea means glorifying your chosen competitor and putting it on the pedestal, not
(as it used to be) to become equal immediately after the match, drinking beer
together and discussing what went right or wrong. The distancing in nearness,
this “having all at a grip of a hand” approach of new media, does not allow
for intimate relationship between players and their public. And that it is what
contemporary architecture takes care of as well.
Deportation, as original meaning of sport as being deported from realm of
imposed rules of behavior (scene) into realm where you can practice what you
like (obscene), applies in these new circumstances in reverse direction. Sport
has finally become “fine sport” and has been arranged and administered as
such. Being simplified and regulated more and more to appeal to Jederman
of Media Republic and turned into accessible healthy practices of fitness and
wellness (which represent negation of sport as competitive joy and of physical
culture as triumph of collectivity), sport is in danger of getting disconnected
from its original background in play. What is lacking in precise, efficient and
goal-oriented recreation is precisely – playfulness of sport; what is needed in
enormously grown and developed system of professional sport, spectacularized
and divided from its audience by its architecture, is some real, corporeal and
sensual pleasure and less of distant theatricality created by imposed limits of
sublime spectacle. Both sport and architecture should not get disconnected from
their origin: “It’s about body, stupid!”
Lev Kreft _ Architecture through Sport
S A J _ 2012 _ 4 _
185
S A J _ 2012 _ 4 _
NOTES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
186
On political impact of Roman games and architecture, including comparison with Greek festivals,
see: Paul Plass, The Game of Death in Ancient Rome: Arena Sport and Political Suicide (Madison:
The University of Wisconsin Press, 1955). Famous Juvenal's accusation or Roman plebs whose
communal desire was reduced to »panem et circenses« (bread and circus) is from his Satire 10 (in
Latin – http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/juvenal/10.shtml).
Roman citizenship was given to all free male subjects of empire by Caracalla with his Constitutio
Antoniana in 212.
On Roman hegemony in spectacles, see my article »Tertullian i Hegelova romantičarska forma
umetnosti«, TkH, 3(6), 2003, 69-81.
On criticism of Olympic games and Olympic movement, see: Ljubodrag Simonović, Olimpijska
podvala »božanskog Barona« Pjera de Kubertena (Nikšić: Univerzitetska riječ, 1988) and
Ljubodrag Simonović, Filozofski aspekti modernog olimpizma (Beograd: Simonović, 2009).
Another and similar case against Olympic games can be found in works of Jean-Marie Brohm,
especially in. Jean-Marie Brohm, 1936: Les Jeux olympiques á Berlin (Bruxelles: André Versaille,
2008). and Jean-Marie Brohm, La Tyrannie sportive: Théorie critique d'un opium du peuple (Paris:
Beauchesne, 2006).
On May 25 festival, see: “Lev Kreft, Days of Youth: Political Aesthetics and Physical Culture,” in
Sporting Reflections: Some Philosophical Perspectives, ed. Sheridan H., L. Howe and K.
Thompson (Oxford: Meyer&Meyer Sport, 2007), 8-19.
Charles Jencks is one of most outstanding architectural theorists of post-modern architecture,
starting from global bestseller The Language of Post-Modern Architecture (NY: Rizzoli, 1977).
His influence on theories of post-modernism, and of contemporary architecture is quite substantial.
In relation to difference between modernism and post-modernism, Jencks belongs to those who
see post-modernism as another kind of modernism.
For two typical cases on this fear of the masses which are inevitable component of modern life,
see: Gustave Le Bon, La Psychologie des foules (1895), available at: http:/envole.net/enote/
doc/20080418-Gustave-le-bon-psycho-des-foules-alcan.pdf , and in translation as Psihologija
gomila (Beograd and Čačak: Kukić and Gradac, 2007). Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses
(1930), available at http://pinkmonkey.com/library1/revolt/pdf.
On Hugh Hefner’s male style of independent life, and on »Playboy« architecture, see: Beatriz
Preciado, Pornotopía: Arquitectura y sexualidad en “Playboy” durante la guerra fría (Barcelona:
Anagrama, 2010).
On the impact of masses on culture, see: Walter Benjamin, Eseji (Beograd: Nolit, 1974). especially
his essay »The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction«, which can be accessed in
English at: http://design.wishiewashie.com/HTS/WalterBenjaminTheWorkofArt.pdf.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benjamin, Walter. “Umetničko delu u veku svoje tehničke reprodukcije,'' u Eseji, Beograd: Nolit,
1974, 114-149.
Benjamin,Walter, ''The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction'', available at http://
design.wishiewashie.com/HTS/WalterBenjaminTheWorkofArt.pdf (8.11.2012).
Brohm, Jean-Marie. La Tyrannie sportive: Théorie critique d'un opium du peuple. Paris:
Beauchesne, 2006.
Brohm, Jean-Marie. 1936: Les Jeuy olympiques á Berlin. Bruxelles: Andreé Versailles, 2008.
Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses (1930), available at http://pinkmonkey.com/library1/
revolt/pdf.
Jencks, Charles. The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. New York: Rizzoli, 1977.
Juvenal,''Satire'', available at http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/juvenal/10.shtml (8.11.2012)
Kreft, Lev.''Tertullian i Hegelova romantičarska forma umetnost,'' TkH, 3(6), 2003, 69-81.
Lev Kreft, ''Days of Youth: Political Aesthetics and Physical Culture,'' Sporting Reflections:
Some Phylosophycal Perspectives (ed. Sheridan H., Howe L. And K. Thompson), Oxford:
Meyer&Meyer Sport, 2007, 8-19.
Gustave Le Bon, La Psychologie des foules (1895), accessible at http:/envole.net/enote/
doc/20080418-Gustave-le-bon-psycho-des-foules-alcan.pdf (8.11.2012)
Le Bon, Gustave. Psihologija gomila, Beograd and Čačak: Kukić and Gradac, 2007.
Plass, Paul. The Game of Death in Ancient Rome: Arena Sport and Political Suicide. Madison: The
University of Wisconsin Press, 1955.
Preciado, Beatrox. Pornotopía: Arquitectura y sexualidad an »Playboy« durante la guerra ftía.
Barcelona: Anagrama, 2010.
Simonović, Ljubodrag. Olimpijska podvala »božanskog Barona« Pjera de Kubertena. Nikšić:
Univerzitetska riječ, 1988.
Simonović,Ljubodrag. Filozofski aspekti modernog olimpizma. Beograd: Simonović, 2009.
Lev Kreft _ Architecture through Sport
S A J _ 2012 _ 4 _
187
S A J _ 2012 _ 4 _
”teoretizacija” u vremenu poznog modernizma i postmoderne kulture. Kazuje
se na modalitete teorije izvan filozofije i estetike. Približavaju se diskursi iz
filozofije, humanističkih nauka, slobodnih teoretizacija i arhitektonskih teorija.
U završnom potpoglavlju se razmatra status savremene filozofije i savremene
arhitekture. Posebno se razrađuje pojamj savremenosti. Centralna teza ovog
rada je da je odnos arhitektiure i filozofije tj. teorije konstitutivan za modernu,
postmodernu i savremenu arhiutekturu. Izvedena teza rasprave je da kritička
teorija arhitekture i arhitektonska žudnja za ”kritičkom arhitekturom” su dobile
izuzetan značaj u vremenu globalnih konflikta i, danas, u vremenu globalne
ekonomske krize. Teorijska, estetička i filozofska pažnja se suštinski pomerila
pomerila sa imanentnih pitanja o arhitekturi (forma, funkcija, spektakularnost)
na spoljašnja tj. transcendentna pitanja o kulturi i društvu, tj. o ekonomiji,
moći, upravljanju, nadzoru, oblicima života, fleksibilnosti arhitektonske
proizvodnje, razmene i potrošnje.
ključne reči: arhitektura, filozofija, estetika, teorija, humanistika, znanje, vreme
torije, savremenost, savremena arhitektura
ARHITEKTURA KROZ SPORT
Lev Kreft
Može se naći određena paralela između arhitekture i sporta u istoriji (Rim)
i savremenom dobu koje nosi sportski spektakl kao globalno najveći vid
zabave, i prepoznatljive arhitekture sporta kao znaka njegovog opšteg
prisustva. Olimpijske igre 2012.g. u Londonu pratile su slogan „Arhitektura za
čovečanstvo“, dodajući ekološku i društvenu zabrinutost tradicionalnoj ideji
sportskih objekata kao modernih katedrala. Arhitektura sporta postala je iskaz
koji otelovljuje ideologiju koja sport pretvara u razlog nadanja. Arhitektura
sporta nastala je u polju u kom standardizacija prostora (i vremena) postoji više
od sto godina, zajedno sa koncentracijom moći u sportskim udruženjima koja
su, tokom ovih sto godina, promenila svoj identitet iz pokreta civilnog društva
u institucije kapitalizma. Originalno značenje „sporta“ (desportes, deport)
kao aktivnosti van redovnog i uobičajenog svakodnevnog života produženo
je u nove domene prostora i vremena u kojima se proizvodi zabava masovnih
medija. Savremena arhitektura sporta mora da prati posebna prostorna pravila i
zahteve sportskih igrališta i pravila medijskog prisustva. Mesta sporta su mesta
gde masivna publika gleda utakmicu i gde posmatra sebe kako posmatra – biti
viđen od strane mase čije je virtuelno prisustvo danas možda najvažniji interes
projektovanja arhitekture sporta.
ključne reči: arhitektura sporta, globalnost, standardizacija prostora,
deportacija, masivna publika, medijsko prisustvo