PIPAUGS - Welcome
Since 2010, while developing a program for THE FIRST INSTITUTE OF LANDSCAPE-ARCHITECTURAL-URBANISTIC CONSTRUCTION OF SERBIA (PIPAUGS), Ph. D. sci Velimir Lj. Cerimovic has been gathering professional and scientific staff as well as other referent persons and associations in order to present, develop and affirm a 3D program meant for research and education in the field of landscape-architectural-urbanistic construction, creative works, culture, art and construction-urban and church-national heritage. The aim is to gain a personnel-based and software prerequisite needed for its professional and scientific maturity, justification, higher-education institutionalization, promotion and sustainable work, mission as well as sustainable development and existence as a relevant scientific institution. The mentioned objective is to be achieved by publishing professional-scientific papers, transparency, crystallization and synthesis of relevant skills and knowledge regarding the field itself.
The reasons for such initiatives have existed for a few decades, since the mentioned departments of landscape architecture and eco-urban planning lack both usage and promotion of 3D knowledge. Yet, the out-of-date and unsustainable 2D theory and speculative 2D "patents" are still promoted. The lack of implementation is also visible in the Orthodox church department. Also, the already acquired knowledge of archetypal concept and program, hierophanic and theophanic genius loci, of development and typology of the Orthodox church port shape as well as of important differences between the sacred and profane space.
In the same way, when it comes to the modern vision of 3D landscape architectural urbanistic construction in the first decade and the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, the author of this text and the founder of the first form of electronic-institutional form of presentations and availability published and presented a rather impressive number of scientific and professional articles in various scientific magazines, academic journals, аt numerous symposiums, conferences, and so on. Some of the mentioned scientific articles are available at the web sites of the magazines (Savremeno graditeljstvo, Prostor or www.arhitektura.rs), and others can be read at the address of the Serbian quotation index (SCI index), where the following magazines are available: Izgradnja, Glasnik Srpskog geografskog drustva, Zbornik Matice srpske za likovne umetnosti, Nasledje, Arhitektura i urbanizam, Arhitektura, etc.
The opening of this www site is supposed to use a higher level of communication and understanding in order to provide an access to scientific papers in the field of landscape-architectural-urbanistic construction of Serbia, thus making it available to target groups, as a contemporary, relevant and socially useful scientific discourse.
As for the landscape architecture department, there are numerous motivations and reasons related to that issue, especially when it comes to the so far unsustainable pragmatic and quasi-knowledge about original landscape architecture where one faces one-sidedness of indiscriminately predominant and allegedly unique and significant ecological dimension of landscape architecture. Therefore, the original historical, cultural, spiritual, social, artistic, landscape, construction, urbanistic, residential, recreational and other specific dimensions of its physical (3D) structures and art-effects have been unsustainably marginalized. This neglects the fact that landscape architecture is significantly older than ecology, through its original forms of ancient garden and park architecture. Ecology became a scientific discipline in the second half of the 19th century. It is widely-known that ..."The Greeks neither used nor knew about the term ecology. The name and first definition of ecology as a science was provided by distinguished German zoologist and scientist Ernst Haeckel (...) in 1866"... Thus, landscape-architectural 3D objects, through architectural-urban history, originated from the creative and spiritual motivations, aesthetic and functional needs, as garden and park-cultural and architectural-urban structures.
Although the current Laws on Cultural Property in Serbia marginalizes and fails to recognize the cultural-park heritage of Serbia, but classifies its valuable buildings in a quasi-scientific way and regards them as protected cultural property environment, it is obvious that these buildings belong not to the natural heritage Serbia, but to the architectural-cultural and landscape-urban heritage.
Therefore, the planned, designed and built objects of cultural-park heritage of Serbia cannot be regarded as natural properties, since they are neither natural nor God's creation and they are not controlled by natural processes. This means that the planned, designed and built objects of the cultural-park heritage of Serbia represent architectural – cultural and landscape – urban properties where urban processes dominate, and natural properties are God's creation or natural creation ruled by natural processes. Therefore, this leads to an inevitable conclusion – natural properties cannot be planned, designed and built.
As for eco-urbanism department and theory and practice of urban and spatial design, 2D doctrines are still prevailing. After the integrative design implementation in the 1970s, they can relate only to designing the landscape-urban structures and buildings. In this way they lack the third dimension and this is why the buildings and artifacts of landscape architecture do not possess an architectural, cultural or artistic identity, physical subjectivity and urban legality.
Such established, out-dated and unsustainable but still present 2D theory and practice has for decades conducted demolishing of buildings and artifacts of landscape architecture – one of the cases is known as Peti parkic (the Fifth Little Park). It is just one among numerous cases where the citizens were not able to save the parks from pseudo-urban activities of aggressive and unscrupulously investment urbanism. Such unsustainable but widely accepted 2D method or 'patent' makes the landscape architecture objects or their parts pseudo-urbanized, that is – makes them an exclusive construction site used for the future pseudo-urban activities, which contributes to creating an undesirable and unsustainable urban discontinuity and unsustainable deregulation and degradation of an inherited or newly created urban substance.
Therefore, instead of applying a 3D design of landscape-urban structures, the focus is on the implementation and promotion of a virtual, outdated and ineffective 2D anti-system of the so-called green space, which is regarded to be an unsustainable heritage of the already rejected 2D design, planning, construction as well as 2D space management of urban residence or domicile and environmental landscape as the largest habitat.
Also, there is a visible lack of eco-reciprocity information and undesirable and unsustainable urban and spatial discontinuity between social structures (needs) and equally significant landscape, low and high physical built (3D) structures of urban habitats or domicile. Also, it is seen as unsustainable to provide a quasi-scientific equalization of the landscape architecture and a mere ecological greening. Furthermore, it is unsustainable to regard the landscape architecture as horticulture, especially in case of the third dimension supression by various objects, systems and artifacts of the landscape architectural construction, creation, culture, art and cultural-park heritage.
In the terms of unsustainable 2D education, there is still the lack of awareness of all potential harmful consequences of the fact that urban and regional planning are the part of speculative and unsustainable labyrinth or 2D and 3D doctrines, terminology, education, regulations and space management. Such situation provoked an unexpected and surprising acceptance of speculative 2D patents that still, in spite of being unsustainable regulations, promote in a legal way the capital hegemony and pseudo-urbanization of cities and settlements regardless social, ambient, cultural, spiritual, ecological and other consequences of deregulations, degradation and discontinuity of the inherited or a newly created urban substance.
When it comes to the department of the Orthodox church port, a major problem to deal with is the lack of knowledge of the differences between sacred and secular space. The successful growth and development of the church life, culture, art and construction in medieval Serbia led to its unexpected degradation, detraditionalization, deregulation and marginalization that began after the Second World War and lasted a few decades. This prolific Serbian medieval church-spiritual phase, as well as a desirable evolutionary development, was disrupted in the second half of the 20th century. The ideological deviance of antichurch regime and establishment in the period after the WWII provoked the process of church property sequestering, economic poverty, imposed phobias, malfunctioning and enormous pauses in relation to church and folk living activities, culture, art, spirituality, educational and creative works.
The best examples of such property sequestering and degradation of the organic unity of sacred volume that occurred in the period after the Second World War were at Vracar, Tasmajdan and numerous similar places nearby. It is the consequence of a long-term regime obstacles and delay of building a church port at Tasmajdan or a representative ecclesiastical throne unit of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate at Vracar. It also affected a post-modern detraditionalization of the external sacred place of a temple or port, but also led to a decreasing interest in church architecture, not only in Belgrade, but throughout Serbia as well.
This restrictive attitude toward church architecture was followed by a post-modern secularization of society and its influence on church architecture decline. The mentioned events led to marginalization and denial of universal, especially traditional or well-known and long-time-ago-adopted orthodox, orthoarchitectural and orthopractical heritage, achievement and value.
Today, a particular concern is seen in foreign words dictionaries (Milan Vujaklija (1970), p. 751. and Bratoljub Klaic (1978), p. 1071), because their authors provided a totally wrong, untenable and almost heretical interpretation of the Orthodox church port saying that it is a secular church yard. So, it is about (un)scientific or sacred profane approach and interpretation of the sacred volume of the Orthodox church port, where the port is neither holy, nor ceremonial nor religious space. Thus, authors' unintentional lack of knowledge and consequential prolonged silence of the competent and ecclesiastical entities about this harmful mistake or omission, maybe provoked by the regime of that period or subtly imputed simplification of theophanic or hierophanic genius loci or a sacred cult place and volume, might be seen as a carelessness or lapse or even secular individual and institutionally subtle, seamless and unexpectedly imputative secularization or heresy of the sacred volume.
Of course, it has already led to long-term devastating effects of modern, post-modern, anti-church, ideological and untenable aberrations, then simplification, secularization, detraditionalization of its outer sacred ceremonial-religious space and volume. When it comes to this issue, it will take a long time and patience to correct such mistakes in the mentioned officially approved and published dictionaries of foreign words – the mistakes that have been perfectly and skillfully covered, disguised in a sophisticated way, introduced and accepted. These mistakes have been present for too many decades provoking harmful effects.
This context implies that it was about an ordinary or secular Serbian yard or Turkish backyard. Therefore, there is not a single statement that it is a theophanic or hierophanic genius loci that was endowed with a newly created aureole or embodied lightness as a newly created value and place that radiates gracious sacred or spiritual energy. Regarding these dictionaries, it is obvious that the existing and unfounded explanations about the sacred holy volume of the Orthodox church port are counterproductive and harmful.