СТИЛІСТИЧНЕ ТРАКТУВАННЯ ЗРАЗКІВ ЛЬВІВСЬКОЇ АРХІТЕКТУРИ 1990-2000-Х РОКІВ. ПРОБЛЕМИ ТЕРМІНОЛОГІЇ ТА СВІТОГЛЯДНОЇ ДЕТЕРМІНАЦІЇ

Abstract

The article considers the problem of stylistic definition of objects of Lviv architecture in the 1990-2000s. Having studied the similar Ukrainian scientific publications, here is presented own arguments regarding the correct terminology for this type of objects. An important role is also given to the worldview prevailing at that time in professional circles, as it makes it possible to determine which values in design they adhered to - modernist or postmodern. On the basis of the conducted analysis, it was established that in the period of 1990-2000s, the development of processes that began in the late Soviet era, when experiments with regional tradition and local identity took place on a regional scale within the framework of so-called "individual projects" ( for example "Carpathian style"). Therefore, the objects of Lviv architecture of the 1990-2000s are mostly devoid of ambiguity and irony characteristic of postmodernism, as well as a deliberate desystematization of stylistic and tectonic rules. The postmodern understanding of form as language is not characteristic of post-Soviet samples. In view of the comparative assessment, it was established that the stylistic definition of Lviv architecture of the 1990s-2000s can be associated with modernism to a much greater extent than it was believed until now. The sum of the listed factors and the nature of the analyzed objects indicate that a probably more correct term for these monuments is "decorated modernism" or "deco-modernism". It was established that despite the fact that the practice of standard design was the object of unanimous criticism both in the professional environment and at the general societal level, this did not mean criticism of modernism as such, since (neo-)modernist objects are built on the so-called individual projects, were generally approved and were examples of a positive alternative. The main worldview motive of that time in the field of creating architectural form was the desire for individualism and imagery, which is not at all identical to postmodernism.