Page 26 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja, et al., eds. (2015). Stone narratives: heritage, mobility, performance. University of Primorska Press, Koper.
P. 26
stone narratives
tant identification symbol, which gives rise to an imaginary sense of belonging to the col-
lective Karst identity. The »rebirth of the Karst architecture«, as some experts and the me-
dia describe it, has definitely been made possible by a better social structure and financial
status of the Karst people, who improved their standing by selling agricultural products,
mostly wine. New wine cellars of bigger winegrowers and – makers are all built or renovat-
ed in the more or less Karst style with stone and stone details as prevailing building mate-
rials. Stone products and typical Karst architectural elements have also become an integral
part of the representation of the Karst environment at tourism and trade fairs. Exhibition
spaces of the companies from the Karst, especially those from the field of tourism, are usu-
ally furnished with stone vessels and other products from the Karst rural culture, such as
woven baskets for leaves.
Conclusion
We can conclude that various social factors and practices have shaped and changed the me-
aning of stone and stone products. A decisive role was played by the political discourse, in
particular by the Karst politicians, who in the search of the Karst identification and trade
elements strove for the stonemasonry tradition to regain its positive meaning. Owing to the
European project Porton [Portal], which organised several panels, lectures, and workshops,
the Karst people began to change their attitude to stone and stonemasonry activities into
a more positive one. The fact that municipalities financially supported many exhibitions
and that the media published several educational articles drew further attention to the im-
portance of this issue, which has been discussed on various formal and informal occasions.
Besides the political discourse, another important role was played by the professional dis-
course. Experts from different research institutions as well as newcomers, who built their
second home in the Karst, started discussing the role of stone heritage; however, in doing
so, they might have unintentionally overlooked or intentionally restricted other debates or
the understanding of the attitude to stone. In this way, it was often overlooked what many
Karst people thought of stone, namely that the stonemason’s work was expensive and that
renovation of old Karst homesteads required not only money but also more time than the
construction of a new house. For this reason, a lot of people still opt for an architecturally
controversial action and build new, prefabricated houses, which according to experts spo-
il the Karst landscape. As due to financial difficulties some inhabitants of the Karst can-
not afford stone elements, such as window or door frames, high walls around the house,
or a portal with wooden doors leading to the courtyard, or as they would need skilled, but
expensive master builders for the job, which a young family, for example, cannot afford,
the above-mentioned publicly accepted discourses have led to disagreements between lo-
cals and experts. This is also reflected in the statements of the architect Živa Deu, who said
that »the locals […] despite examples of good quality still do not appreciate old things«
(Deu, 2004, p. 12), and that the locals »want a new house as offered by the market of glo-
bal architectural design« (Deu, 2004, p. 12). In her opinion, a transition to a more positive
evaluation of stone heritage in the Karst is a result of »the actions of people from the city
and less a credit of the locals« (Deu, 2004, p. 15). However, none of the involved in the so-
-called professional discourse has asked themselves why it is that people from the city, who
come to renovate or build their second home in the Karst, can afford stone products, while
24
tant identification symbol, which gives rise to an imaginary sense of belonging to the col-
lective Karst identity. The »rebirth of the Karst architecture«, as some experts and the me-
dia describe it, has definitely been made possible by a better social structure and financial
status of the Karst people, who improved their standing by selling agricultural products,
mostly wine. New wine cellars of bigger winegrowers and – makers are all built or renovat-
ed in the more or less Karst style with stone and stone details as prevailing building mate-
rials. Stone products and typical Karst architectural elements have also become an integral
part of the representation of the Karst environment at tourism and trade fairs. Exhibition
spaces of the companies from the Karst, especially those from the field of tourism, are usu-
ally furnished with stone vessels and other products from the Karst rural culture, such as
woven baskets for leaves.
Conclusion
We can conclude that various social factors and practices have shaped and changed the me-
aning of stone and stone products. A decisive role was played by the political discourse, in
particular by the Karst politicians, who in the search of the Karst identification and trade
elements strove for the stonemasonry tradition to regain its positive meaning. Owing to the
European project Porton [Portal], which organised several panels, lectures, and workshops,
the Karst people began to change their attitude to stone and stonemasonry activities into
a more positive one. The fact that municipalities financially supported many exhibitions
and that the media published several educational articles drew further attention to the im-
portance of this issue, which has been discussed on various formal and informal occasions.
Besides the political discourse, another important role was played by the professional dis-
course. Experts from different research institutions as well as newcomers, who built their
second home in the Karst, started discussing the role of stone heritage; however, in doing
so, they might have unintentionally overlooked or intentionally restricted other debates or
the understanding of the attitude to stone. In this way, it was often overlooked what many
Karst people thought of stone, namely that the stonemason’s work was expensive and that
renovation of old Karst homesteads required not only money but also more time than the
construction of a new house. For this reason, a lot of people still opt for an architecturally
controversial action and build new, prefabricated houses, which according to experts spo-
il the Karst landscape. As due to financial difficulties some inhabitants of the Karst can-
not afford stone elements, such as window or door frames, high walls around the house,
or a portal with wooden doors leading to the courtyard, or as they would need skilled, but
expensive master builders for the job, which a young family, for example, cannot afford,
the above-mentioned publicly accepted discourses have led to disagreements between lo-
cals and experts. This is also reflected in the statements of the architect Živa Deu, who said
that »the locals […] despite examples of good quality still do not appreciate old things«
(Deu, 2004, p. 12), and that the locals »want a new house as offered by the market of glo-
bal architectural design« (Deu, 2004, p. 12). In her opinion, a transition to a more positive
evaluation of stone heritage in the Karst is a result of »the actions of people from the city
and less a credit of the locals« (Deu, 2004, p. 15). However, none of the involved in the so-
-called professional discourse has asked themselves why it is that people from the city, who
come to renovate or build their second home in the Karst, can afford stone products, while
24
