The symbolic dimension of the city : the presence of a dragon in the urban space of Krakow

(1)

Howtocite:

PietrzakM.&AngielM.(2018)Thesymbolicdimensionoft hecity –

thepresenceofadragonintheurbanspaceofKrakow,UrbanDevelopme ntIssues,vol.57,pp.41–52,DOI:10.2478/udi-2018-0016

URBANISSUES

#iconosphere

#symbolinthecityspace

#Krakow

#thedragonasasymbol

#theidentityofaplace

#symbolicfunctionsofthe iconosphere

MałgorzataPietrzak*Ins tituteofGeographyandSpatialMan agement,Jagiellonian University malgorzata.pietrzak@uj.edu.pl

MarekAngielh ttps://marekangiel.blogspot.com/htt ps://plus.google.com/+MarekAngiel

41

Thesymbolicdimensionofthecity –

thepresenceofadragonintheurbanspace ofKrakow

Abstract

Thepaperdealswiththeissuesofthesymbolicdimensionofacitycreat- edfromtheurbanandsocialsubsystems.Thecityanditslandscapeareundersto odhereasasystemofsignsfunctioningintwodistinctordersofreality,yetstilld ependentoneachother,i.e.thematerialorderandtheimaginaryone.Inthepaper, weaskquestionsabouttheroleofthesymbolinthecontemporaryprocessofcreat ingthespecificityofaplace.Wealsospeakabouttheidentityofaplace,aboutend owingaplacewithfeaturesoffamiliarity,aboutthesocialneedtorecognisethes ymbol.Thepresenceofadragon,acreatureborninthehumanimagination,inthe urbanspaceofKrakowwaschosenasanexampleofthesymbolicdimensionoft hecity.Krakowisahistoriccity,theformercapitalofPoland,acityrichindiverse symboliccapitals.ThedragonisasymbolofKrakow.Itispresentinthelegendab outthecity’sorigins,andisalsocommonlypresentinthematerialspaceofKrak ow.Itispartofthecity’sidentity.

submitted:October2017 reviewed:January2018 accepted:May2018

commons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

BYN C ND

(2)

MałgorzataPietrzak,MarekAngiel

Thesymbolicdimensionofthecity–thepresenceofadragonintheurbanspaceofKrakow

Introductio n

Theendofthe20thcentury(the1980s)broughttotheworld ,aswellastoPoland,thedevelopmentofanewmodelofsoci allife.Thismodelhasmanyincarnations,however,oneca ntalkabouttheformationof“post-in-

dustrialsociety”(Bell1994),or“post-

modernsociety”(Bauman1994).Thissocietyhasthefeatu resofhighlydevelopedurbanisedsocieties,withagrowin gservicesector.Oneofthefeaturesofsuchasocietyisthete n-dencytoloosenitsbondswiththeplace,i.e.deterrito- rialisation,hereunderstoodasthelossoftheimpactof 42 geographicalspaceandthestateonasignificantnumber

ofsocialphenomena(Burszta1998).Atthesametime,in“p ost-

modernsociety”therearereturningactionsthataimatrero utingtheexperiencethathasbeenbuiltovercenturiesinthe lifespaceofacity’sgivencommunity.Experienceisdescr ibedusingsymbolsspecifictothelocallandscape.Intheca seofKrakow,anelementofthesymboliccultureoftheplac eisthedragon.ThissymbolissostrongthatinPolandthewo rd“dragon”isassociatedwithKrakowandtheexpression‘

Krakowdragon’isincommonusage.Itisonthissymbol,th edragonsymbol,amongotherthings,thatKrakow’scitize nsbuildtheirbondwiththecity.Thepresentarticledealswi thhowwidespreadandmultifacetedtheimpactofthissym bolis.

Thearticulationofthemeaningofthedragonsymbolint heurbanspaceofKrakowanditsroleinbuildingtheinhabit ants’bondswiththeircity,whicharetheaimsofthisarticle, wereprecededbytheoreticalconsiderations.Theiraimwa stoorganisethemeaningofconceptsanddrawattentiontot heproblemofsymbolisationprocess-

esinalargecityof“post-

industrialsociety”inwhichthefunctional,modernistand modernisingviewpointpre-

vails.Symbolisationisunderstoodhereasassigningmean- ings,otherthanutilitarian,tourbanprivatehomelands.

Theaimoftheauthorofthearticlewastoshowhowthepr esenceofsignsofthedragonsymbolinthemate-

rialandsocialspaceofKrakowisamultifacetedissue.InKr akow,thepresenceofthedragonhasasymbol-

icdimension.Itspresenceiseternalandubiquitous.InKra kow,thedragon“livesinarockcave”,isdepictedinsculptu resandbas-reliefsonthewallsofKrakow’sed-

ifices,tenementhouses,palacesandchurches,itgracesgut ters,gargoyles,andportals.Anotherimportantaimofthew orkwastoemphasisetheimportanceofcultivatingtraditio n,referringtosymbolsasamaterialthatbuildstheidentityo fbothindividualsandthecommunity.Theworkfitsintoth ebroadersocialtrendcallingforare-

turntoplacesofresidencethathavebeenevolutionarilysha pedincitiesoverthecenturies.Itcallsfortherejectionofthe post-

modernmodelofsociety,fortherejectionofthei deathatindefininghumanidentitiestheterritor y

(3)

losesitskeyrole.Theworkjoinsthesetofopinionsrec-

ognisingthatitisbeneficialforurbancommunitiestocommonlylook forwaystorestoresmallsocial-

urbanorsafeneighbourhoodsincitiesthroughurbanrenewalprogra mmes.Thepresenceofsymbolsinthecityspace,whichisemphasised inthiswork,makesiteasierforinhabitantstoshapetheirworld,theirlit tleurbanhome-

land.Itmakesitpossibleforinhabitantstofindasenseofsafetyandbel ongingtothecitycommunity.

ThisarticleisaboutKrakow–

acitywhoseoriginisassociatedwithalegendaboutthedragon.Itisane xampleofreflectionsinthehumanisticfieldofculturalgeogra- phy.Humanisticgeographyattemptstounderstandthehumanworldb yanalysingpeople’srelationswithnature,theirgeographicalbehavio ur,andtheirfeelingsandideaswithregardtospaceandplace(Tuan197 6).Itfocusesonthedescriptionandinterpretationoflandscapetodisclo seitssymbolicmeanings(theiconographyoflandscape).

Humanisticgeographytakesaninterestintheinter- pretationoflandscapeasacarrierandrepositoryofsym-

bolicmeanings,ratherthaninestablishingaquantitativecorrelationb etweenpeopleandplace.Themethodologyisbasedonhermeneutics (thetheoryofinterpretationandclarificationofmeanings(Sapkota2 017)).Therefore,theauthorsappliedqualitativeresearchmethods, i.e.participantobservation,useofdocumentarysources,andfield work(GeographyOpenTextbookCollective2014).Dataoncultu

ralandsocialeventsthemotifofwhichwasadragonwere collectedoveraperiodoftwoyears.Moreover,building sinKrakowwiththeimageofadragonweredocumented onphotosaspartofarchivalresearch.Amongthe77regist ereddragonfigures,21rep-

resentingtheornamentationofbuildingsand5relatedto humanactivityhavebeenpresentedinthisarticle.

Thetheoreticalconsiderationsweredividedintothreep arts.Thefirstonedealswiththesymbolicdimensionofthec ity.Itisabouttheroleofasymbolinthelifeofacon-

temporarycityanditsimportanceinbuildingtheinhab- itants’bondswiththecity.Thesecondonepresentscon- siderationsof“identity”andthe“identityofaplace”.These areshortremindersoftheresultsofsociologicalresearchor ganisingtheseconceptsandpointingoutthatwhentalk- ingabouttheidentityofaplaceoneshoulddistinguisha“per sonalidentityofaplace”froman“identityofaplaceofasoci alnature”,whichisexplainedinthetext.Attheend,inthethi rdpart,theneedtoseethesymbolasacar-

rieroftraditionwasemphasisedbecausetraditionisnotcho sen,traditionisfound,asM.Porębski(1972)believed.

Aboutthesymbolicdimensionofthecity

Sinceitsinceptioninthehistoryofcivilisation,thecityhasa lwaysmeantandmeansboththematerialsphere

(includingitsgeographicalfeaturessuchaslocationandtop ography)anditspopulation.Usingthewordsofasoci- ologist(Wallis1990),thecityhasbeen,andwillbe,asys- temcomposedoftwoorganicallylinked,autonomoussubs ystemsinteractingontheprincipleoffeedback,i.e.theurba nandsocialones.Atthesametime,thecityanditslandscape, understoodasasystemofsigns,functionintwoseparateorde rsofrealitywhicharestilldependentoneachother.Thesear ethematerialorderandtheimaginaryone.However,itisnot thematterofthecity,butitsper-

ceptionanduse(alsotheuseofarchitecture)thatmakesthe mculturalfacts.Acity,itsdistricts,streets,buildings,orarc hitecturaldetailsbecomesignsandsymbolswhentheyarep erceivedsocially.Asociallyperceivedcitybe-

comesacarrierofvalues,asourceofhistoricalandcul- turalcontent.Weliveintheeraofpost-

modernismwheretheprocessesofdeterritorialisationdom inate,andmostofusperceivetheworldthroughtheprismoff unctionality,modernism,andmodernisation.Everyactio ntriggersareaction.Someofthecity’sinhabitantsrecognis etheroleofsymbols,asdo,whichisnice,thepeoplewhode- terminetheirconditionanddevelopment.Forthem,theyar ecarriersofvalues.Throughtheiractivitiesandactions,the ylaunchandimplementinsociallifetheprocessesofsymbo lisation,i.e.assigningsupra-

utilitarianmeaningstourbanprivatehomelands.

Thesubjectdiscussedinthearticleisthesymbolicdi- mensionofthecity.Itisanattempttowidentheresponsetoth equestionsabouttheroleofsymbolsinthecon-

temporaryprocessofcreatingthespecificityofaplace.We

alsotalkhereabouttheidentityofaplace,aboutassigningfeaturesofho melandtoaplace,andaboutthewaysofcreatingrelations/bondswiththe recipientandinfluencingtheactions/behaviouroftheinhabitants.

Dragons,creatures/monsters/animalsborninthehu-

manimaginationandneveractuallyexistent,whichhaveplayedasignifi cantroleinthemythologyofnumerouscultures,werechosenasthesymb ol.

Krakow,theformercapitalofPoland,a EuropeancitylocatedinMalo polska,ahistoricaldistrictinsouth-

ernPoland,waschosenasthecity.Krakow,acityfullofspiritualandmate rialhistory,canboastauniqueandrichsymboliccapital.Initspresentfor m,thecityisareal-

isationofvariousurbanutopias,epochs,andinterests,anditscommunity today(formedafterWorldWarIIandoverthelasttwentyyears)isheterog eneous.Itisbuiltby“long-

standing”communitieslivinghereforgenerations,newcommunities(w iththesecondorthirdgenerationlivinginthiscity),orthosethatarrivedhe rejust“awhileago”.DevelopedintheMiddleAgesandfoundedunderGe rmantownlawinthemiddleofthe13thcentury,fromtheverybeginning Krakow’sdowntownhadanimportant

(4)

Małg orza taPie trzak ,Mar ekAn giel Thes ymb olicd imen sion ofth ecit y–

thep rese nceo fadr agon inth eurb ansp aceo fKra kow

symbolicandrepresentativefunctioninthed uchy/stateofPoland,alwaysofasupra- regionalnatureand,formanycenturies,alsoa sacapital.WhydowelinkKrakowwiththedr agon?

Well,thereisalegendaboutadragonthatisco nnectedwiththefoundationofKrakow.Itisal egendknowntoallPoles,youngandold,onet hatislong-last-

ingandpopularinthesocialconsciousnessno tonlyofKrakow.Nowonderthatthedragon/d ragonshavebecomeandareoneofthesymbol sofKrakow’siconosphere,asym-

bolrecognisableandclosetotheinhabitantsa ndtouristswhocomeheretogettoknowandad mirethecity.

43 Aboutidentityandtheidentityo

faplace

Do“space”and“place”meanthesamething?

Ontheba-

sisofquantitativeresearch,spaceistreatedin twoways,

i.e.asadependentvariable,orasanindepend entone.Itssymbolicpresentation,wherespa ceistoberegardedasasystemofsignsreflecti ngextraspatialsystemsofvalues,isnotinclu dedinthisperspectiveofquantitativeresearc h.Spacecanexistinthephysicalsenseandals o,whichisimportant,inthesocialone.Thelat

terexistswhenelementsofspace(includingthespaceofthe city)areperceivedandinterpretedsocially.

SpaceisauniversalsymboloffreedomintheWesternw orld.Spaceiswideopen,suggeststhefuture,anden- couragesaction.Closedandhumanisedspacebecomesapl ace.Comparedtospace,aplaceisaquietcentreofestablish edvalues.Thesymbolicdistinctionbetweenaplaceandsp acewasdefinedinthiswaybythefamousAmericangeogra pherY.-F.Tuan(1987).

Weadopthispointofviewasourown.Thinkingaboutaplac e,weseeitasaquietcentreofestablishedvalues.

ResidingandlivingactivelyinKrakow,weobserveitsso ciallifeandthecity’smatterchangingovertime.InKrakow ,consciouslyandunconsciously,wealwaysreturntohistori callyestablishedplacesandtothosethatanchorusculturall y,toplaceswherewefeelthepresenceofthematerialremna ntsofthepast.Wearenotaloneinthis,becauseoneofman’sb asicneedsisthesenseofidentityandintegrationofpersonali ty.Asimilarsituationoccursinthecaseofanotherequallyi mportanthumanneed(thoughweareoftenunawareofit),i.

e.theneedtopreservetheculturalenvironment,whichisnol essimportantthanthepreservationofthenaturalenvironm ent.Thekeywordidentitywasspoken,keytotheunderstand ingofsymbolicreality.Werecogniseidentityasamoreorle sspermanentsenseofunitywithsomeone,butalsowithwha tissociallyproduced:withplaceswhichmanexperiencess ensually,inwhichhemeetsothers,works,rests,withplaces whereheexperiencesimportant,goodandbad,momentsin hislife.So,thecaseisthat,defininghisownidentity,mande fineshimselfbyselecting(moreorlessconsciously) andvaluingvariousrelationshipsconnectinghimwiththe

world.Hecreatesself-

images,andreferstowhatisexternal.Intraditionalculture s,theidentityofpeople,thingsandplaceswerestronglydep endentononeanother;identityblurringisaresultofincreas edmobilityandtheubiquitousexchangeofgoods(Lash19 79).Wearriveatthenotionofculturalidentity,whichA.Ja włowska(2001)definesastheprocessofself-

determinationfacingsomecomponentsofsymbolicreality ,ofaworldofculture.Thecityanditsassociatedsocialimag erycanconstitutethisgroupofcomponents.Insocialperce ption,materialob-

44 jectsandspecificplacesareusuallythemostimportant carriersofculture.Thisisbecausetheseobjectsorplaceslas toutsidehumanconsciousnessandmaybeapermanentrefe rencepointforit.

Speakingabouttheidentityofaplace,wecanseethatthe dimensionsofthisidentityappeartobediverse.Ontheoneh and,wehaveauniquesocialidentitythatisassociatedwith thesenseofsimilarityandcommunitywithothers,andape rsonalidentitybasedonthesenseofuniquenessanddiffere ncefromothers(Bossak-

Herbst2009).Bothofthem(aswellasthoseextendingbetw eenthetwopoles)areinteresting,desirableandshouldnotb esubjecttovaluation,sincetheybothservetogettoknowth

ecityandestablishdialoguewithKrakow.Onth eotherhand,wecanconsidertheidentityofapla ceasadescriptionofthepowerofaffectionforth eplaceofresidence/living,fromaverystrongon etoitscompletelack.Thestrongidentityofapla ceisexpressedinphras-

essuchas:“abelovedplace”,“oh,great!–

Howtypical-

lyKrakovian”or“Iamfromhere”.Theanti- identityofaplacestems,aboveall,fromthefeeli ngofweakening,orevenbreakingthetraditiona lattitudesofidentificationwiththeprivatehom eland.Whenidentificationwithaplaceisweak ornegative,thenthesocialorpersonaldimensio nisblurred(orunconscious),andthecityisnotco nsideredsignificantinanyofthem.

Thepersonalidentityofaplacerequiresaper son’sopenness,itisunstableandunspecified,ju stlikethepowerofinfluenceofarchitecturalco desisunclear.Theindividualdemandsofthems elvescommitment,choosesandinterpretstheir

“beingintheworld”,looksforwhatisunique,dif ferent,unnamed,andnewinthespaceofthecity.

Apersonwhoisabletoperceive,gettoknow,and ap-

(5)

preciatetheculturaloraestheticdiversityofKrakow’sar- chitecturedevelopedbeforeWorldWarIIusuallystandsin oppositiontothecity’surbanenvironmentcreatedtoday.

Thisidentityisessentiallycreatedindependentlybythein dividualwhoisactivelysearchinginthecity’slandscapefo rsomethingt odenotetheimaginingsoftheirowncity,bya personwhoistryingtounderstandthecodeofKrakow’sol dlandscapes.

Theidentityofaplaceofsocialnatureisadescriptionoft hecity’slandscape,itshistoryandarchitectureinordertob uildexperiencesharedwithothers,andtocreateanimageo fimportantorsignificantareasofKrakow.Suchanidentity ofaplacetreatsthecity’sspaceasthepublicgood,andpartic ipantsinthediscussionaboutKrakowwishtoactivelyparti cipateintheshapingofKrakow’sspace.Theindividualdoe snotdiscoverthemeaningoftheiconospherealone.Thisis donebythecommunity,andtheindividualisgivenareadyr ecipefortheun-derstandingofsigns,althoughheorsheco- participatesinitsconstruction.Inthesocialunderstanding oftheidentityofaplace,thesocialmemoryassociatedwith thelandscapeofKrakowisanevaluatingmemoryandonef ocusedonemotions.

Abouttheneedtodiscernasymbol

Traditionisnotchosen,traditionisfound.Whatcanbechos enisonlyoneorotherattitudetotradition,thuschoosingatt hesametimeallthecloserandadditionalconsequencesofs uchachoice,takeoverorabandonment(Porębski1972).

Thecognitiveandspiritualexperienceofaplace,creat- ingbondswithaplace,“gettingused”tothesurroundingspa ce,andendowingitwiththefeaturesoffamiliarity,isthesub ject,topicor,morebroadly,contentofinterdisci-

plinaryresearch.Archaeologists,anthropologists,soci- ologists,urbanplanners,architects,engineer-

builders,geographers,historians,arthistoriansandmany othersdealwiththecity,itspast,itslifeanddevelopment.Fo reachoftheresearchersintotheseprofessions,thecityisali ving,changeableandchangingorganism,bothintimeandi nspace.Itseemsthatagoodmetaphorfortheprocessofconti nuoustransformationsofthecityistogiveitthenameofpali mpsest.Onecansaythatthepalimpsestcitysetsthevaluesa ndcontributionsofourtimeamongthemonumentsofthepa st(Kroessler2015).Historicdistrictsofcities,thehistoryof whichiscountedinhundredsofyears,grewontheremainso furbanmatter,ontheruinsofdemolishedbuildings,planted fortifications,thewasteandgarbageleftonthespot;thecity

“grewupwards”pre-

servingitsculturalpastintheformoflayers(andKrakowiss uchacity).Itsometimeshappensthattheselayersarebuiltfr omtheruinsanddebrisafterdramaticeventsinthehistoryof cities.Forexample,thewartimeandpostWW2fateofWars aw,DresdenandGdańskcanberecalledhere.Therearealso citieswhoselifetime,continuityoflasting,canbemeasure dnotinhundredsbutinthousandsofyears(Jerusalemwasfo unded3000yearsBC,Damascusisover7000yearsold,Ro mewasfoundedin753BC,Yerevanin782BC).Intheseciti es,tracesoftheiroriginsshouldbesoughtdeepundergroun d.AnexamplewouldbeEnglish

London,wherethetracesofRomansettlementweredis- covered12metresbelowthesurfaceofthepresent- daycity(‘Entirestreets’ofRomanLondon…2013).

Thecitycanbeconsideredonahistoricalandspatialscal e.Wecanperceiveitasawhole,orfocusonselectedplaces,a

ndcharacteristicortypicalbuildingsofthecity.Andfinally,wecaneven tuallyrecognisethesymbolsofthecityclearlyinscribedinitshistory.

Dragons–imaginarycreatures

(6)

Itisacuriousfactthatcreaturescreatedintheimaginationof manhaveaccompaniedhiminhislifeforcenturies.Today,t heyarepresentinallcivilizationsregardlessoflatitude.InC hina,theyarecalledlung,intheHawaiikele-

konaormo’o,inIndiamakara,inSerbiaandCroatiazmaj,in Finlandlohikaarme,theCherokeeIndiansnamedthemunk ltena,theSioux–unhcegila,theTurks–

ujderha,theMāoriofNewZealand–

tarakona,theHungarians–srka-na,theJapanese–

tatsu,theWelsh–draig,theGermans–

Lindwurm,theDanish–draak,andtheEnglish–

dragon.IntheculturesoftheAztecs,Arabs,Danes,Estonia ns,Finns,Greeks,Hebrews,Romanians,Russians,andTur ks,thedragonwascalledacreature(Jones2000).

Thesupposedpowerofthesecreatureshasgrowntobe- comeasymbolofstrengthandcruelty.Theworddragonisd erivedfromtheLatindraconem(dracointhenominativeca se),whichmeansa“greatsnake,dragon”,andfromtheGree kwordδράκων,drakon(drakontos,δράκοντοςinthegeniti vecase),whichcanbetranslatedasa“snake,giganticseafis h”.Andalthoughdragonshaveneverexisted,theybecameo bjectsarousingfearandcommandingrespect,theywerech allengedtoduelsand,owingtolegends,they“tookpart”int hefoundingofcities.Forexample,intheBritishIslesthedra gonfigureappearsinthefoundinglegendsof23citiesthatw ereestablishedbetweenthe11thandthe13thcenturies(Jon es2000).

Theplacingofadragon’simageinthecoatofarmsofacit yisanillustrationofthedragonbecomingaperma-

nentfeatureofthehistoryofcities.EversincetheearlyMidd leAges,thedragonhasbeendepictedasawingedmonster,a scalyamphibian,withacrocodile’sorwolf’shead(Szeteln icki2004).Itispicturedinthecoatofarmsasacreaturestavin goffthecity’smisfortune,orportrayedasevil.Andthatisw hyitisfought.DragonsarekilledbyChristiansaintssuchas St.George,St.Margaret,St.Michael,andsuchscenescanbe seeninthecoatsofarmsofEuropeancities,includingPolish ones.Coatsofarmsdisplayingasaintfightingwithadragon areownedbybothlargecities,capitalcities(Moscow),and mediumandsmalltowns(inPolande.g.Milicz,NowySącz ,Sanok,BiałaPodlaska,BrzegDolny,Dolsk,Dzierżoniów ,Łańcut,Ostróda).Thedragondepictedincoatsofarmsofci ties

asacreaturestavingoffmisfortune,asatamedbeast,canbef oundinthecoatsofarmsofWelshCardiff,AustrianKlagen furt,SlovenianLjubljana,andRussianKazan.Alsothecoat ofarmsofEnglishLondonissupportedbytwodragons;inP olandsuchanimageofthedragoncanbefoundinthecoatsof armsofŻmigródandOrneta.

ThedragonintheurbanspaceofKrakow

Sociologistsconsiderreadingsignsandsymbolsasthebasi sforeffectiveinterpersonalcommunication(Szcze- pański,Ślęzak-Tazbir&Świątkiewicz-Mośny2006).

Krakow’sinhabitantseasilyassociatetheWawelRoyal 45 Castle,St.Mary’sBasilica,Lajkonik,andKościuszkoMo undwithKrakow;imagesoftheseplacesaretheiconsofKr akowinourminds.

AspecialplaceamongthesymbolicobjectsofKrakowis occupiedbytheWawelDragon,which,asthelegendhasit,c ontributedsignificantlytothefoundingofthecity.Thislege ndwaswrittenasearlyasinthe12thcenturyandisincludedi nthemanuscriptoftheanonymouschronicler(GallusAno nymus)inthePolishChronicle.ThelegendoftheWawelDr agonwasacceptedbythecitycommunityasanelementcont ributingtothehistoryofKrakow.Whatismore,itwasturne dintoasymbolwhichmarkedthecity.Thus,theWawelDra gonbecameasymbolofthecity,andfiguresofdragonspopu latedKrakow,hidingintheorna-

mentsofgargoyles,infree-

standingsculptures(madeoflimestoneanddolomite),asw ellasinthebas-

reliefsgracingfaçadesofbuildingsandtenementhousesan dinthedetailsandornamentsofdoorandwindowportals.D ragonsalsobecameknownasanelementubiquitousinthec ulturallandscapeofthecity.Theyarepresentinitsculturalli fe.

InthematerialspaceofKrakow,thedragoniscom- monlypresent.Andithasbeensoforcenturies.Itshouldben otedthatinPolandthehabitofplacingapotropaiccreatures ,includingdragons,wasmainlypractiseddur-

ingtheGothicandRenaissanceperiods,anditsrevivaltook placeinKrakowattheendofthe19thandearly20thcenturie s(Rajchel2014).

Theoldestsculpturesdepictingadragon,orcreatureswh ichcouldbeassociatedwithadragon,includewingedgriffi nsplacedattheentrancetoRomanesqueSt.Leonard’scrypt intheWawelCastledatingbacktothe12thcentu-

ry,aswellasthedragoninthe14th-

centuryportaloftheHolyTrinityBasilica,thecreaturespla cedintheportalofthe14th-

centuryGothic“PodJaszczurami”tenementhouseinRyne kGłówny[theMainMarketSquare],thedragonplacedont hekeystoneofthevaultintheGothichallofthe14th- centuryHetmańskatenementhouseinRynekGłówny,the dragononthecorbelofaribofthevaultoftheGardenofGeth semanefromtheturnofthe15thand16thcenturiesatSt.Bar bara’schurch,twopairs

(7)

ofdragonsgracingtheRenaissanceportalofthe15th-cen- turyNagocińskatenementhouseinFloriańskastreet,inthe heartoftheOldTown(Dobrowolski1978;Rożek1993;Raj chel2014)(Fig.1).

IntheKrakowurbanarea,wealsofindimagesofdragon sgracingelegantplaces.AnexamplehereistheedificeofC ollegiumWitkowskiegooftheJagiellonianUniversity,er ectedatthebeginningofthe20thcentury.Thedragonwasb roughtherebytheKrakowarchitectTeodorTalowski,wh orevivedthecustomofplacingapo-

tropaicbeingsattheturnofthe19thand20thcenturies 46 bydoingsointhebuildingshedesigned(Rajchel2014).

Manytenementhousesandsecularbuildingshaveapot- ropaicsculpturesplacedinexposedplaces,outofconcernf orthesafetyoftheirusers.Examplesincludethefourdrago nsonthefaçadeoftheBrothersHospitallersofSt.JohnofG odHospital,orthedragonguardingtheformercitypowers ubstation(Fig.2,Fig.3).

Thetraditionofricharchitecturaldetail,amandatoryele mentofwhichwasanemblem(includingoneveryoftendep ictingadragoninvariousforms),founditsparticu- larlyfruitfulapplicationduringtheinter-

warperiodofthe20thcentury.Atthattime(thankstotheext endingofKrakow’sbordersandnewhousingdevelopment infor-

merlyruralareas),Krakowwasenrichedwithastripofmod ernistdistricts,wheretenementhousesandbuildingswere decoratedwithemblems,andportalswithbas-

reliefs(KrakowskiSzlakModernizmu…)(Fig.2,Fig.3).

InKrakow,asinmanyEuropeancities,gargoyles,i.e.de corative,ornamentaloutletsofroofgutters,startedappear ingeverywherefromtheMiddleAgesonwards,andespeci allyintheRenaissanceera.Madeofstone,andlaterfromsh eetmetalplate,theytookonfancyformsofhumanfaces,an imaljaws,andfancycreatures.InKrakow,thesewerethei magesofdragons.Gargoyleswereusuallyplacedonthero ofsoftemples,butalsoontheroofsoftenementhousesandp alaces.Theywarnedagainstevilbut,atthesametime,prote ctedonefromitsinceitwasbelievedthatdemonsmustesca pewhentheyseetheirownimage(Fig.3).

Referencestothelegendofthedragoncanbeseentodayi nstreetfurniture,advertisementsforcateringfacilities,an dasasymbolofthecampaignforcleanairinKrakow(thew ordssmoganddragon[smokinPolish]arephoneticallysi milar)(Fig.4).

ThedragonwhichismostoftenvisitedinKrakowisthed ragonfromSmoczaJama(theDragon’sDen).Itisafire- belching,several-metre-tallsculptureofthedanger- ouscreaturefromthelegend;itwassculptedbyBronisławC hromy,aKrakowartist(Fig.4).ThedennamedSmoczaJam a(theDragon’sDen)islocated(inlimestonerock)atthefoot oftheWawelHill,thetopofwhichhousesthe

historicresidenceoftheprincesandkingsofPolandaswella sthecathedralwhichistherestingplaceofthema-

jorityofPoland’srulers.ThedenopenstowardstheRiverVi stula,andaccesstoitisguardedbythelegendarydrag- on.Krakowguidesbringcrowdsoftouristshere.Itshouldb erememberedthatKrakowisthemostimportantandmostv isitedtouristcityinPoland.In2015alone,Krakowwasvisit edbymorethan10milliontourists(7.43milliondomestic,2 .62millionforeign).InthefirstthreeplacesonthelistofKra kow’sattractions,touristsmentionedtheRynekGłówny(

MainMarketSquare),WawelCastle(in-

cludingthechambersoftheRoyalCastle,theCathedral,Si gismundBell,and–pleasenote!–

theWawelDragon),aswellastheformerJewishdistrict–

Kazimierz(Borkowskietal.2015).ThedragonfromtheDr agon’sDennotonlyhasitsartisticvalue,itdoesnotonlymat erialisealivinglegendinKrakow,butitalsosupportsthetre atmentofchildrenandthemedicalcareofseniorcitizens.A naluminiumreplicaofthesculpturewasauctionedduringt he23rdfinaloftheGreatOrchestraofChristmasCharity–

anation-

wideannualcharityevent(AllegroCharytatywniwebsite).

TheWawelDragonhasalsofounditsplaceinscience.Na mely,afterthediscoveryinLisowice,avillage150kmnorth westofKrakow,ofapredatoryarchosaur,itwasgiventhesp eciesnameofSmokWawelski(theWawelDragon) (thelengthofthereconstructedskeletonis5–

6m,theageisabout205–200Ma)

(Nazar2009).AnimalboneshangingatthedooroftheWaw elCathedralareacuriosityvergingonscienceandfairytales .Owingtotheirsize,theseboneshadbeenregardedasremai nsofadragonforcenturies(!),andlater,fromthemid- 16thcentury,asbonesofanimalsfrombeforethebiblicalfl ood.Inreality,theyarefragmentsoftheskullofahairyrhino ceros,andbonesofawhaleandmammoth(Fig.1).

Asalreadymentionedearlier,thelegendofthedragonha sbecomeintegraltothehistoryofthecity,andispres- entandcultivatedinKrakow.Itispartofthecity’sidentity.Thecity(asaninstitution)anditsinhabitantsrefertothe traditionsthathavegrownbasedonthelegendofthedragon.

Manyculturalevents,occasionalandperiodical,areassoci atedwiththesymbolofthedragon.Significantoutdooreve ntsincludetheGreatDragonParade,whichhasbeenorgani zedsince2000bytheGrotesqueTheatreinKrakow.Co- financedbyEuropeanfunds,thepro-

ject“TheGreatDragonParade–

MythsandLegendsofEurope”wasimplementedintheyea rs2006–2007incol-

laborationwithSt.Patrick’sFestivalinIreland(Dublin),D ivadloMaskaronintheCzechRepublic(Prague),Heartoft heDragonFestivalinGreatBritain(Newcastle),andTeatr odoElefanteinPortugal(Setubal).Itsaimwastopreservea ndshowthecommonculturalheritagecon-

tainedinEuropeanmyths,legendsandstoriesdepicting

(8)

theoriginsofcities,countries,Europeanlands,andtosprea dknowledgeaboutthecommonrootsandcultur-

alvaluesofEuropeannations(WielkaParadaSmokówweb site).Everyyear,theGreatDragonParadeisbothashowoft hekindof“lightandsound”takingplaceontheRiverVistul aneartheWawelRoyalCastle,afamilypicnicontheVistula Boulevards,andastreetparadeintheOldTown(Fig.4).Mo rethan1000childrendesignandmakeseveral-metre- talldragons(therewere40ofthemin2017)tocompeteforth etitleofthemostbeautifulandingeniousdragon.In2017,th esloganoftheparadewas“MediterraneanDragons”.Thed ragonparadeisoneofthemostrecognisableculturaleventsi nKrakow(Raportkońcowybadania…2016).

DragonsmaynotonlybeseeninKrakow;theyappear asfunnycreaturesduringfestivals,andassculpturesorb as-

reliefsdecoratingthecity,buttheycanalsobewonasatro phy.AttheKrakowFilmFestival,organ-

isedinthecitysince1961,theDragonAward(IndividualA chievementAward),theGoldenDragon,andtheSilverDr agonareawardedinthreecompetitions(inthein- ternationaldocumentaryfilmfestivalaswellasintheint ernationalandPolishshortfilmfestivals)

(KrakowFilmFestivalwebsite).BronisławChromyist heauthorofthestatuetteofthedragon.

OtherculturaleventsinKrakowwhere“thedragonispr esent”includecompetitions,readingevents,andtheatrep erformancesforchildren,orhistorical-

touristwalksorganizedbythecityalsoforchildrenandyou ngpeople.Theliteraryandartisticcontestorganisedin201 7undertheslogan“KrakowontheVistula”forprimarysch oolpupilsfromKrakowclearlydemonstratedthatthedrag onisasymbolofthiscity(Fig.4).Anditinextricablylinksth ecitywiththeVistula(MałopolskaBibliotekaPubliczna wKrakowiewebsite).

Summar y

Broadlyunderstood,thetermhumaniconosphereisthewh oleoftheimagesandviewscharacteristicofaplace,period, orculture.Wecanalsounderstandiconosphereasfacts,i.e.

thefactsofappearanceofimagesorthosethatarecreatedinf rontofoureyes,orthosethathavebeencreatedbefore.Thei conospheredevelopsandaltersalongwiththechangesofth egeographicalenvironment,changesinhumansettlement andeconomy,changesincultureorinthewaysofinterperso nalcontacts.Whenobservinglandscapesofcities,theirlay outsanddevelop-

ment,discerningthearchitecturaldetailsfillingthemup,k nowingandobservingthetraditionsandcustomscul- tivatedinthem,letusreflectontheextenttowhichtheydeter minethecontemporarywayofthinkingandacting,andon whatimpacttheyhaveonhumanbehaviour.We

askourselvesthefollowingquestions.Dothey,andhowdo theyshapeoursystemofvalues?

Dotheyaffectthecareofinhabitantsaboutthefunctionalit yofthecity,itsaestheticqualities,thebondsbetweentraditi onandnewarchitecturalsolutions?

Dothey,andhowdotheyaffectbehaviourpatternsandcult uralcontinuity?

Krakow’siconospherehasasymbolicdimension.Thep resenceofthedragoninthehistoryandspaceofKrakowals ohasasymbolicdimension.Thispresenceisimme- morial,andthedragoninthiscity“livesinarockyden”, appearsinsculpturesandbas-reliefsonthewallsofits edifices,tenementhouses,palacesandchurches,itgraces 47 guttersandgargoyles,andpeeksfromaboveportals.Aswe lookatthepresenceofmaterialsymbolsinthespaceoftheci tyfromawiderperspective,wediscoverthemean- ing(material,spiritual)ofdifferentplacesinthecity,welea rnabouttheconditionofthecityspace,andwealsorecognis ethemeaningandimportanceoflocal(here:urban)traditio n.Thepresenceofsymbolsinthespaceofthecityhelpstofin dthemeaningnecessaryfortheinhabitantstofindasenseof securityandbelonging,aswellastheabilitytoshapetheirw orld,theirurbanhome-

land.Accordingtotheideaoffamiliarity,theonepropa- gatedbythearchitectK.Pawłowska(1996),theremaybeap articularemotionalconnectionbetweenmanandhisplace oflivingwhichprovidesasenseoffamiliarity,anawarenes sofbeingathome,andgivesthisplaceahostwhocaresforit.

Theauthoralsointroducesthenotionoffamiliaritywithth ecity’sarchitecturebydefiningitasafeature,orasetoffeat ures,whichleadtosituationsinwhichrelationshipsofbelo ngingandattachmentmaydevelopandexistbetweencities andtheirinhabitants.Onehastoagreethatsuchhumanistic thinkingaboutthecityanditsarchitectureistherightwayto proceed.

Inamoderncity,inacityfoundedintherecentpast,wear esurroundedbythefunctional,m odernistandmodernisat ionperspective,whichevenattemptstodom-

inateus.Infrontoftheeyesofinhabitants,thereisanongoin gstrugglefortheaestheticsofpublicspaceand,whatiseven worse,fortheideologicalcontentthatwilldominateinit(K ubera&Rogowski2015).

Thesituationisdifferentinold-

establishedcities,incitieswherethevariedarchitecture,which cameintoexistenceatdifferenttimesandindifferentstyles,co exists.Here,ob-

servingthespaceofthecity,weinvolveourselvesingettingtok nowthesignsofthecity’sidentity.Thecityconveysthesesign stousbyaffectingourconsciousnessandsubcon-

sciousness.Wediscoverthesymbolismofthecity.Wegettokn owitsviewwhenweperceivetheaestheticandmaterialqualitie sofaplaceorobject,orweturnourselvesintothedenotatorwhe nweappreciatetheimportanceandv alueofaplaceorobject.Kr akowisacityfilledwithsymbols.

(9)

figure1

Krakowdragons–adecorativeelementoftheurbanspace

Source:photosbyMałgorzataPietrzak;graphicdesignbyMarekAngiel

48

photo1

Hetmanskatenementhouse,RynekGlowny17

photo3

St.Barbara’schurch,MalyRynek8

photo5

”Dragonbones”,archicathedralbasilicaofSaintsStanislausandWe nceslaus,WawelHill

photo2

PodJaszczuramitenementhouse,RynekGlowny5

photo4

HolyTrinitychurch,12StolarskaSt.

photo6 18SmolenskSt.

(10)

thep rese nceo fadr agon inth eurb ansp aceo fKra kow Krakowdragons–adecorativeelementoftheurbanspace

Source:photosbyMałgorzataPietrzak;graphicdesignbyMarekAngiel

49

photo1

35KarmelickaSt. photo2

59KazimierzaWielkiegoSt.

photo3

BrothersHospitallershospital,1 1TrynitarskaSt.

photo4

31bSaintWawrzyniecSt.

photo5 37UrzedniczaSt.

photo6 19BatoregoSt.

photo7 3SaintAnnaSt.

photo8 17LeaSt.

50 ^photo1

16ZulawskiegoSt.

(11)

photo2

ChurchoftheAssumptionoftheVirginMary,RynekGlowny

photo3

WitkowskiCollegium,J agiellonianUniversity,13 GolebiaSt.

photo4

archicathedralbasilicaofSaintsStanislausandWenceslaus,theWa welHill

photo5

ChurchoftheAssumptionoftheVirginMary,RynekGlowny

photo6 45aKarmelickaSt.

photo7

St.Catherine’schurch,7AugustianskaSt.

(12)

thep rese nceo fadr agon inth eurb ansp aceo fKra kow Krakowdragons–

anubiquitouselementintheculturallandscapeofthecitySource:photosbyMałgorz ataPietrzak;graphicdesignbyMarekAngiel

51

photo1 Adragon–

apromotionalelementofKrakow,theDragons’Parade(festivalinRyne kGlowny)

themotifofanartcompetition(posterinVoivodeshipPublicLibrary)

photo2

Adragon–achildren’stoy(elementinaKrakowplayground)

alogoonacityinformationposter(billboardinRynekGlowny)

photo5

Waweldragon–asymbolofKrakow(sculptureinWislaneBulwary)

(13)

references

Bauman,Z.

(1994)Dwaszkiceomoralnościponowoczesnej,InstytutKultury,Warsaw[

inPolish].

Bell,D.

(1994)Kulturowesprzecznościkapitalizmu,PWN,Warsaw[inPolish]

.

Borkowski,K.,Grabiński,T.,Seweryn,R.,Wilkońska,A.,Mazanek, L.&Grabińska,E.(2015)RuchTurystycznywKrakow-

iewroku2015,MałopolskaOrganizacjaTurystyczna,Krakow.Availa blefrom:https://www.bip.krakow.pl/zalaczniki/dokumen- ty/n/149573/kartaandhttps://www.bip.krakow.pl/zalaczniki/doku- menty/n/129953/karta[accessed:10.09.2017][inPolish].

Bossak-Herbst,B.(2009)Antropolis.WspółczesnyGdańskwwymi- 52 arzesymbolicznym,WydawnictwoTRIO,Warsaw[inPolish].

Burszta,W.(1998)Antropologiakultury:tematy,teorie,interpretac- je,ZyskiS-ka,Poznan[inPolish].

Dobrowolski,T.

(1978)SztukaKrakowa,WydawnictwoLiterackie,Krakow[inPolish]

.

‘Entirestreets’ofRomanLondonuncoveredintheCity,9.04.2013,BB CNews.Availablefrom:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng-land- london-22084384[accessed:10.09.2017].

GeographyOpenTextbookCollective(2014)BritishColumbiainaG lobalContext.QualitativeResearchMethodsinHumanGeog- raphy,BCcampus,Vancouver,BritishColumbia.Availablefrom:htt p://opentextbc.ca/geography/[accessed:10.09.2017].

Jawłowska,A.(2001)Tożsamośćnasprzedaż,

[in:]A.Jawłowska,ed.,Wokółproblemówtożsamości,Wydawnict woLTW,Warsaw,51–78[inPolish].

Jones,D.E.

(2000)AnInstinctforDragons,Routledge,NewYork.Availablefrom:htt ps://books.google.pl/books?id=P1uBUZupE9g-

C&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1&redir_esc=y&hl=pl#v=onepage&q&f=false[a ccessed:23.03.2015].

Kroessler,J.A.

(2015)TheCityasPalimpsest,CUNYAcademicWorks.Availablefro m:http://academicworks.cuny.edu/jj_pubs/42[accessed:10.09.2017]

.

Kubera,J.&Rogowski,Ł.,eds.,(2015)Miastowoczachludzi:wizu- alnośćwspółczesnejikonosferymiejskiej,WydawnictwoNaukoweWy działuNaukSpołecznychUniwersytetuim.AdamaMickiew- icza,Poznan[inPolish].

Lash,Ch.

(1979)TheCultureofNarcism,W.W.Norton&Co,NewYork.

Nazar,T.

(2009)Tajemnicekrakowskichbudowli,Wydawnictwovis-a- vis/Etiuda,Krakow[inPolish].

Pawłowska,K.

(1996)Ideaswojskościwarchitekturzeiurbanistycemiejskiej(SeriaA rchitektura,Monografia203),WydawnictwoPolitechnikiKrakowsk iej,Krakow[inPolish].

Porębski,M.

(1972)Ikonosfera,BibliotekaMyśliWspółczesnej,PIW,Warsaw[

inPolish].

Rajchel,J.

(2014)KamienneapotropaicznerzeźbywarchitekturzeKrakowa,Przeg lądGeologiczny,62(3),156–163[inPolishwithEnglishabstract].

Raportkońcowybadaniasektorakultury„Krakowskakultura–

stanobecnyiperspektywyrozwoju”,17.02.2016,AgrotecPolskaSp.zo.

o.nazlecenieUrzęduMiastaKrakowa.Availablefrom:http://bada-nia- w-kulturze.mik.krakow.pl/2016/02/17/raport-koncowy-z-bada-nia- sektora-kultury-krakowska-kultura-stan-obecny-i-perspekty-wy- rozwoju/[accessed:10.09.2017][inPolish].

Rożek,M.

(1993)PrzewodnikpozabytkachikulturzeKrakowa,Wyd.Nauk.P WN,Warsaw–Krakow[inPolish].

Sapkota,K.(2017)HumanisticGeography:Howitblendswithhu- mangeographythroughmethodology,TheGeographicalJournalofNe pal,10,121–140.Availablefrom:https://www.nepjol.info/index.

php/gjn/article/view/17394[accessed:10.09.2017].Szczepańsk i,M.,Ślęzak-Tazbir,W.&Świątkiewicz-Mośny,M.

(2006)Ikonym iastosfery,Nauka,3,101–115.Availablefrom:http://

www. p an. po zn an. p l/n auki/N_306_ 10_Szczep anski. pdf [access ed:23.03.2015].

Szetelnicki,W.(2004)Wpływapokaliptycznejsymbolikiśw.Jana wdetalacharchitektonicznychgotyckichobiektówsakralnych–rzy- gulce,Perspectiva,LegnickieStudiaTeologiczno-

Historyczne,III(2),242–270[inPolishwithEnglishsummary].

Tuan,Y.-F.(1976)HumanisticGeography,AnnalsoftheAssocia- tionofAmericanGeographers,66(2),266–276.

Tuan,Y.-F.(1987)Przestrzeńimiejsce,PaństwowyInstytutWy- dawniczy,Warsaw[inPolish].

Wallis,A.

(1990)TheSociologyofSpace,Socjologiaprzestrzeni,NiezależnaOfi cynaWydawnicza,Warsaw[inPolish].

internetsources

AllegroCharytatywniw ebsite:http://aukcje.wosp.org.pl/hit-twoj-smok- wawelski-zmienia-wlasciciela-okazja-i1232129[accessed:10.09.2017].

WielkaParadaSmokówwebsite:http://www.paradasmokow.pl/

[accessed:10.09.2017][inPolish].

KrakowF ilmFestivalw ebsite:http://www.krakowfilmfestival.pl/en/abo ut-festival/dragon-of-dragons/[accessed:10.09.2017].

KrakowskiSzlakModernizmu,InstytutArchitekturywebsite:http://szla kmodrnizmu.pl/szlak/trasa/godla-krakowskich-

kamienic[accessed:10.09.2017][inPolish].

WojewódzkaBibliotekaPublicznawKrakowiewebsite:http://www.ra zyb.info/strona-glowna/japcje-wydarzen/779-show-show- show.html[accessed:10.09.2017][inPolish].