Sublimation of a villa

Kolektyviniai sodai sovietmečiu buvo savitas reiškinys, kur maišėsi realybė ir fikcija. Nors panašiai sodininkauta įvairiose Europos valstybėse, bet sovietinėje erdvėje, taip pat ir Lietuvoje, kolektyviniai sodai tapo legalia ir skatinama veikla, kuri tuo pat metu įkūnijo galimybę apeiti sistemą. Nors oficialiai buvo teigiama, kad sodas – tai vieta pailsėti po darbo mieste, puoselėti ryšį su gamta, lavinti jaunimą, realybėje toks kalbėjimas maskavo pragmatiškesnes sodininkų praktikas – vasarinių namelių statybą ir pelnymąsi iš užaugintų produktų.The aim of the article is to discuss the distinction between the official goals and the actual practice of collective gardening that was widespread in the Soviet period. It is presumed that in the conditions of urban development based on industrial methods and the restriction of private property, collective gardens gradually became a substitute for a second residence or a summerhouse, as well as a possibility to earn some extra money. Collective gardening was an encouraged official activity, but at the same time, it became a possibility to bypass the system. The article seeks to reveal the opposition between public speaking about collective gardening and allusions to the widespread private practices. The press of the Soviet period contains not only a great many examples of official speeches, but also references to a different reality of gardening or its problems. Attention is given to the gardening magazine Mūsų sodai (Our Gardens), as well as documents regulating gardening, project catalogues and TV broadcasts. The first two parts of the article are devoted to the discussion of the emergence of collective gardening and its operating environment. The medium that gave rise to collective gardening was formed under the influence of a unique culture, the principles of urban planning and the economic situation. In the third part, the image of the garden used in public speaking and the declared aims of gardening are presented. Officially proclaimed and constantly reiterated goals of gardening, or “the great narrative of gardens”, allow us to understand what image of this activity was ideologically acceptable, and what was left outside its limits. The fourth and the fifth chapters present a brief discussion of two types of gardeners’ activity that were unrelated to official rhetoric – the burgeoning construction of summerhouses as a second residence and profit from garden harvest