Sorted by date | |||
page111from Nordic Architects Writes
This, surprisingly enough, provides an
excellent foundation for Reima Pietilä, for whom “architecture is a general
form and solution developed by a designer”.24 He has already outlined a general
chart of his own design doctrine in Arkkitehti and come to the irrefutable
conclusion after a tricky, and for Pietilä typical, play on words: “a building
cannot be a typical representative of architecture, but is always an individual
case”.25 Defined thus, the debate about the existence of architecture now turns
towards individuality rather than the universal applicability proposed by
Blomstedt and the constructivist inspired by him. According to Pietilä,
individuality means above all, architecture that is geographically,
ethnographically and culturally local.26 Regionalism thus defined becomes
Pietilä’s mission in the Department of Architecture at the University of Oulu,
and with Pietilä’s professorship an alternative emerges to the architectural
debate that has revolved around the Helsinki University of Technology and
dominated Finnish architecture: this eventually becomes known as the Oulu
School. From Pietilä’s standpoint, research is necessary, analysis is necessary
and systematic approach is necessary, but authenticity is necessary, too.
Kirmo
Mikkola who, during the years of political upheaval in the latter half of the
1960s, becomes the undisputed figurehead of the young, radical generation of
architects, defines authenticity in a crucially different way from Pietilä,
however. For him, authenticity means understanding the characteristic nature of
architecture as a synthesis of design, technology and economics in the spirit
of Aulis Blomstedt, but in such a way that it is always linked with the
prevailing political reality. Architecture is part of the society that
surrounds us: architecture shapes society just as much as society influences
architecture. Thus, high-quality architectural reflection is not a matter of
insignificance, it is a matter of the wellbeing of large groups of people and,
at best, the promotion of citizen-orientated democratic discussion about
society. The gulf between Pietilä and Mikkola is so deep that the concept of
ideology is given a completely different interpretation by each of them. For
Mikkola, ideology means primarily, communicating the role of the architect and
taking a clas-conscious, socio-political view of architecture. In Pietilä’s
opinion however, ideology is an extremely dangerous concept, since with it, “architecture
can be made into an identification mark of something that cannot be
authenticated”.27
The
question of architectural form or the attempts at right or wrong that lie
behind architectural aesthetics remain unresolved and so the architectural
debate since the 1970s remains in a state of tension. The style of “pure
architecture” derived from constructivism and its variations becomes the
predominant style in Finnish architecture; other approaches such as the 1980s
colourful Oulu School along with its critical writing about boxy architecture,
or the austere but atmospheric architecture of Timo and Tuomo Suomalainen, are marginalized
as passing phenomena or ephemeral experimental phases in the work of individual
architects or architectural practices.28 The image of a united modern Finland
threatening Post-modernism could also be said to be almost deliberately
reinforced, one example of this being the international symposium on “The
Future of Modernism” held on the Gulf of Finland on 22-24 August 1980.29
Additional backup comes directly from abroad, when Kenneth Frampton’s Modern
Architecture: A Critical History is published in 1980.30 With it, Finland rises
to become one of the most important countries in the world for modern
architecture along with France, Spain and Japan.
|
|||
|
|||
|