| Sorted by date | |||
page112from Nordic Architects Writes
Markku Komonen, editor of Arkkitehti from
1977 to 1980, had set up a practice with Mikko Heikkinen in 1974 and their
breakthrough work is the prize-winning entry, Heureka, in the 1985
architectural competition for the Vantaa Science Centre. Komonen’s definition
of architecture is ingenious: he does not deny the apparent demise of Modernism
but neither does he give in to the populist notion (in Finland) of going over
to being a supporter of Postmodernism, or as Komonen himself puts it, “Neo-Nationalist-Romanticism”.31
He wants to build a new Modernism and to do it in a thoroughly Finnish style:
using few words but by means of greater practical achievements – High – Tech
Constructivism.
This
high-tech constructivist frame of reference can also be attributed to Juhani
Pallasmaa who, during the 1990s, rises to become the leading figure in Finnish
architectural debate and undoubtedly the Finnish architectural theoretician
most highly though of abroad. Pallasmaa was head of exhibition at the Museum of
Finnish Architecture from 1968 to 1972 and Director of the Museum from 1978 to
1980 and was professor of principle and theory at the Helsinki University of
Technolgoy from 1992 to 1997.
In
Pallasmaa’s essay, Modernism is constructed anew; the old triangle of man,
culture and the environment is turned on end and architecture becomes an
existentialist project of man in the spirit of the phenomenological view of
architecture called for by Christian Norberg-Schulz since the 1960s. The new
question set for architecture concerns purification and the return of
architectural autonomy. This, says Pallasmaa, is possible in the following way:
One
way of achieving architectural autonomy and ‘purification’ is paradoxically to
question the utility and practicality of architecture. The second is a kind of
archiving, a survey of the experiential basis for architecture. The third is to
return the language used for expressing architecture to the pure language of
architecture, to images that are characteristic of architecture. The fourth is
to detach oneself from the superficial value of the new, from fashion and the
myth of individuality and focus on the poetry of the everyday, the ‘other
reality’ behind the everyday.32
As we enter the twenty-first century, the
circle is closed. The crisis of Modernism, critical regionalism, the pluralism
of the culture and ideology of the Postmodern era, the unshakeable belief in
the giving of architectural form as an art and the question of a universal
language of architecture are bringing the Finnish architectural debate back to
its roots, to a new interpretation of the question of the “fundamental form of
the time, the fundamental form of a nation”.33
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
At 2021-11-02 20:28:57,
page000
Paula Noronen
Yökoulun Pieni Kauhukäsikirja
kuvitus
Kati Närhi
Tammi
... ...
At 2021-09-28 09:43:54,
page0013
Ruoka
Kakkua pullaa, leipää ja
... ...
At 2021-09-27 15:05:39,
page0012
... ...
At 2021-09-27 15:04:58,
page0011
... ...
At 2021-09-27 15:04:35,
page0010
... ...
At 2021-09-27 15:04:02,
page0009
... ...
At 2021-09-27 15:03:17,
page0008
... ...
At 2021-09-27 15:02:35,
page0007
... ...
At 2021-09-27 15:02:14,
page0006
... ...
At 2021-09-27 15:01:32,
page0005
... ...
At 2021-09-27 14:59:22,
page0000
... ...
At 2021-09-27 14:58:31,
page0000
... ...
At 2021-09-27 14:57:52,
page0000
... ...
At 2021-09-27 14:57:21,
page0000
... ...
At 2021-09-27 14:56:34,
page0000
... ...
Share to International sites:
分享到国内网站和微博
