Sorted by date | |||
page141from Nordic Architects Writes“We must envisage our living space as compartments or cabins. We must consider the house as a machine for living in or as a utensil”. It is written in a language that has no word for the concept “home”. Behind lurks the ideal of a society like a rational beehive, a society which must seem like – and is, to the extent it has been implemented – a degradation to mankind. To innumerable modern people the home is the only place where they do not function like rats in a treadmill, where they can, at least to a certain extent, exercise their creativity freely. The home is the last defence against the mechanization of life. If Functionalism is to have a future, Le Corbusier’s rationalist Romanticism must be overcome. Aalto realized this when he advocated more flexible and more abundantly varied standardization and points to the pattern set by nature’s own standardization – which is unattainable, of course – its inherent capacity to produce an infinite variety of combinations from similar cells. If Le Corbusier is the Voltaire of modern architecture, Aalto is its Rousseau (such comparisons do not stand up to close scrutiny!), who points out the decisive importance to human life and coexistence of irrational and immeasurable forces. After all life is not what Monsieur Teste and other “anchorites in the desert of the intellect” – to use Novalis’ words on the philosophers of the Enlightenment – seem to say that it should be: a mathematical problem. Concrete, the material used by Le Corbusier and Functionalism, also has somehow to be overcome or neutralized, in residential architecture at least. Concrete is perfectly adequate as a building material for those with a mechanical and materialistic ideology. It has never been fire, never been stratified in beautiful marked layers or acquired vivid hues, as natural stone or brick has. It has never been a living organism like wood; it lacks every quality of beauty. It is abstract, unnatural, as if merely a necessary means of giving visible shape to mathematical formulae. Here again, Aalto has been guided by a true instinct in once more bringing wood to the fore. It is the only building material that has itself once been a vessel of life. Another alternative is the plain or patterned facings so masterfully used by Frank Lloyd Wright. That Aalto the individualist has plunged into the problems of standardization with such fervor is not, of course, because he loves uniformity. On the contrary, he has realized that we have reached the point where a thoroughgoing standardization in the field of building is unavoidable, and that it must, therefore, from the start, be steered on the right course, allowing as much leeway as possible for freedom of creation. That is why Aalto has tackled standardization. If the task has to be accomplished it is safer that the master takes the initiative than for it to get into the hands of amateurs. But the principle that standardization should apply only to building elements, that – to use Aalto’s simile – the architects’ relationship to his norms should be that of the poet to the dictionary, is far from considering the “machine à habiter”, or the endless repetition of serial houses the ideal on the horizon. He has in mind more a standardization of the type represented by the Japanese dwelling. Japanese house architecture is one of the strangest phenomena in the history of art. In Europe, the most grandiose and unique contribution in the field of building is perhaps the monumental interior, a place for festivity and worship: the
|
|||
|
|||
|