Sorted by date | |||
page144from Nordic Architects Writes
distinctions, resulting in a sort of
spiritual “thermical death”. Something of that sort is already discernible in
the common Hellenistic culture of the Mediterranean countries during late Classicism,
and there the area was both limited and, geographically speaking, fairly
uniform. Take architecture as an example. An “international” architecture is
already something unnatural for the simple reason that the world is not the
same all over. The cupola roofs on the bazaar buildings of the Eastern
Mediterranean countries are as naked as Greek athletes. The “play of muscles”
in the construction can be observed in abounding sunlight, whereas in our
Medieval churches the upper side of the stellar vaulting is concealed under a
saddleback roof, in the same way that people cover their bodies with warm
clothes in a country where two-thirds of the year are more or less wintry. With
present-day methods of insulation, vaulted constructions can very likely be
made without an outer roof, even on the Arctic Circle, and probably there is
nothing to prevent churches on the Mediterranean from being built with high
saddleback roofs. But all that is possible is not necessarily natural. When the
hecklers of Functionalism called the famous “Weissenhofsiedlung” in Stuttgart,
where there are buildings by Le Corbusier and other renowned architects, “Stuttgart’s
Casablanca”, the criticism was without doubt to a certain extent legitimate. It
also may be justifiable to resume the use of building materials and the methods
of construction characteristic of various parts of the country which were swept
away by the effect of equalization in big city architecture. But such a
reaction should not stop at a protest, because then it would easily result in
the state atmosphere found at Skansen in Stockholm: one should aim at a
synthesis with the scorned Functionalism. It cannot be argued that modern
concrete architecture never existed.
As a writer, Le Corbusier’s role in doing
away with the surviving prejudices and putting things straight has been of
inestimable importance. But the philosophy of life propounded in the theses he
formulates in brilliant rhetoric and with lyrical verve seems to use arrogant
and hostile to life. He is an object lesson in “Der Geist als Widersacher der
Seele”, and seems to idolize the leaning toward the mechanization of human
existence which D.H. Lawrence opposed so passionately. Nothing is as
off-putting to a northerner as a lack of “heart”, or “temperament”, which by no
means is the same thing as sentimentality (the most coolheaded intellectual may
very well be sentimental). To understand what is meant here, just think of old
Frank Lloyd Wright. He has what Le Corbusier lacks – a touch of the wide-open
spaces, smells, wind, sun, rain; Walt Whitman and A Midsummer Night’s Dream.
Le
Corbusier is an unusually downright and fanatically one-sided proponent of the
Latin spirit. Others before him had created architecture in iron, glass and
concrete. All the architectural theorists of the Renaissance and Baroque were
Italians or Frenchmen, and now again, it called for the Latin intellect to
classify the new architecture, to write its law tablets, to form a school. However
much Le Corbusier warned against “L’école Corlu”, that is just what we have seen grow up. It is
astonishing how again and again one encounters among young architects all over
the world proposals and solutions first put forward by him. Le Corbusier has
become the Palladio of Functionalism. His plan for a city of three million
inhabitants is, in
|
|||
|
|||
|