Sorted by date | |||
page177from Nordic Architects Writes
All in all, the new social and
technological-minded generation nevertheless considered the Finnish
architecture of the day anti-social. The answer to this accusation could be
that architects do not themselves choose what they are commissioned to do. Obviously.
But architects can both privately and collectively take a stand on the interest
which their limited resources should serve. They can also express ideological
values in the style of their architecture. And the style of architecture does
no always merely reflect the economic basis of building. It may also mould it. First
we make things that look cheap and social. Then we really make things that are
cheap and social. That’s how the functionalists began in the 1920s. at the next
stage they believed that the new style would spread and affect the whole of
everyday building. And everything did work to start with, but then world
politics overturned the chariot of progress. When, after the war, society was
ready to adopt the forms of functionalism, many of those who had created them
were no longer sufficiently interested. They were already creating new forms
for new things, individual expression to serve the interests of a small
minority. The social field of building was neglected. But what alternative were
the younger generation of the 1960s offering?
The heirs of functionalism
“Acceptera den föreliggande verkligheten!” “Accept
the reality that exists!” could have been the battle cry of the young, as it
was of the Swedish functionalists. The older generation’s talk of humanism and
play with forms was to be replaced with aesthetics derived from the newest
science and technology, and social good would follow automatically. In fact
this was very up-to-date, and concentration and efficiency grew. But the social
analysis was lacking – after all, the science of architecture that emerged in
the 1960s and was so eagerly adopted here came from the cradle of planning
liberalism, the USA. Soon they stood wondering just what goals they were
supporting. Town centres did not turn out to be airy meeting places for
pedestrians, but rather selling machines intended for car-owners outside the
town. Housing areas did not turn out as cosy urban fabric, but an ironic,
inhuman interpretation of the theme: “Die Wohnung für das Existenzminimum”. And
uncritical reliance on interdisciplinary cooperation and technocratic planning
methods paved the way for the consulting monopolies which today replace the old
fruitful interaction between public planning and studio work. Architect’s
tendency towards utopian thinking had again borne fruit. The weapons they had
chosen to increase equality had fallen into the hands of enemies of democracy.
The
amazing thing in the younger generation’s optimism is that they did not notice
that Sweden had gone through the same stages somewhat earlier, that the
exemplary housing of the “people’s home” had become a harsh oligarchy of
producers. Perhaps the very power of our own expressive architecture (Sweden
had nothing like it) confused them. They though that it was the main guilty
factor explaining the social weakness of our architecture.
In
fact, this kind of utopianism has dogged the steps of modern architecture even
since its early stages, since Ruskin and Morris. It was particularly fine and
|
|||
|
|||
|