Exhibition of architecture in Rhodes and Crete

Center for Mediterranean Architecture, Big Arsenal-Venetian harbour of Chania 30 october-20 November 2004.

The exhibition was opened by Aris Papadogiannis, President of Centre for Meditteranean Architecture and Knut Odegaard, Culture Attache and Director of the Norwegian Institute in Athens.

Municipal Gallery of Rhodes 1-20 October 2004

The exhibition was opened by George Giannopoulos, Mayor of Rhodes and Finn K. Fostervoll, Ambassador of Norway to Greece.

The exhibition is produced by the Norwegian Architecture Museum on commission by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and consists of photos, drawings and models of 5 of the projects.

REFLECTIONS ON NORWEGIAN ARCHITECTURE TODAY

Bjørn Larsen

The exhibition Norwegian Contemporary Architecture 1995-2000 is an occasion to stop and think, to order some impulses, get an overview, and not least ask a few questions: Have there been significant changes in Norwegian architecture since the last similar summary five years ago, and if so, what changes? Can notable tendencies and changes appear over such a short time span as five years? Is change as such necessarily interesting?

Buildings are left to stand for a long time, and usually several years pass from the initial idea to the finished building. I have therefore found it fruitful to reach further back in time than the five years presented in this cavalcade in order to get a better basis for comparison and possible conclusions. It is only from such a viewpoint that you can make out any tendencies which might be emerging, which seem stable or that are in decline. I will therefore also cast a glance over the three previous architectural cavalcades: Norwegian Architecture 1975-85, Byggekunst 4/5 1986, Contemporary Norwegian architecture 1985-90, Byggekunst 5/6 1990, Contemporary Norwegian architecture 1990-95, Byggekunst 1/2 1996.

In these cavalcades we primarily see a consistent tendency towards an architecture in tune with the sober modernism which has dominated the Nordic countries for a large part of the last century. It is characterised by extensive use of natural materials, exposed structures and a restrained use of form. Honesty in materials and construction has been a slogan and an important reference. This kind of architecture is not only typically Norwegian, but can be found throughout Scandinavia, despite changing geographical and climatic conditions both within Norway itself and between the different countries. The plan organisation principles are well known and established, and founded on unified physical solutions to different types of building tasks. The principles of detailing and the architectonic vocabulary have developed within the architectural profession over several decades, and as a result the architecture has clearly been designed from a firm professional basis by architects who master their craft. As a tendency, this architecture has been a long, stable and still active undertow within modern architecture. It can therefore be difficult to pinpoint exactly to which timespan within the epoch of Nordic modernism the selected projects belong.

The other type of architecture presented in these cavalcades are of a more limited, dated character and are distinguished by several successive tendencies which follow the movements of international architectural fashion. If one looks at the principles for planning and construction one finds nothing much that is new, but the visual effects have been all the more emphasised. We find them in the use of historicist motives in the ’70s, striped brick walls and cruciform windows in the ’80s, wooden lathes on solid as well as transparent walls in the ’90s, and inclined walls and external strebere at the approach of 2000. One can easily define which of these relatively short time periods each of these effects belong to, and these fashions become more obvious the older they are, on hindsight rendering the formal languages of the architecture unconvincing. The Norwegian fashion-based buildings are to a large extent late echoes of the architectural fashions in those countries which at any given time have been regarded as leading in this game. In Norway we have always had a desire to be seen as updated and to rid our selves of the stamp of provincialism. The fashion architecture may not be what dominates either of the previous three or this latest cavalcade, but it is all the more visibly present in the trivial architecture of the various epochs, particularly in office buildings and housing now spread all over the country. As a tendency this architecture belongs to the relatively short oscillations of history, where one fashion displaces the next, focusing primarily on visual effects and motives.

But both Nordic modernism and the more changing directions of fashion can easily become superficial if attention is generally directed towards what the eye can see. Form and content are closely coupled in architecture. A familiar form with a new content can express as little of our time as a familiar content with a new form. Architecture has to be a unity of form and content.

The term ’architecture’ is increasingly being used in the public debate, both to denote the structure of physically complex physical objects and the theoretical constructions of politics and economics. The interest in architecture seems to be extending outside the ranks of architects. It is common to talk of computer architecture or the architect behind a political manifesto. But when we reach the realm of buildings and the concrete physical form of buildings, the term is no longer so certain. A common conception of architecture is of a shell which is stretched around the objects, something which is shaped and prettified after the product it self has been developed by the engineer or the project manager. When I use the term architecture here, it is to mean buildings and a built environment which are consciously ordered, constructed and designed. If the result can be characterised as good or bad is another matter. There can be good, mediocre and bad architecture. There are also a wide variety of criteria as to what constitutes good or bad, even if there is a degree of agreement within the ranks of architects, as is demonstrated for example in the jury results of architectural competitions. But architecture is not simply a matter of ordering and designing a plan or the execution of a building process. Architecture is also not simply the shaping of rooms, dimensioning surfaces and choosing materials. Through architecture we organise our way of playing out life, and consequently architecture affects our ways of living. Do we live differently now that we did five – ten – fifteen years ago? What are the important, and what are only minor important changes? Does contemporary architecture mirror any of this?

We can observe that the family structure is undergoing continuous change, and that patterns and ways of working are being altered. The relationship between work and leisure time changes. The commercial structure changes. The social politics change. Social relations change. The mass migrations of our time are leading to a society with more impulses. The public is engaged in the debates surrounding biotechnology. We are transferring from a society based on mechanics to one based on electronics. The internet is making long- and short-distance communications easier.

Following all these changes, our way of thinking, our ideas and our way of living are also altered, which in turn creates new possibilities and further changes. On this background it is striking that we actually find few signs of new settlement patterns, patterns of living or of work in the cavalcades of Norwegian architecture over the past 25 years. I can see that the minimal dwelling, the flexible dwelling and the hot-desking office are all but non-existent in these latest 50 buildings. And only to a very modest degree do you find ecologically conscious architecture designed by good architects. This has to be mentioned, but without entering into the typically Norwegian debate about who is to blame. It may be more constructive to ask what is needed in order to right this situation, and at the same time state for the record that the market will obviously not demand things that people have never seen. Through all these cavalcades, I am missing the architect as the assertive force in the architecture. The architect who sees and understands the spirit of the time (not just the fashions) and which are in the front lines with unifying thoughts and solutions for contemporary building tasks. One could of course regard the exhibition of Contemporary Norwegian Architecture 1995-2000 as if the term ’contemporary’ primarily means that the cavalcade reflects architecture from this time period. But does it necessarily follow that the architecture is contemporary, that it has reflected the spirit of its time?

To grasp the spirit of one’s time requires a grasp of the content of the time we live in, not simply the forms which surround us. This entails delving deeply and developing an own understanding of the time we live in, and it also requires a clear boundary between fashion and contemporary expression. In addition, it requires the ability to take part in one’s time and to use one’s understanding of one’s time in the actual solution of the building task at hand. Even the confident Nordic modernism can easily stagnate if it is not developed. If as an architect one has not grasped the spirit of the time, one can easily end up in the role of decorator. By neglecting content in the favour of form, the architect takes part in forming his or her own role as the shaper of facades. The architect who is always ready when someone says "and of course we need to have aesthetics". The architect becomes the official decorator and filler-in of building applications after the significant premises have been laid sown, and is spat out again as soon as the decorations are in place. The slogan of last year’s architectural biennial in Venice was "Less aesthetics- more ethics". It is not only in this country that people are decorating at the moment, a fact which the biennial demonstrated – the exhibitors had serious problems living up to the slogan of the exhibition.

It is easy to fall back on the heroic modernism of the 1920s and ’30s, only after closer consideration to write off this heritage because it can no longer be defined as our time. Nostalgia for modernism can be just as nostalgic as other forms of nostalgia. But as modernism has been criticised and ridiculed, the larger perspectives and grand visions have also but disappeared from architecture. The architects have become short-sighted and are content to immerse themselves in their fashionable mullions, espaliers, elongated redundant brackets and other of today’s motifs for tomorrow’s buildings. I do not believe that the visions from the beginning of the previous century have the same validity; the interesting thing is that there were visions. Architects wanted something. The thoughts around linear cities, collective dwellings in landscaped parks in contact with the horizon, mass fabrication; the free plan were all products of their time. It is not the concrete content of the visions which is interesting, but that there were visions. There was a fertile soil for enthusiasm for the present which reached beyond the professional circles of architects. The grand perspectives of this time have not been replaced by other perspectives, but have simply been left behind. Everything has fallen silent. But there is no reason that this should be so.