3 svar på ”Arktitekturupprorets Arianna Benigno på SVT Kulturnyheterna”

  1. Det er ikke sant at man ikke kan bygge vakkert uten en mengde sirlige detaljer som koster masse og krever kunsthåndverkere, slik det hevdes i slutten av reportasjen. I Alexanders Eishin Campus i Tokyo er det hovedsaklig kun judohallen som er sirlig utsmykket, resten er veldig enkelt, men allikevel vakkert. Å kopiere en overlesset barokk arkitektur er det ingen mening i.

    De kostbare utsmykningene som krever særlige håndverkere får man konsentrere til noen få signalbygg. Det viktigste er imidlertid prosessen, at denne er adaptiv, samt at man bygger etter timer og ikke profittkrav. Alexander har utarbeidet hvordan en slik prosess kan foregå i sin siste bok “Battle”: http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/Seamon_Alexander_Battle.htm

    Jugendarkitekturen, som var den første industrielle arkitekturen, viser da vitterlig at vi kan bygge vakkert selv med skallbekledde stålrammer. I de klassiske murbyggene var man naturligvis avhengig av vakre bueganger og hvelv som en integrert del av den bærende konstruksjonen. Disse samsvarer med den menneskelige biofili, iom at de reflekterer krefter i naturen som er en del av oss. Som kompresjon, strekking, tyngdekraften etc. Noe av dette har jeg omtalt i denne artikkelen: http://permaliv.blogspot.no/2011/06/new-permatecture-toolbox-from-nikos.html

    Vi kan ikke akseptere at menneskets biofile biologi/nevrologi forkastes fordi industrien foretrekker enkle elementbygg!

    Lytt til Salingaros hos Levevei: http://www.levevei.no/2013/10/episode-84-creating-built-environments-that-support-life/

    Arkitekturens oppgave må være å underbygge livet, ikke korporasjonenes bunnlinje!

  2. Salingaros diskuterer også disse spørsmålene på en opplysende påte i et essay fra 2013.

    – From Industrial to Artisan: Modernism’s Sleight-of-Hand: http://www.archdaily.com/402877/from-industrial-to-artisan-modernism-s-sleight-of-hand/

    Jeg vil sitere:

    “To see our little joke, please note that the “machine aesthetic” teapot on the right was hand-made in 1879, i.e. about 30 years before the ornamented jewelry box. The Art Nouveau jewelry box, on the other hand, was mass-produced after the teapot. Thus, the canonical progression from artisan to industrial would absurdly seem to have gone backwards in time, and, in addition, the artisan/industrial labels are opposite from what they seem. I conclude that the official story is nothing but sleight-of-hand. In fact, what happened historically is that a substantial and healthy industry of mass-producing ornamented artifacts and utilitarian objects was killed off by a marketing takeover, not by the necessity of industrialization.

    The “industrial look” furthermore represents a purely aesthetic choice, and has nothing to do with industrial production. Any reader can easily verify that the iconic but mostly useless Bauhaus and De Stijl sculptural artifacts were all expensively hand-made to conjure the image of a “machine aesthetic” (while much of their furniture is sadistically uncomfortable). But those objects were not in the least industrial: they actually replaced eminently practical mass-produced objects, as one aesthetic extinguished another in a totalizing manner. The typical apologists for Modernism are therefore completely wrong. The commonly-accepted rationalization comes from the Bauhaus, which, like most of its edicts, is pure propaganda, made up and not supported by truth of any kind.

    What was the real purpose behind this substitution of aesthetics? I can only offer an opinion. (The writings of its primary perpetrators are not helpful, being self-serving alibis for their aesthetic prejudices: their deeds reveal a rather unpleasant truth that their words deny.) Around the turn of the 20th Century a handful of designers and architects turned vehemently against living structure and visual manifestations of life itself. Any geometrical expression of living form and its accompanying complexity were condemned to extinction. A cleverly devious pseudo-philosophical rhetoric convinced the public that becoming devotees of this ideological movement was essential for human progress; that it somehow represented manifest destiny.

    Henceforth, the elimination of life from the environment came to be seen as a necessary condition to technological growth and development. Tragically, many people continue to religiously believe the shamelessly fabricated modernist progression “from artisan to industrial” to this day. This old marketing gimmick is taught as Gospel in architecture schools. People accept a phony logic debunked by documented events in design and industrial production. Worse of all, this propaganda is coupled to transparently false concerns for the poor and for social justice.”

    Altså har skiftet til modernistisk arkitektur ingenting med industrialiseringen å gjøre, det er ideologi som ligger bak. I et seinere essay har Salingaros og Mehaffy stedfestet dette skiftet til verdensutstillingen i New York i 1939, hvor modernismen som PR-grep for å selge “Framskrittet” til forbrukerne ble introdusert av PR-industriens far, Edvard Bernays:

    “Even less well known, Bernays played a key role in selling modernist urban and suburban planning to the public. As Curtis’ film demonstrates, Bernays helped to orchestrate the seminal “Futurama” exhibit by General Motors at the 1939 World’s Fair. It was this event, perhaps more than any other, that sold a radiant vision of the suburbia to come to a desperate public, traumatized by the Depression and coming war, and seeking a positive vision of the future. To this vulnerable audience, the marketers offered a gleaming new age of modern buildings and suburbs and consumer gadgets of every conceivable type. It was all so wonderful! We had certainly been “trained to desire, to want new things …” And we got them.”

    – A Vision for Architecture as More Than the Sum of Its Parts: http://permaculturenews.org/2013/11/22/vision-architecture-sum-parts/

    Når det gjelder avvisningen av arkitekter som på lag med industrien som populisme, blir dette en forenkling. Salingaros og Mehaffy dokumenterer dette faktum på en saklig og skikkelig måte i seks punkter i følgende essay.

    – The Architect Has No Clothes: http://permaculturenews.org/2013/11/15/architect-clothes/

    Jeg vil ikke trekke fram et spesielt punkt, men oppfordrer leserne til å studere alle punktene som er med og skaper arkitektstandens nærsyn. De er rett og slett trent til å se stygt som vakkert og vakkert som stygt!

Lämna ett svar

Din e-postadress kommer inte publiceras.

Denna webbplats använder Akismet för att minska skräppost. Lär dig hur din kommentardata bearbetas.