številka / volume 157-158
november / november 2002
letnik / anno XXXII
zasebno
private
vsebina številke
table of contents
Miha Dešman Uvodnik
Editorial
Miha Dešman Kalejdoskop
Kaleidoscope
Marjan Zupanc Bossplast
Bossplast
Tomaž Brate Cvetje v jeseni?
Blossom in the Autumn?
Miha Dešman Hiša z razgledom
A House with a View
Igor Kebel Larin skrivni vrt - konstrukcija intime
Lara’s Hidden Garden: Construction of Intimacy
Andrej Hrausky Plečnikova sodobnost
The Contemporaneity of Plečnik
Urša Komac, Yuji Yoshimura Intervju s Kazujo Sejima
Interview with Kazujo Sejima
Aljoša Dekleva Odnos do površine in fenomen reza
Interacting with the Surface and the Phenomenon of the Cut
Memos Filippidis Arhitektura in nadzor: izbrana povezava
Architecture and Surveillance: Elective Affinities
abforum
Xavier Costa Arhitekt kot etnograf
The Architect as Ethnographer
Peter Zumthor Pogled na stvari
uvodnik

zasebno ali javno?

“Jaz, arhitekt, sem prišel do te resnice po neprijetnem boju s samim seboj. Nehal sem se boriti in sem srečen. Vem, da sem rokodelec, ki mora služiti ljudem in današnjemu času.” (Adolf Loos, Ins Leere gesprochen, 1926)

“V norih časih so norci strokovnjaki.” (Hunter S. Thompson)

V svojem romanu Osnovni delci Michel Houllebecq očita generaciji ’68, da je zakuhala zmago družbenopolitičnega neoliberalizma (ki se med drugim kaže v nezmernem individualizmu, padcu avtoritet in dekadentnosti popkulture), procesa, ki se je v Evropi in pri nas dogodil vzporedno z zmago ekonomskega neoliberalizma. Zasebno je postavljeno pred javno. Javnost ni nič več kot vsota zasebnosti. Kaj tako stališče pomeni za arhitekturo?

Ali je arhitektura postala vsota zasebnosti, vsota partikularizmov?

Po definiciji je arhitektura javna zadeva. Bistvo arhitekturnega dela v klasičnem smislu je kreacija arhitekture, v katero so investirane ideje vseh predhodnih družb o socialnem redu, hierarhiji, lepoti in pravičnosti, skratka, o etiki. To stališče, ki je v 20. stoletju doseglo vrh z Le Corbusierovim zavzemanjem za tehnokratsko racionalistično vizijo “sveta brez ostanka”, se zdi v današnjem stanju pluralne in kaotične demokracije preseženo. Težnja po redu ogroža vsesplošno svobodo, saj sili v izbire, ki nosijo za sabo odgovornost. Zakaj bi bila arhitektura bolj odgovorna in etičnejša od vseh drugih praks? Mora se prilagoditi razmeram. Trg je pač izjemno hiter pri zaznavi izgube potrebnosti arhitekture. Da bi si skonstruirala uporabnost v novih razmerah, se mora pač odpovedati tradicionalni etiki discipline. V to jo sili ista logika, s katero se srečujejo demonstranti proti globalizaciji. Ker kažejo na probleme, so sami deklarirani kot problem. Delajmo se torej, da ni krize, in srfajmo na valu konjunkture!

Poglejmo načine in posledice te prilagoditve. Poteka na več ravneh.

Vloga arhitekta kot zastopnika javnega interesa se demontira. Lecorbusierovski projekt zasedbe in dominacije prostora in družbe, temelječ na veri v napredek in modernistični etiki, nadomestita želja po ugajanju in prilagodljivost. Arhitekt zastopa zasebni interes naročnika nasproti zakonom, nasproti javnemu interesu. Išče tisto mejo možne interpretacije omejitev, ki zagotavlja največjo dobit naročniku. V tem smislu je nekakšen advocatus diaboli. Arhitekti postajamo del trenda, ki briše tradicionalno javno in zasebno sfero, pač v službi interesov biznisa. Arhitektura se je v tej luči prerodila izjemno hitro in globoko. Tržni preboj in uvrstitev v jet set (ali preživetje in obstanek) sta se hitro izkazala za važnejša od kulturnega sporočila.

Danes želi vsak arhitekt postati zvezda. Pravzaprav je prisiljen investirati v samopromocijo, če želi delati. Zvezdniški arhitekt je seveda multitalentiran in emancipiran subjekt, ki aktivno oblikuje svojo kariero. Večina verjame, da je ta aktivna vloga pri samouveljavitvi, pri tekmovanju z drugimi arhitekti, pri kreiranju lastne blagovne znamke pravi vzrok za njegov/njen uspeh. V resnici pa je naša vloga vedno bolj pasivna; izobčeni smo iz celote procesa nastajanja grajenega fizičnega sveta, ker tega nadzoruje globalni biznis.

Vloga arhitekture je omejena na salonskost, izgubila je potrebnost. Postala ja luksuzen artikel za tiste, ki si jo lahko privoščijo. Arhitekt prodaja samega sebe kot čarovnika ali genija, ki je sposoben producirati arhitekturo kot stalno parado trikov, ki na instant način sproti rešujejo vsak naročnikov problem. V tem postaja vse bolj podoben trgovskemu potniku in politiku, vse manj pa pedagogu in vizionarju.

Interdisciplinarnost in odsotnost avtorja sta še dve od zahtev današnjega časa. Arhitektura naj bi bila gol presek konceptov. A kljub temu je kvaliteta za življenje bistvenejša od koncepta. Koncept je abstrakcija, ki zastopa realnost kot nekakšen odposlanec v neki skupščini. Vsi vemo, kako poslanci le zelo redko zares zastopajo interese tistih, ki so jih izvolili. Ideja o timskem delu in operativnosti je še ena od neizogibnih zahtev časa. Bistvena kvaliteta pristopa tega tipa je manipulacija. Z naročniki, sodelavci, mediji. Specialist preparira naročnika, drugi specialist preparira arhitekturo, tretji konstrukcijo ali materiale. Ni hierarhije, ampak interakcija. Ideja je logična in neizbežna. Morda je problem le njen resnični domet. Meni se uporno rišejo meje te interdisciplinarnosti, ne vem, ali zaradi atavistične omejenosti ali pa zaradi prav iz nje izhajajočega širšega pogleda. To mejo vidim v tem, da interdisciplinarni pristop teži k optimizaciji procesa in ne k novemu. Kreativnost je suspendirana na procesualnost. Sama pridnost in disciplina ne rodi umetnika niti umetnine. Uporaba CAD-a, grajenje shoping mallov in pajdašenje z developerji ne pomeni substancialnega prispevka k arhitekturi.

V današnjem dizajniranem raju je za arhitekte dela več kot kdaj koli poprej. Vse v postneoliberalni družbi - od predvolilne kampanje županje do urbanega koncepta prestolnice - mora biti zdizajnirano. Oblika ne sledi več funkciji, oblika sledi stylingu. Styling pa je marketinška strategija, katere naloga je, da prepriča kupca-potrošnika, da ga zapelje v trošenje. Izvirni greh - zapeljevanje v skušnjavo in podleganje le-tej - je postal gonilo vsega. Arhitektura s področja kulture kot simbolne prestopa v področje tržne ekonomije.

Na vprašanje o vlogi in prihodnosti arhitekture lahko torej arhitekt odgovori lakonično: “Kaj me briga!” Podobno, kot je predlagala skupina čeških in slovaških arhitektov na zadnjem bienalu v Benetkah, pred njimi pa teoretizirali predvsem nizozemski globalisti. Morda je pa res že čas, da arhitektura dospe do svojega konca? Predlagam naslednji program: naj ima vsakdo svojo arhitekturo. Nič več pravil niti diktature okusa. Arhitekt naj zgolj pomaga vzpostaviti absolutno fleksibilen sistem, v katerem si bodo ljudje lahko sami, po principih “arhitekture brez arhitektov” oblikovali svoje koncepte stanovanja ali kake druge funkcije. Tako bi udejanjili absolutni individualizem, pluralizem in demokracijo in vsak bi prispel naravnost v svoj zasebni raj.

Ta uvodnik pa vendarle ni poziv h križanju zasebnosti.

Zasebnost je tisti okvir, v katerem so nastale nekatere najpomembnejše arhitekturne mojstrovine. Če pogledamo le moderno obdobje, lahko omenimo le Miesovo hišo Farnsworth ali Le Corbusierovo Vilo Savoye, ki ju po kulturnem pomenu in dosegu lahko mirno postavimo ob bok Picasovim Avignonskim gospodičnam in Joycevemu Uliksesu. Najvišje stvaritve umetnosti in kulture so zrasle na humusu zasebnosti.

Uvodnik in ta številka nasploh se skozi evokacijo in kritiko zasebnosti in individualizma zavzemata za obrambo javne vloge arhitekture in arhitektov. Seveda, sistem je močnejši od nas, a to ni razlog, da bi nehali brcati. Ne dopustimo nikomur in ničemur, da nas prepriča o nesmiselnosti rezistence!

editorial

Private or Public?

“I, the architect, have come to this truth after an unpleasant fight with myself. I have stopped fighting and I am happy. I know that I am a handicraftsman who must serve the people and the present time.” (Adolf Loos, Ins Leere gesprochen, 1926)

“In crazy times the crazy are professionals” (Hunter S. Thompson)

In his novel The Basic Pieces Michel Houllebecq reproaches the generation of the ’68 to have cooked up the victory of the socio-political neo-liberalism (showing itself among other also in immoderate individualism, decreased authority and decadence of the pop culture), a process that happened in Europe and in our country as parallel to the victory of the economic neo-liberalism. The private issue stands before the public one. The public is nothing more than a total of all privacies. What can such a statement represent for architecture?

Has architecture become a sum of privacies, a total of particularisms?

By definition, architecture is a public matter. The essence of architectural work in its classical sense is the creation of architecture, where all the ideas of previous societies - on social systems, hierarchy, beauty and justice i.e. ethics - are invested. This statement - in 20th century it reached its peak with Le Corbusier’s idea of a technocratic and rational vision of ‘the world with no remains’ - seems to be overgrown in the present situation of plural and chaotic democracy. The striving for order appears to be endangering the general freedom because it pushes us into choices that are followed by responsibility. Why should architecture be more responsible and more ethical than any other practice? It has to adjust to the circumstances. The market is extremely fast in sensing the diminished necessity of architecture. To construct its usefulness in these new conditions architecture has to give up its traditional ethics of discipline. It is forced to do so by the same logic that dominates those who protest against globalisation: pointing out problems they are declared to be a problem themselves. So, let us pretend that there is no crisis and let us surf on the wave of the conjuncture!

And what are the ways of this adjustment and what are the consequences? Adjustment is happening in several levels.

The role of the architect as the representative of the public interest has been dismantled. LeCorbusier’s project of taking over and dominating the space and the society, which was based on belief in progress and modernistic ethics, has been replaced by the wish to please and to adjust. Now, the architect is representing the private interest of the client in confrontation with the Law and the public interest. He/she is forced to find the limit-line in every possible interpretation of restrictions in order to assure the best profit for the client. So, the architect has become some sort of advocatus diaboli. He/she has become part of the trend and he/she is wiping off both: the traditional public sphere and the private one - always in the service of some business interest. From this aspect, the re-birth of architecture has been extremely quick and deep. The market breakthrough and the placement into the jet set (or: survival and existence) have proved themselves very quickly to be more important than the cultural message.

Today, every architect wants to become a star. Actually, he/she is forced to invest into self-promotion if he wants to work. A star-architect is, of course, a multi-talented and emancipated subject constantly active in shaping his/her career. Most of them believe that this active role in establishing oneself, in competing with other architects, in creating one’s own trade mark represents the main reason for his/her success, yet the truth is that our role is turning to be more and more passive; we have been outcast from the total process of creating the built physical world simply because this is being controlled by the global business.

The role of architecture has now become restricted to salons, it has lost its feature of being a necessity. It has turned to be a luxurious article for those who can afford it. The architect keeps selling himself/herself just as he/she was a magician or a genius, who is capable of producing architecture as a constant parade of tricks that should promptly solve every committer’s problem in the same way as instant products are prepared. So, he/she is becoming more and more similar to the salesman or to the politician, and less and less to the pedagogue or the visionary.

The interdisciplinarity and the absence of the author appear to be two more demands of the present time. Architecture is considered to be just a bare section of concepts. The quality though is still more important for life than the concept. A concept is an abstract issue representing reality as some delegate in some assembly. We all know how delegates rarely stand for the interest of those who elected them. The idea of a team work and operativity is another of unavoidable demands of the time. The essential quality in this sort of approach is manipulation. With investors, co-workers, and the media. Some other specialist prepares the architecture, the third one performs the construction or elaborates the materials. There is no hierarchy, only interaction. The idea is logical and inevitable. The problem consists only in the target range. The limit-line of this interdisciplinarity keeps flashing up in my mind with rebellious persistence: who knows whether due to my atavistic limitation or because of the wider view arising from this very issue. I can see the limit-line of such an interdisciplinary approach in the striving to optimise the process and not to start a new one. Creativity has been suspended to processuality. Mere diligence and discipline cannot produce an artist or an art piece. Using CAD, building malls or hanging around with developers make no substantial contribution to architecture.

Within the contemporary designer paradise there is more work for architects than any time before. Everything in this post-neo-liberal society - from the mayor’s pre-election campaign up to the urban concept of the capital city - has to be designed. The shape follows no more the true function, it follows the styling. And styling is a marketing strategy whose mission is to convince, to seduce the buyer/customer to spend more money. The original sin - seduction and succumbing to temptation - has become the driving-wheel of everything. Architecture is stepping over from the field of culture to the field of free-market economy.

So, the architect may offer just a laconic answer to the question about the role and the future of architecture: “What do I care!” Just like a group of Check and Slovak architects suggested, or, before them, some mainly Dutch globalists theorised at the last Biennial in Venice. Perhaps it is really time for architecture to reach its end? I suggest the following programme: let everybody have his/her own architecture. No more rules, no more dictation of taste. The architect should only help to establish an absolutely flexible system, where people will be able to design their own concepts of a flat or any other function just by following the principle of an “architecture with no architects”. So, we could actually implement the absolute individualism, the pluralism and the democracy, and everybody would come directly to his own private paradise.

However, this editorial is not an appeal to crucify privacy.

Privacy is a frame where some most important architectural masterpieces have been created. Looking only at the modern period, we must mention Le Mies’s house Farnsworth or Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoy, which can both be set - by their cultural importance and by achievement - side by side with Picasso’s Mesdemoiselles d’Avignon or with Joyce’s Ulysses. The greatest creations in art and culture have grown from the humus-soil of privacy. This editorial and this number in general stand - through evocation and through criticised privacy and individualism - for the defence of the public role of architecture and architects. The system is, of course, stronger than we are, yet this is not the reason why we should stop kicking. We shall allow no one and no thing to convince us that resistance is senseless!