arhitektura v sloveniji 2004-2006

Kje je danes slovenska arhitektura? Kaj lahko ponudi evropskemu prostoru, kaj mu ponuja? Slovenija je bila v sedemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja evropska eksperimentalna oaza na zahodnem robu vzhodne sivine. To vlogo poligona za eksperimente je na nek način vzpostavila tudi po osamosvojitvi. Odpiranje in tranzicija sta bila buren proces, ki je tudi na področju arhitekture postavil pod vprašaj mnoge prej nedotakljive paradigme, kot npr. zahtevo po zadržani skromnosti, socialni pravičnosti, racionalnosti funkcije in izraza, iskrenosti konstrukcije itd., in vzpostavil nove: prevlado zasebnega nad javnim, arhitekturo spektakla, arhitekturo medijske prodornosti, arhitekturo kot lifestyle in trend, pojav arhitekturnih zvezdnikov itd.

Arhitekturna kultura in njene institucije so prav tako doživele in še doživljajo temeljite spremembe. Misliva na ustanovitev arhitekturne zbornice, prestrukturiranje arhitekturnih birojev, pojav novih medijev, sprejemanje in spreminjanje zakonodaje, prestrukturiranje fakultete za arhitekturo itd. Slovenija na področju arhitekture doživlja eksplozijo dogajanja. Če sta nastali pred desetimi leti največ dve ali tri, včasih pa niti ena res opazna realizacija na leto, je v zadnjih letih drugače; vsako leto nastane več kvalitetnih arhitektur, toliko, da ostajajo spregledana dela, ki bi še par let nazaj odnesla prestižne nacionalne arhitekturne nagrade. Na nek način se arhitekturna kultura ponovno razcveta, čeprav na drugačen način, kot se je v legendarnih šestdesetih. Pojavile so se nove generacije arhitektov, zamenjala se je struktura naročnikov. V procesu vzpostavljanja in prilagajanja novim tržnim razmeram so se najbolje znašle nove generacije arhitektov, ki so razvile nove delovne in kreativne strategije. Iz starejših generacij izstopa nekaj arhitektov s prepoznavnimi arhitekturnimi opusi (ki jih v navalu novega ne uspemo ustrezno vrednotiti). Še vedno pa ostaja velik del arhitekturne stroke ob robu, brez ambicij in brez presežkov. Po poldrugem desetletju je nastopil čas za sintetiziranje. Če torej skušamo analizirati pluralno plastenje slovenske arhitekture v zadnjih letih, naletimo na dvojnost stališč. Nekateri vlečejo niti iz slovenske šole in kontinuitete (predvsem starejše in srednje generacije) in smatrajo, da je arhitektura kultura, ki ima opraviti s prostorom in kontekstom, ki je lahko nacionalen, geografski, zgodovinski, če hočete, tudi Mediteran, Alpe, les in kamen itd. Morda ustreza Framptonov termin kritični regionalizem. Drugi, predvsem mlajši, pa razmišljajo drugače, s sodobno skovanko bi lahko rekli glokalno, se vračajo in obračajo k lokalnemu iz svoje globalne pozicije.

Zanimajo jih mediji, arhitektura čutne izkušnje bolj kot kulturnega nivoja, tržne učinkovitosti bolj kot etične veljavnosti. Ob teh dveh osnovnih usmeritvah seveda obstajajo še številne vmesne in hibridne pozicije. V zmedi vrednot vse bolj potrebujemo oblikovanje samolastne kulturne drže, ki bi ustvarjala možnosti, da bi globalni vpliv zahodne kulture (zlasti ameriške) ne prevzel celotnega polja kulture. Izogibati bi se morala skrajnostim, kot je ekstremistični izolacionizem na eni, pa tudi kulturno povsem odprt vstop v globalno družbo na drugi strani. Ta številka ab-ja je na sledi zametkom take pozicije v delu slovenskih arhitektov. Gre za arhitekte, ki niso generacijsko zamejeni, in pri katerih je moč zaznati težnjo po iskanju ravnotežja med obema pristopoma, med nujnostjo krepitve lastne nacionalne identitete in prepoznavnosti ter sočasnim odpiranjem tujim vplivom, torej v smislu nekakšnega glokalizma, kot hkrati globalne in lokalne usmeritve. Po drugi strani pa gre za ponovno odpiranje vprašanj o najširši odgovornosti arhitekture. O odgovornosti, ki ni le estetska in ekonomska, pač pa je družbena, etična in socialna. Dvoletni pregled arhitekture ni toliko posledica arhivske vneme kot predvsem potrebe, da se v Sloveniji sintetizira pogled na arhitekturna dogajanja, da se revitalizira arhitekturna kritika in dvigne standard vrednotenja arhitekture. S polnopravnim članstvom v EU se je obenem vzpostavila potreba po vrednotenju slovenske arhitekture v kontekstu evropske, po ustreznem prezentiranju oziroma uveljavljanju slovenske arhitekture v evropskem prostoru, kar pomeni, da obstaja predvsem potreba po revitaliziranju pogleda na slovensko arhitekturo. Cilj te številke revije ab-ja je narediti prerez oz. inventuro slovenske arhitekture v zadnjih dveh letih in jo ovrednotili iz skupne perspektive, iz intelektualne in kritične pozicije, ki jo zastopajo uredniki. Narediti pogled “od znotraj navzven“. Almanah je tudi inventarni - sintetizirani prikaz dela slovenskih arhitektov v zadnjih dveh letih. Ker je produkcija velika, smo se odločili za relativno širok kriterij izbora. Zato pregled ni le slika najbolj avantgardnega arhitekturnega dogajanja, ponuja tudi prerez skozi stanje v stroki.

Struktura almanaha sledi razdelitvi predstavljenih arhitektur po tematskih sklopih: stanovanjska gradnja, šole in druge javne stavbe, infrastrukturni objekti, luksuzne vile, urbane ureditve itd. Tematski sklopi ne sledijo le tipološkim, pač pa tudi drugim lastnostim predstavljenih arhitektur. Hiše, ki postavljajo standarde, so postavljene na čelo vsake teme in so predstavljene bolj podrobno, sledi jim pregled arhitektur, ki izhajajo iz “iste ali podobne zgodbe“. Zato je predstavitev potrebno brati in razumeti večplastno in odprto za naknadne dopolnitve, tako v smislu samega seznama objavljenih arhitekturnih del kot teoretskih osvetlitev in precizacij posameznih stališč.

Predstavitve spremljajo eseji, ki ocenjujejo letno produkcijo, ali pa opozarjajo na primerljive evropske situacije. Eseji bi naj vzpostavili čimbolj stvarna očišča za nadaljnje vrednotenje, ki ga slovenska arhitektura ob svoji kvalitativni in množični produkciji že zaradi nacionalnega interesa potrebuje. Slovenska arhitektura lahko postane prepoznavna doma in v evropskem prostoru s kvalitetno kritiko, ki bo "postavila stvari na svoje mesto". Potrebujemo kritiko, ki bo težila k objektivnosti, ki bo iz enakih ali vsaj sorodnih izhodišč pregledala produkcijo, opazila spregledane arhitekture in prizemljila s samohvalo lansirane. Želimo torej več objektivnosti, manj spregledov dobrih in manj glorifikacije slabih.

Miha Dešman, Uroš Lobnik

Slovenian Architecture 2004-2006

Where is Slovene architecture today? What can it offer to the European space, what does it offer it? In the 1970s, Slovenia was the European oasis of experimentation on the western brink of the greyness of the East and it can be said that it retain edits role of an experimental testing ground even after the independence. The period o Slovene opening up and subsequent transition was a turbulent one that challenged many paradigms previously held sacred, and architecture was no exception. The restrained modesty, the social righteousness, the rationality of function and expression, the honesty of construction, etc. all had to give way to new requirements: prevalence of the private over the public, the architecture of the spectacle, the architecture of media dynamism, lifestyle and trend architecture, the emergence of architectural celebrities, etc.

The architectural culture and its institutions have gone through substantial changes themselves, chiefly concerning the growing complexity of the profession and the increasing responsibility of the architect without suitable working conditions to offset that responsibility, as well as the restructuring of architectural bureaux, the adoption and changing of legislation, the founding of the Chamber of Architecture, the emergence of new media, etc.

There has been an explosion of architectural activity in Slovenia. For all the lack of significant realizations in the previous decade with no more than two or three completed per year and a couple of even drier spells, we have been witnessing a completely different picture in the last few years: more quality architecture is produced every year. In fact, due to volume, works that would likely win prestigious national awards only a few years earlier are now not getting the attention they deserve. It does seem that architecture is in bloom again, though in a different way than in the legendary 1960s.

New generations of architects have emerged, the structure of investors has changed. In establishing and adapting to new market relations, the new generations of architects seem to have got the upper hand by developing new working and creative strategies. There are a few standout architects belonging to the older generation with recognisable architectural bodies of work that are often denied proper evaluation due to so much new output. That said, a large part of the architectural community still shows no ambition and has nothing exceptional to show.

After a decade and a half, it is time for a synthesis. Attempts to analyse the plural layering of Slovene architecture in recent years lead us to a certain duality of standpoints. Some remain in keeping with the Slovene school and its continuity (particularly the older and middle generations) and see architecture as culture embedded in a space and context, which could be national, geographical, historical – if you want, the Mediterranean, the Alps, wood and stone, etc. Frampton's term "critical regionalism" may also apply. Other, particularly younger architects, think differently, glocally, to use a neologism, turning and returning to the local from their global position. They are interested in the media, the architecture of sensual experience rather than cultural distinction, commercial efficacy rather than ethical validity. Between these two basic directions, there exist, naturally, numerous positions along this cline, and hybrid positions.

In this confusing multitude of values, there is an increasing need for an individual cultural stance in order for the global influence of Western (particularly American) culture not to overtake the entire cultural field. Within this stance, one should avoid all extremes, i.e. extreme isolationism on the one hand, as well as a fully open foray into the global society in terms of culture on the other. This journal looks for the germs of such stance found in the work of Slovene architects, architects who are not generation-bound and whose work reflects their desire to find balance between the two approaches, between the necessity to affirm one's national identity and recognition, while at the same time opening to foreign influences - essentially glocalism as a simultaneous global and local orientation. Alongside, the question of general responsibility of architecture is also readdressed, not merely as an aesthetic and economic responsibility, but also as social and ethical responsibility.

Rather than motivated by the eagerness to record and inventorise, this two year review of architecture reflects the need to synthesise the aspects of architectural developments in Slovenia, to revitalise the architectural criticism and to bring the assessment of architecture to a higher level. The full EU membership gave rise to the need to assess Slovene architecture in the context of European architecture, as well as to suitably present and establish Slovene architecture in the European space, requiring us to revitalise the view on Slovene architecture. This issue of ab magazine is an attempt at a review of the Slovene architecture of the last two years and its assessment it from a common perspective, an intellectual and critical position shared by the editors – to produce an "outside view from the inside".

The journal also serves as a synthesised inventory of the work of Slovene architects in the last two years. Due the amount of output, the criteria were set in such a way as to include a wide selection of works; this way, the journal serves as a cross-section of the entire profession, rather than a showcase of only the most progressive architectural developments. The journal is thematically organised by type of architecture: residential buildings, schools and other public facilities, infrastructural objects, luxury houses, urban developments, etc. The thematic sections take into account properties other than only basic typology of the featured architectures: buildings that set standards open each section with a more detailed presentation, followed by a review of architectures stemming from the same or a similar pattern. On this account, the presentation is to be read and understood on more than one level and considered open for further additions to the basic list of published architectural works, as well as to shed more light on the theories and to enable various standpoints to be even more precise. Alongside the presentations, there are articles evaluating the yearly production or drawing parallels with comparable situations elsewhere in Europe. It is the intention of these articles to provide objective standpoints for further assessment needed by the Slovene architecture with its qualitative and quantitative output in the name of national interest, if nothing else. One way for Slovene architecture to gain recognition home and abroad is by means of quality criticism which would "set things right". We need criticism which will strive towards objectivity, which will apply the same or at least similar criteria when reviewing the production, which will draw attention to the overseen architecture and will not be swayed by the hype. We wish for more objectivity, less oversights of the good, and less glorification of the substandard.

Miha Dešman, Uroš Lobnik