Edifício Seagram, arquiteto Mies Van der Rohe, 1954-1958
Foto Nicolás Sica Palermo
NS: In your opinion, is modern architecture a formal system, such as the classical system? Why?
KF: Modern Architecture has never evolved into a coherent formal system comparable to that of European Classicism between 1750 and 1925. In as much as Modern Architecture came into being out of the European artistic avant garde it was always somewhat pluralist with respect to such primary formal allegiances as Purism, Neoplasticism, Constructivism, Expressionism, etc. Even if for some people Modern Architecture could be duly recognized as a more or less unified white, flat-roofed style, along the lines of Hitchcock and Johnson’s canonical so called International Style, dating from 1932, the work of European modern architects after WWII in the 50’s was invariably very diverse. One may also cite the post war work of Alvar Aalto which had nothing whatever to do with the International Style nor even at the time of his canonical Viipuri Library of 1938-1939.
NS: After post modernism, do you think that modernity is still pertinent nowadays? If so, what are the differences between modern architecture and the urban planning carried out between the 50’s and the 70’s and one that could can be carried out currently? Could the landscapes and environments - urban or not, the programs and the technology generate significant formal progress for this architecture?
KF: Perhaps the last truly significant large scale urban planning and refurbishment was carried out in Barcelona between 1980 and 1992 largely under the leadership of Oriol Bohigas (8) and under the neo-socialist administration of Pasqual Maragall. The most encouraging development of recent date has surely been the rise of landscape/urbanism as an environmental discourse, having its origin in the work of Ian McHarg, James Corner in Philadelphia and in that of Manuel de Solà Morales and Joan Busquets in Barcelona. Although there are other very important schools of landscape in Europe, above all Michel Corajoud’s landscape school of Versaille of which Michel Desvigne is one of its most creative progeny. As far as technology is concerned surely one of more important didactic lines is that stemming from Thomas Herzog in Munich, both as a teacher/researcher and as a practitioner. His book Architecture and Technology of 2001 is a fundamental response in this regard.
NS: Whereas modern architecture is an important topic of study, should research be considered only as historiographic record, or can it be utilized as a basis for future achievements, as buildings and urban planning?
KF: In my view the cultivation of tradition is crucial including the tradition of the new. I am convinced by the argument that there is no tradition without innovation and conversely no innovation without tradition. As far as the modern tradition is concerned there is perhaps no more fertile legacy for the future of architecture than the work of Aalto.
note
8
Frampton, Kenneth. Martorell, Bohigas, Mackay: trente ans d’architecture, 1954-1984. Paris: Electa Moniteur, 1985. 151 p.
