Skip to content
ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORY
- Postmodernity is the state of culture in which we live today. What we once regarded as important postulates of art and architecture is now either fading or has already disappeared. The avant-garde and modernism, understood as expressions of modernity or the belief in a single path for the cultural world, are no longer valid. Trends matter more than ideas, and the pursuit of a just world interests no one. Yet, despite these upheavals, great architecture is still being built.
- History is not synonymous with tradition. Many believe that tradition must not be questioned. Those who are unfamiliar with history are often seen as inferior creators. However, some architects wanted to challenge these sacred values. All novelty and avant-garde rejected the superstitions of history. After all, looking back will not help us discover a good new path. Still, cultural identity is easily found in architectural open-air museums or universities.
- It is the schools of architecture that can serve as carriers of tradition and history – sometimes long, sometimes shorter. After all, nowadays even 80 years seems like a very long time. These are the places where architecture is taught, where its history and present are explored, and where lectures intertwine with student competitions. Students are sometimes surprised to discover that the ultra-modern forms they design and see around them today were once drawn and painted by now often forgotten creators. Teaching history can show how styles have evolved and raise the question of whether something so constraining to creativity is still needed today.
- Styles used to be the most important characteristic of art. Looking back in time, we see their slow transformation and the emergence of successive novelties. In the 20th century, our professors would ask students in which style they wanted to design their building. To this day, we can still recall and name a Baroque, Gothic or Classical building. The stylistic uniformity that once prevailed helped one to build, using memorised principles.
- In recent times, everything has changed – the world of art and architecture is full of coexisting ideas and forms. Diversity is immense. In the past, a specific form was assigned to a specific type of building. Today, creators strive for novelty every single time and adapt architectural solutions accordingly. As a result, we now see minimalist architecture, deconstructivist architecture, decompositional architecture, postmodern architecture, modernist architecture and ecological architecture standing side by side. Everything is allowed as long as it keeps changing. Maybe that’s a good thing.
- In this world of simultaneity and, above all, architectural diversity, the question of novelty seems to remain the most important issue. Historical architecture seemed predictable. At one time, classical fundamentals included symmetry, rhythm and beauty. However, the Baroque eluded such a description. Its architecture was sometimes unpredictable, unusual, fragmented and grandiose. The same words can describe what is beginning to surround us today.
- Modernism stripped classicist forms of the remnants of historical detail, leaving the possibility of composing shapes according to very general rules. The function and the correct solution of the building became paramount. One should remember Otto Wagner’s words: Anything that is not functional cannot be beautiful. And yet, arguably the most beautiful painting in the world, the Mona Lisa, serves no function and is nevertheless pure art and beauty.
- The decomposition of historical architectural form can be a way of drawing on the art world without falling into the trap of merely copying the past. It can become part of a game with the past and with the viewer or user of architecture. Let us remember, however, ignoring imitation, that it is the remembered historical drawings of the early 20th-century avant-garde that laid the foundations for the super-modern play.
- The prophetic – though now somewhat dusty – words of the creators of Coop Himmelb(l)au may become the slogan of the future: We are tired of seeing Palladio and other historical masks. Because with architecture, we don’t want to exclude everything that is disquieting. We want architecture that has more. Architecture that bleeds, that exhausts, that whirls, and even breaks. Architecture that lights up, stings, rips, and tears under stress. One might feel the urge to join in and shout: WE WANT THE AVANT-GARDE AGAIN!
