INDIVIDUALITY AND COLLECTIVITY
Today, we live in cities rising from the tumult of the disharmony of spaces, images and data, itself a result of the infinite and disrupted multiplication of opinions and individual productions. Although freedom of choice for individuals is an adorable achievement of the modern times, such adorability is no reason for neglecting a critique or analysis of the undesirable effects, or the dark side, of an excess in modern individuality, which plagues our today and future lives. We had planned to discuss, in an issue of the magazine, contemporary experiences which, based on collective cultural tendencies and social loyalty, have achieved an acceptable balance between the individual and collective aspects in urbanism and architecture. The Scandinavian architectural experience was a good instance for opening up the different aspects of the subject. My familiarity with Scandinavian architecture goes back to 20 years ago when the works of the pioneering architects of this region, such as Alvar Aalto, Jørn Utzon, Eliel Saarinen, Reima Pietilä and other influential architects, attracted my attention. In that period, I came across writings by theorist architects such as Christian Norberg-Schultz and Juhani Pallasmaa, and some years later, I wrote and published articles and critiques referencing Schultz’ viewpoints. Gradually, I became familiar with a wider domain of Scandinavian architects and their works and recently reviewed the works of Severre Fehn. In the past years, I found a chance to have a close dialogue with a new generation of Scandinavian architects and to exchange opinions. Through travelling to a number of these countries and visiting a series of works by architects of all generations in this region, and also some offices of the new generation of effective architects, I got a better picture of not only the architecture and the way architects work in this region, but also of their particular culture, society, geography and nature. Additionally, I came across very interesting examples of architectural works from these countries exported in form of diplomatic projects to different cities of the world, and also, the amazing pavilions in World Expos, as well as unique structures such as the Sydney Opera House (Jørn Utzon), Paris Grand Arch (Otto von Spreckelsen) or Bibliotheca Alexandrina (Snøhetta), which are all winners of very though international competitions. Then, I also recognized the distinguished status of some of the architectural offices and architects of this region in the international contemporary scene as well as their prominent presence in the global architectural market. I was curious what background had led to this series of achievements in the field of architecture. In a similar manner, the successful history of the design and production in this region of brilliant, functional, cheap products accessible to the public, sharing a simple and comprehensive aesthetics and applying natural materials such as wood, which all carried the title of Scandinavian Design, and the considerable presence of these products in the global markets and their effect on the economy of the original country were always interesting to me, without me having a clear or exact understanding of the goals and intentions of their decision-makers, designers and producers. These are less historical and comparatively newly- established societies in which people live in a social solidarity with one another and in close contact to nature while their governments have a global reputation for the level of their citizens’ welfare. These are countries with a collective and dynamic culture and disposition. Their socio-economic structure is based on a dynamic model of
Welfare State and in them, the body of the city and architecture, including the urban infrastructure, public buildings and spaces, residential complexes and buildings as well as other building types, and policies, strategies and programmes that lead to their realization, are the direct and objective reflections of such a culture following the aforementioned socio-economic model. This is a goal that urban designers, architects, people and the governments all agree upon and cooperate actively and positively for its application. On such a basis, individuality finds acceptance only because it satisfies collective interests. These are countries where an attention to the central role of the people and their democratic participation in defining city’s destiny, or their togetherness in the body and space of the city or architecture, is made possible through their presence in polls for realization of plans and projects, their high regard for public buildings, collective spaces and urban infrastructure, their attention to scale and the centrality of man in urban space and in architecture etc. Among these, one can refer to special plans and designs for providing collective housing and public functions as well as encouraging the reconstruction of problematic urban spaces or unused infrastructure remaining from the past, and most importantly, care to avoid resources being wasted and fairly distributed particularly in the field of energy. These are countries that have a harsh geography, an obdurate climate and limited natural resources. The challenge of confronting these restrictions inclines them to a type of vision and action that can bring about possibilities for solving problems and crossing restrictions. It encourages people to form collective solidarity and prepare in the face of the horrors of living in such harsh conditions and to benefit from the nature and natural resources and also control them at the same time. In the field of architecture and product design, the same factor accounts for the priority being given to a realistic, functional, non-consumerist and qualitative solutions for the essentials of everyday life as well as an insistence on functionality and functional spaces and products, and prevents them from falling into the trap of subjective and conceptual ideals, formal or iconic tendencies or showy architectural games. Of course none of these is a rule without an exception and this path, particularly in the recent decades and under the influence of the globalism and convergence of architects’ tendencies (as well as the internal policies of these countries) has resulted in considerable changes being brought about. Palpable, humanist and high-quality spaces for everyday life, intended for being better and being together, have been skilfully built ranging from the scale of a house to that of a city and are based on a respect for both the social and individualist aspect of the users as well as a dialogue with nature aimed at using of natural resources, so that through a meaningful, unique and calculated relationship, they could connect the private sector to the public as well as the constructed environment to the natural one: a rational, emotional and organic connection that represents aesthetic reflections, which are mostly based on sense perception in the way the local nature, including landscape, light, material, etc. is put, in a minimalist and simple manner, to necessary use. To sum up, one can say the essence of Scandinavian architecture and design could be described in terms such as ‘collective’, ‘natural’, ‘functional’ and ‘humanist’.
In memory of the founder and director of the magazine, Soheila Beski
1- Alvar Aalto 2- Jorn Utzon 3- Eliel Sarinen 4- Raima Pietila 5- Christian Norberg Shultz 6- Johani Pallasma 7- Severre Fehn 8- World Expo 9- Sydney Opera House, Jorn Utzon
10- Paris Grand Arch, Otto Von Spreckelsen 11- Alexanderia Bibliotheque,Snohetta 12- Welfare State 13- Conceptual 14- Formal 15- Iconic 16- Organic 17- Perception 18- Minimalism