An Aesthetics of the Unpredictable
The Modernist buildings of Tehran, which have been subject to mistreatment and systematic demolition for some time, can be considered to have been part of the most significant development in the interpretation of Modernism at the scale of a major city. It can be said now, that Modernism was not a totally Western phenomenon, even though it was formulated mainly in the “West” (because that was where new ideas were produced at the time). As opposed to the Eurocentric neo-classicism, Modernism did not have geographical bounds, and its sources came more often from the East, Africa, and indigenous and medieval cultures, or from machine and industrial aesthetics. In fact, it seems that there was no prejudice, even against the neo-classicism that Modernism had rebelled against (Mies, Ponti). If any, perhaps there was some prejudice against the West itself. The Modernists had developed a mindset of rejecting what they thought was the worn-out atmosphere of Europe to the extent that being anti-system, anti-academy, nonconformist, revolutionary, and internationalist formed their habits.
The question might arise that what is the attraction of this sensibility? Is it not just another thing that has expired? It is a form of freedom and reliance on pure creativity rather than invented, assumed, or imposed models. And the importance of the spirit and values (Mies, The New Era, 1930); the engagement of the mind, at times with an eternal mystery. A form of radiance and purity that is found in the direct nature of the primitive artifice. These cannot expire hopefully.
Contrary to the uninformed or questionable criticisms directed at this inherently diverse, vital, and open movement - not style - it had had the capacity to respond to diverse situations. A number of Modernist developments have been included in the UNESCO world heritage list (Brasilia, Le Havre, Bauhaus Dessau…). However, the development of Modernism outside Europe and North America is less known. Considering that some of the sources of Modernism were in the East and Africa, its adoptions constituted a form of return to the roots, to the extent that in many cases it arguably performed better in such situations, at least in terms of the climates and the heightened brilliance of the buildings in the stronger lights. It seems that Modernist architects were keen to have a presence in the newly independent and progress seeking countries (the elegant building on the river bank in Baghdad, which was being shot at during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, was the 1958 Ministry of Planning by Ponti). And world heritage architecture, and probably fine contemporary works too in Syria, another developed culture in the region, are also being destroyed!
Comparatively, the reasons for the significance and distinctiveness of Tehran in the context of Modernistic developments can be considered to be these aspects: at the urban level, the making of a whole city, about 500 square kilometers at the time, and not just the centre, primarily in the Modernist localized varieties. Even in Europe, Modernism is on the whole at the peripheries and not very visible. The European image is an “old” / “historical” one, which although clearly should be protected, has not been, and is not, a resolved issue for European thinkers. In spite of the importance of the prominent sites of Modernism to the extent of inclusion in the UNESCO world heritage list, they usually represent one distinct period and style. While Tehran reflects a wide spectrum: early eclectic, Art Deco, the rest are by no means rare or isolated either; together they give Tehran its uniquely indigenous Modernist character.
