AN AESTHETICS OF THE UNPREDICTABLE
THE FATE OF TEHRAN’S UNIQUELY INDIGENOUS MODERNIST ARCHITECTURE, 1950-1970
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, Rationalism, Bauhaus, Wright, Mies, Paul Rudolf, Brazil, the 50s and the 60s California – “Desert Architecture”, Neutra, and others. In addition, they are everywhere, side by side, like a collage. - Indigenousness, through: 1- Detailing (the ironwork for example). 2- A form of Eastern treatment and modification by means of making things finer, more delicate, even using decoration (going beyond mere functionality - this aspect reflecting the significance of the Italian influences) 3- Three dimensional treatments of even single facades by extensive use of recesses and projections, which seem to have been in relation to the climate and the light too. The use of the cantilever is undoubtedly the best of its kind. - An indigenous architecture, not colonial. - Inclusion of a complete urban spectrum that therefore made all of the streets. - Reflection of the role of the now forgotten social, ethnic, and religious diversity of Tehran (Armenians, Assyrians, Georgians, Russians, Poles …) in shaping the city on the whole, new city, through architecture, fashion, furniture making, the introduction of restaurants, hotels and café cultures, classic and modern music, theatre and cinema. (That for different geopolitical reasons, the diverse ethnicities in the authentic urban centers of civilization and culture in the region are dissipating, is surely a big minus. This is camouflaged by pumping up rent-an-art /-an-architecture alternatives in expensive architectural models blown up one to one in rent-a-states)
Due to the extensiveness of the subject, this mainly pictorial issue deals only with what remains of the later twenty year pre-revolution period of 1950-1970. Some of the different aspects have been divided into sections. The plans would have been very instructive. However, it has been almost impossible to conduct surveys or see any drawings (see the section on the original villas for a rare few). This perhaps explains the difficulties with such research at the present time, and reflects the unsympathetic situation.
The characteristics of the architectures of this period might include these aspects:
- HIGH LEVEL OF EXECUTION AND DETAILING, at the same time as numerousness and diversity (reflecting accuracy, care, craftsmanship, and delight). - The CORRECTNESS (faultlessness) of the overall form as well as the details. (There are times when everything seems absolutely correct, while there are times when everything seems imperfect and just wrong – like NOW!) - DIVERSITY OF STYLES (presence of a variety of styles as well as diversity within each, such that new qualities would emerge from their interaction). - SPECIALNESS (not having an exact equal), and the presence of remarkable individual solutions. - ARCHITECTURAL NATURE (having gone beyond mere construction, and the reflection of thought – concept / idea… and the sense of delight and enthusiasm). - THREE-DIMENTIONALITY in most cases, even in buildings with only one visible side, by means of projections, recesses, balconies, and in particular CANTILEVERING. - Tendency towards FINENESS and the minimal (the authentic Persian sensibility), as opposed to the recent one of
fatness and coarseness. (OBESE buildings – sign of the times?) - Form and surface CRYSTALLINITY. - RATIONAL USE OF MATERIALS (as integral to form): a single material (brick or render in early / Deco, and selective variation on selected surfaces or volumes in the later, usually white buildings.) - RATIONAL PLANS. - Use of OPEN OR SEMI-OPEN SPACES as integral to the three-dimensional composition. - Reflection of a period of a SUPREME WORLD ARCHITECTURE.
The demolitions should stop. Railings and other details, in some cases even signs and neon lights must be left in place, and lit - in the case of the latter - as readymades (in which case this would also act as a form of artistic instruction for the public). Priority must be given to the main streets, but the depths should not be forgotten.
The analysis of the diversity of the architectural qualities found in Tehran is complex and difficult, therefore, international consultation should be sought to this end.
Adverse regulations must be reviewed, as in the case that prohibits the creative use of the cantilever form of projection that has a rich precedence in Tehran, as well as those that motivate property speculation.
Tehran’s uniquely indigenous Modernism can at the same time be a model for the future. A genuine approach would pay due attention to this abused heritage, that is to the actual qualities of the place.
Visual pollutions must be reduced or removed, not added to. Quality must be integral to the environment, not applied.
The above also apply to the other cities and towns of Iran. Evaluations must be solely on the basis of quality, not invented narratives.
Before the onset of the systematic and across the board demolitions, Tehran was an exemplary Modernist city. There are cities, such as many in Europe, which are generally homogeneous, a characteristic in itself, not necessarily good or bad, but often highly impressive. There are cities that are not homogeneous, and do not have any urban qualities either, cities that are defined by statistics, surface area, economics (ranging from shanty towns to the most luxurious). However, Tehran had great diversity in its architectures, and also expressed high qualities in the details of its buildings as well as in their overall forms. The main characteristic of architectural cities seems to be the quality of all of the elements that constitute them. They do not rely on a few monuments or showy pieces. They can be referred to as democratic cities, made up of modest and functional, and generally non-governmental and non-corporate buildings. But such architecture is not devoid of poetics. We know that in this competition, the humblest cabin or a mere ruin can defeat the most ostentatious of palaces. It has to be said that in today’s urban developments, the grain is not architectural any more. Consequently, the whole cannot have any particular quality, but only a quantitative description. The architectures presented here belong to Tehran’s later pre-revolution period. When its different layers are removed, the complexity and richness of the subject is revealed dramatically. In the articles and opinions that feature, this becomes evident to some extent: Bauhaus, Metabolism, Ponti, Rationalism, Wright, Neutra, California, Italy. And the key point: that these influences occurred side by side, in one place, Tehran. And, something should also be said in relation to use
(we prefer the realm of aesthetics). Another reason for the distinctiveness of such cities is that the priority was with the spectrum connected with living, especially residential, rather than with administration or the government. (It is quite strange that with all the talk about electronic administration, governmental buildings are becoming fatter and ever more visible!). Some of these occupy the equivalent of a city quarter. They have nothing to do with where they are, and impose themselves and their tired and depressed employees over a wide radius in each case. However, in Isfahan we witness the priority of the civic aspect…..! We see that the presence of the government was minimal. The bazaar route around the maidan passes under the viewing deck of the modest palace. Fineness and elegance were the criteria rather than monumentality. There is no sign or symbol, and no administrative building, but there was management, of the complicated water distribution system for example. Isfahan helps us with a comparison: the making of a capital in both Isfahan and Tehran had a common aspect. Similar to the way that in developing Isfahan in the 17th century, the best workforces, especially artisans, were brought in (mainly the Armenians of Jolfa), in Tehran too the service of the cultures and ethnicities that were more in tune with new things were brought in: Armenians and Assyrians, and in the earlier period, Russians, Georgians, Poles and Hungarians, some of whom had found themselves in Tehran because of war, as well as invited figures such as André Godard. However, this is quite an obscure area in the present historiography. Probably it was so, in the more distant past too. This does not take anything away from Persian Art, rather it shows the richness, since a closed culture would inevitably resort to repeating itself, and degenerate. Persian Art did not hesitate in absorbing or adopting foreign things. However, it would then work on them and refine them into new things. At the same time, there is a local mentality that considers the totally Western neo-classical buildngs as the best! The architecture presented here was not the means of state propaganda and the like, but for the different aspects of living; which was the commendable goal of Modernism (CIAM, “USONIA”, “Architecture or Revolution”), something that seems to be forgotten, even though those architects whose main concern was the betterment of people’s living conditions (Aalto, Niemeyer, Corbusier), were also the masters of the individual piece. In fact these two aspects form an integral whole.
Tajrish Bazaar - Direct, functional, and unsullied architecture
Tehran could have been a city with a strong identity (a true one, not an invented one). This would have necessitated keeping Tehran in its pre-demolition state. The original low density would have kept congestion in check, prevented the city from becoming a huge car park, not caused so much pollution due to the demolitions and rebuilding, emergency access would have been less problematic, and above all, its identities would have been kept. New buildings would have then been possible on the extensive lands available. This destructive process can be stopped if there were the will. This could prevent Tehran resembling a stale Malaysian-Dubaiian concoction. Examples have been referred to here that have been included in the UNESCO list. But Tehran’s valuable but abused architecture has not been acknowledged at any level. That would have been a true identity if it were. What kind of an identity could a stale Malaysian-Dubaiian state, and recently, an influx of rejects from Arabia provide? We have to confess that understanding Modernism is difficult. However, this is also because of its richness and vitality. We cannot allow it to be sacrificed at the altar of populism. Conversely, in history, the easy “understanding” of symmetry, the familiar shape (traditional), the popular, the stupid shape, and the commercial, have been useful to the dealers, the dictators, the populists, and the financial institutions and bankers. A great deal of the agenda of neo-classism was reserved for stage setting invented glories. As F. L. Wright has said, there is a St Peter’s dome in every American city. (No wonder he did not work with the government or the bankers – same as almost everyone else we respect) There is also a fake avant-garde style, which can be called the trendily coiffured avant-garde. Identity, like morality, is what its ardent representatives destroy. They hide behind it in order to reach their goals. And, “identity” and “tradition” have always had invented definitions and criteria. True identity, even at the scale of a person, would be the quality of what is produced and offered. Persian art is about reductionism to the minimum, the finest, but a rich one, even if highly ornamented. In the works of Mies van der Rohe for courtyard houses we see the eastern principle, and the light in La Tourette might suggest both the medieval and the Eastern poetic sensibilities. They demonstrate the ability of Modernism in integrating sources from different geographies and times, in the abstract sense.
Postscript The question might arise: where do the products of today stand? The ideas are superficial and hollow, since there is no goal (in relation to the soul especially). Cars, tables, chairs, lights, watches, films, animations, comedies, photographs, music, and art – whose total enslavement by commerciality is not impossible – do not make meaningful impacts. In some cases they are more like different forms of pollution rather than new and good things. The equivalents of fast food are taking over everything. In fact, sameness, of which the inherently dynamic and diverse Modernism was accused, is itself, along with the deadly virus of globalization, implementing erosion and more sameness - of the varied kind!. The repetitive, ready, and “fast” productions, camouflage this alienating process.
* Kaveh Mehrabani graduated from the AA with diploma prize in 1980. His main activities are art and research. Published material includes articles in Domus and Abitare. kavehmehrabani@yahoo.co.uk
My thanks go to: Sonia Navvab (graphic design consultant) Fatemeh Amini (art consultant) Yas Naghib Hashemi (layout assistant) Sara Mehralizadeh Amin Farahani Taraneh Yalda (for Memar #73) The distinguished contributors Soheila Beski, Memar editor, for her appreciation and generosity - شمال انقلاب- ضلع غربي- فلسطين نبش بن بست قلم چي
Felestin [W] + Qalamchi - north of Enghelab