Autonomous Architecture in Flanders PDF
Autonomous Architecture in Flanders PDF
Five well-known architects who studied together in Ghent, Marie-José Van Hee, Christian Kieckens,
1974.
In Ghent, a group of graduates from Sint-Lucas Institute of Architecture are determined
to leave their mark on the field of architecture in Flanders. A refusal of sleek imagery,
the material reality of architecture itself as central. Buildings, ornaments, proportions.
These five share a particular view of key issues in architecture, formed by their education,
the Flemish context and the time.
Worldwide, it is only a year after the Club of Rome report, and a sense of urgency
on environmental issues is increasing. Throughout the western world, the profession
of architecture is affected by the economic downturn, and is seeking a new form of
legitimacy. In Flanders, the culture of architecture is fragmented and still determinedly
non-intellectual.
2014.
In Venice, Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas curates the Architecture Biennale. A turn to
the Fundamentals of Architecture, to the elements with which it is constructed. Doors,
stairs, roofs, walls. In a retrospective comment, screened on the floor of the Arsenale,
he remarks that his first visit to Michelangelo’s Laurentian library in Florence showed
him that his education was merely the first step in learning to create architecture that
had an impact. That even 400 years later, this library touches the visitor, demonstrates
the power of architectural space.
Between these two moments, a span of 40 years has passed. Indeed, even the central
concerns may appear to be rather distinct at first glance. Yet under the surface lies
a similar belief in the value of their profession and in the cultural fortitude of
architecture. With some poetic license, we could see the Biennale as the logical result
The reality of architecture:
of a soul-searching within the discipline in the latter half of the 20th century. To take
material, space and light.
these five Sint-Lucas graduates as central figures in this development may extend the Marie-José Van Hee, House and
practice in Opwijk, 2005-2011.
license too far, but their particular interests were not as singular a development as a
Still from movie,
cursory glance at recent histories may suggest. What might be gained from approaching Maarten Vanden Abeele
(2015, commissioned by Archipel).
them as a seismographic group – registering and showing, in small amounts, more
significant rumblings under the visible foundations of architecture?
11
The group presented in this book – once dubbed ‘les silencieux’ – may seem less clearly
defined than the more well-known ‘young gods’ Stéphane Beel and Xaveer De Geyter.4
Indeed, within this ‘group’ they each took on quite different directions. Yet their shared
interests are equally striking, and in retrospect, their work is situated in a broader
international context of an identity crisis in architecture and the changing conditions
under which projects were realized in the 1970s and 1980s. At the time, architecture
in Belgium was still seen through the prism of the ‘ugliest country’, an essay by
Renaat Braem on the particular qualities of the modern, semi-urban Belgian environment.5
Within the national and local context, they were also defined by the focus on the eman-
cipatory social role of architecture on the one hand (mostly identified with the legacy
of bOb Van Reeth) and the lack of an institutional context and broader debate on the
other. As such, we might revisit the work of Dubois as the necessary voice of the group,
12
It is notable that only so recently, in 2014, the most prominent figure in architecture,
Rem Koolhaas, the godfather of some of the younger generation in Belgian architecture,
evokes a setting in which he was confronted with one of the classical examples of
architecture and realized he had much to learn. Koolhaas is, of course, one with dramat-
ic flair for writing and for using retrospective insights based on recollections – perhaps
even imagined ones. However, there is an interesting element to his comment – he
refers to one of the classic designs of the Renaissance not as an image, but as an entity
that goes far beyond the rules of composition. As something that requires a funda-
mental understanding only acquired through practice, through experience, and through
craftsmanship – and then results in a seemingly effortless perfection of space.
It is this positioning that I suggest lies at the heart of the ‘generation’ presented here.
The ‘silencieux’ sought out qualities that had nothing to do with the media-image of
architecture, and everything to do with the classical elements of composition and
spatial geometry. This is clear throughout numerous publications and exhibitions.6 The
social function of architecture – at least as approached by the modernists – took a back-
seat to concerns of space, of material and of design quality. Light, thickness, typology,
became more central than the social concerns of their forebears.
In a time when information was rapidly increasing, yet also flattening the experience of
architecture, they understood the value of the grand tour, of visiting what they studied.
They did these things together, forging the experiential connections that run through-
out their work. Above all, they seemed to understand that not all knowledge can be
captured in words. This meant that they travelled to projects, they studied drawings,
they redrew buildings in order to understand them. They not only formulated their
findings in texts, but also in sketches, slides, and drawings. In essence, where possible
they circumnavigated words in favour of material, of space, of light.
In this, they were not alone. They shared in some sense a zeitgeist that was present in
various little pockets of architectural practice in Europe and the United States. Whether
it was in response to economic crisis as in the United States or in response to the social
unrest in many university cities, or indeed to the emptiness experienced in the culture
around them, each sought their answers in the underlying logic of architecture as a craft
of composition, within the inner logic of the discipline.
13
CONSTRUCTING AUTONOMY
One of the determining features of the 1970s is a general sense that the social ideals
of the 1960s had failed. The pressing concern about non-renewable energy, the effects
of human intervention on the natural environment, and the destructive aspects of the
affluent society, raised a new awareness of the limited resources available. The
increased alarm over these issues created a general discourse of limits and restrictions
and a renewed concern that was distinct from the 1960s version of social agency.
Steadily, an increase became visible in the questions of what architecture might do.
In numerous fields, pressing concerns rose to the surface, which had far-reaching
implications for society at large. Questions on the effect of pesticides on flora and
fauna raised the dark image of a ‘silent spring’, and at the same time, the difficulty
of allocating and sharing resources illustrated the ‘tragedy of the commons’.7 Modern
optimism, driven by the endless promise of technological solutions, began to be toned
down by an awareness of problems that are by their very nature unsolvable, so-called ‘wicked
problems’, which require difficult social, political and normative choices to be made.8
14
‘Five Architects’ shows work that is modest in size and radical in approach. While the
diversity of the work is clear – Charles Gwathmey’s pragmatic modern residences are
difficult to compare with Hejduk’s poetic and conceptual proposition for House 10
– one may also in hindsight discern the early hints of what would come to be placed
under the category ‘autonomous architecture’. Indeed, this marks the first beginnings
of a turn inward, to the mechanisms of the discipline, to the logic that underpins
15
16
Within the discourse of autonomy, the overall social impact of architecture and its
mechanisms shifts to a more individualized cultural appreciation. Earlier positions
were often founded on the modernist principles of emancipation and the conviction
that architecture and urban design would have a fundamental impact on the behaviour
of users. Moreover, a transformative capacity was often attributed to the fields of
design. While much of this was rhetoric that perhaps spoke more to hope and opti-
mism than to an actual conviction that architecture was transformative, it nevertheless
marked the time. In contrast, those working in the aftermath of this period turned to
a more humble interpretation of both their responsibilities and their impact. Still, the
convictions remained a fundamental element in the profession. In 1977, sociologist
Robert Gutman published an analysis of the heated discussions within the architecture
discipline, and concluded that architects needed to rethink their claims to legitimacy.17
He suggested that they should take a more entrepreneurial approach to their profes-
sion, founded less on the notion of cultural necessity, and more on communicating
the added value of architectural services. Nevertheless, the intrinsic convictions of
architects have remained throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Indeed, while the effects
of these convictions were expressed in fundamentally different forms – from the
social and political engagement of the 1960s to the faith in autonomy and disciplinary
concerns in the 1970s, to the poetic and deconstructive gestures of the 1980s – the
undertones of a deeply felt fervour remained present.
17
In this manner, it becomes clear that much of the ado is related to the legitimacy
of a profession that is not immediately and critically necessary. In fact, as Robert
Gutman points out, while architects often like to compare themselves to lawyers
and doctors, the services of the architect are significantly less crucial than legal
and medical services.20 Gutman suggests that the architect needs to become more
entrepreneurial, to create the desire for his services. It is perhaps ironic that this
message seems to have been strongly incorporated in the culture of the 1990s
onwards – certainly the very notion of ‘city branding’ and the ‘creative class’ are
clear expressions of an entrepreneurial spirit – of situating architecture at the heart
of economic activity. This is what many young architects did – they created a desire
for new, radical architecture.
In essence, this ‘generation 74’ built a foundation for a return to the cultural weight
of architecture, and the craftsmanship that it requires. As such, we might indeed
argue that this group forms not only a biological generation, responding to its
‘fathers’ – but also a cultural generation, marked by a time of economic down-
turn, of disillusionment in 1960s ideals, of a return to poetic license, of a return to
foundations of discipline. The lack of an architecture culture in Flanders made this
a difficult conversation to have at the time, but the work of these five was central
to building up a culture of exhibitions and debate.21 Where New York’s MoMA – by
accident of social network perhaps – at least offered a platform for the New York
Five to propose a renewed sense of the discipline, the culture in Flanders was still
highly informal in the late 1970s. This required a slow and steady building up of
cultural institutions and fabric that was not previously available, in the broadest
sense. In this, the group of architects presented here are formative, and their deeply
developed knowledge of historical precedents, from medieval architecture to
Renaissance geometries and baroque compositions aided not only in their own
designs but also in determining themes for architectural and cultural debate.
18
58 dpi!
19
Hadrian’s Villa,
The work of these architects, from their writing to their building, shows a precise
Tivoli
architectural, aesthetic and spatial judgment. Their sheer focus on architectural logic, (begun 117 A.D.).
S/AM, Monography 1:
composition and the discipline in general, laid a foundation for the next generation
Architecture Museums
to avail themselves of architectural techniques, historical precedent and an embedded (Ghent, 1984), back
inside cover. Scan APA.
sense of cultural responsibility. And the sense of judgment that runs throughout their
work stands testimony to the endless series of decisions involved in producing an oeuvre.
20
21