|
Architectonic tendencies.
The Way made the Crisis Architectonic: the Economy. In order to
include/understand his location in our time, it is necessary to consider the
context in which they arise. Walter Gropius warned and intuited that we are in
the threshold of a new effort of creation. He indicated that the unit of
atmosphere and culture was had lost, had myself, a chaotic, ugly, devastating
atmosphere, from which he derives an accent in "the fight capital-work and bad
social relations". That effort of creation is the answer to an economic impulse
within as they are going away to make possible the investments in architecture,
with a divergent approach of the modern movement and that it is going to begin
with the international style derived from Mies to vander Rohe and the abuse of
the glass boxes. Within the general picture of the economic development, mainly
in the countries of high technological and industrial development, consequence
of the immediate effects of the postwar period in years 50 occurs to a takeoff.
The Kondratieff curves, allow to analyze the cyclical phases
of the crisis and expansion of the capitalist system, by means of which it
notices an economic growth in the middle of the 50 and principles of the 60, a
new period of crisis and soon a phase of growth by the end of the 80 and
principles of the 90; cycles of more or less 25 years, with long phases of near
50 years in the economic evolution that has been characterized like
"economy-world-capitalist". The crises are symmetrical neither always adopt a
similar pattern, nor occur in equal areas. The displacement of capitals towards
economic branches that offer greater capital gain, the competition between great
monopolistic and supranational capitals, the imperative of these to renew
processes and productive plants before the competition, and to renew the
technology, to increase the intensity of capital in the production, etc., are
some of the incentives of the system which the companies are put under,
including a the one of the construction. They are two coincident key moments
with those of greater intensity in the sprouting and expansion of recent
currents in the architecture: the postmodernism, arisen by the end of years 50
and first from the 60; and soon the deconstructivismo, that begins to incubate
in the middle of years 80 to consolidate and to begin its spreading at the end
of the same decade.
From this coincidence one does not have to be derived limited relation
cause-effect, or to derive a pattern from dependency between economy (cause) and
architecture (effect), with the temptation to extend to him like analytical
instruments at other moments of the history of the architecture. It is necessary
to consider and to reformulate traditional and common postulates, to reconstruct
the history of the architecture with criteria and approaches that consider these
new determinations. Both currents have appeared in countries of high industrial
and economic development. Its influence, with the postmodernism, has extended
giving rise to a cultural debate, that is stopping being present and useful. In
the deconstructivismo, the debate as soon as it shows not yet and arrives
absolutely at our cultural and artistic atmospheres. We do not know the
qualifying ones that has been put in the controversy: the pleasures of the
incommoded, projects to cut and to break, compositions on Russian derailments,
schismatic architectonic terrorism, postmodern or dirty minimalismo, are some.
Both architectonic tendencies, when appearing and disclosing themselves, open
the debate, but it is distorted and it hidden, giving rise to them to reactions
that tend to defend and to maintain interests professional of architects.
Simulating a little, taking from here and gaining image there. Postmodernism and
deconstructivismo begin to be critical and dissidence. Initially they are showy
and they seduce almost instantaneously.
They are grandiloquent and provoking, as it forms
architectonic, expensive, and difficult to catch in one first appreciation of
its conpositive technique. In addition, both deepen the culture of stars of
Hollywood. That initial dissidence and provocation, spectacular and the
expensive thing, are their virtue, by the novel thing, and it will allow them to
be put under the process of cultural absorption and to turn them merchandise:
they satisfy exigencies with the aesthetic one of the merchandise. The
architecture has been turned, in addition to instrument of being able by its
expensive adornment and imposing appearance, in a type of merchandise that, lose
its critical content of opposition and provocation and becomes object from
sideboard, it is placed in that route of his spreading and imposition to him in
the taste of the sectors to subaltern to us of the society. The architecture, as
technical-cultural product has been turned merchandise and adopts the
alternatives of this one more and more. Of here to the predominance of the
fashion, the consumption and the deceptive publicity, that the postmodernism and
the reconstruction have given assumed totally. We are, before another history of
the architecture, perhaps put under cycles of variation, more and more short
perhaps and before a next diversity of mercantile supplies of forms and
architectonic concepts, under the Maximum: everything is worth. |
