|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/10174/23743
|
Title: | Peripheral and Central Stances in Portuguese Architecture Culture |
Authors: | Costa Agarez, Ricardo |
Editors: | Krug, Andres Vicente, Karin |
Keywords: | Modern Movement Critical Regionalism Postmodernism Historiography Bruno Zevi Nuno Portas |
Issue Date: | Jun-2018 |
Publisher: | European Architectural History Network |
Citation: | Agarez, R. “Peripheral and Central Stances in Portuguese Architecture Culture” in A. Krug and K. Vicente (eds.), Fifth International Conference of the European Architectural History Network (Tallinn: Estonian Academy of Arts, 2018), 147-55. |
Abstract: | In his acceptance speech for the 2011 Pritzker Prize, architect Eduardo Souto de Moura explained how, when he began practicing after the 1974 revolution, the a ordable housing shortage in Portugal demanded his (belated) modernist approach: To ‘build half-a-million homes with pediments and columns would be a waste of energies’; postmodernism, he added, made little sense
where there had ‘barely been any Modern Movement at all’. A ‘clear, simple and pragmatic language’ was needed, and only ‘the forbidden Modern Movement could face the challenge’. Moura’s words perfectly encapsulate the country’s post-revolutionary architectural culture tropes, which dominated published discourse since: modernism, not postmodernism, deserved a place in 1980s Portugal because it had been resisted by a conservative dictatorship; this also explained why it was absent from international architecture surveys.
The exception were the works of two other Portuguese exponents, Fernando Távora and Álvaro Siza, co-opted by survey authors since the 1980s in their drive towards global comprehensiveness: Kenneth Frampton, William J. R. Curtis and most recently Jean-Louis Cohen all have celebrated these architects’ site-sensitive, vernacular-infused modernism, occasionally straight-jacketed into critical regionalism constructs. Such recognition was promptly embraced by contemporary Portuguese architects and critics, eager to see their culture associated with a ‘good brand’ of regionalism, resistant and profound; most felt it was the ‘bad’, retrograde regionalism of the 1940s that, manipulated by the regime, countered modernism. Thus a two-pronged ‘forbidden modern movement’ / ‘redeeming critical regionalism’ tale ourished in Portugal.
By borrowing the conventions and constructs of international historiography in a politically sensitive and conscience-searching moment of national life, contemporary Portuguese architectural culture e ectively narrowed its own relevance to a handful of names and works, thus attening the country’s diverse forms of modernism: from the tentative to the mature, local, cultural, technological and material speci cities determined a richly textured production that requires scholarly re-examination. |
URI: | https://www.eahn2018conference.ee/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/EAHN_Proceedings_FINAL.pdf http://hdl.handle.net/10174/23743 |
Type: | article |
Appears in Collections: | ARQ - Artigos em Livros de Actas/Proceedings CIDEHUS - Artigos em Livros de Actas/Proceedings
|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
|