‘Internationalism’ stands out as one of the key concepts of 20th Century European architectural culture, in which appears in varying forms, yet is however always as a dialectic between one or more of the more of hegemonic culture’s processing ‘centres’ and a periphery that is more or less critically attached to this dominant culture; or it refuses this, or is refused, thereby isolating itself. The main purpose of this essay is to show how the design methods of Porto’s three most important architects during the second half of the 20th century shared a substantive refusal of Internationalism. One of the oft-repeated phrases by Fernando Távora, and just as often cited by his two ‘students’, clearly inverts internationalism’s viewpoint: "The more local something is, the more universal it becomes." The quite different, international successes that the three enjoyed, as well as their not being part of the architectural internationalism system, may undoubtedly be traced back to the heteronomy that the three practiced in architecture, based on cultural prerequisites that were, in part, profoundly different. The language of others is always used in order to make their own more precise, more effective and more specific; it is left to speak, if deemed appropriate and useful, as an auxiliary form of an awareness raising, interpretation and transformation process that refers back to local, specific, unique conditions, one work at a time. This confidence with architectural forms, both history’s as well as those in the present, is missing that principle of inclusion/exclusion that instead lies at the core of internationalism, just as it lacks any idea that there are dominant centres and ancillary peripheries.
Cosmopolitismo vs Internazionalismo: Távora, Siza e Souto Moura
LEONI, GIOVANNI
2015
Abstract
‘Internationalism’ stands out as one of the key concepts of 20th Century European architectural culture, in which appears in varying forms, yet is however always as a dialectic between one or more of the more of hegemonic culture’s processing ‘centres’ and a periphery that is more or less critically attached to this dominant culture; or it refuses this, or is refused, thereby isolating itself. The main purpose of this essay is to show how the design methods of Porto’s three most important architects during the second half of the 20th century shared a substantive refusal of Internationalism. One of the oft-repeated phrases by Fernando Távora, and just as often cited by his two ‘students’, clearly inverts internationalism’s viewpoint: "The more local something is, the more universal it becomes." The quite different, international successes that the three enjoyed, as well as their not being part of the architectural internationalism system, may undoubtedly be traced back to the heteronomy that the three practiced in architecture, based on cultural prerequisites that were, in part, profoundly different. The language of others is always used in order to make their own more precise, more effective and more specific; it is left to speak, if deemed appropriate and useful, as an auxiliary form of an awareness raising, interpretation and transformation process that refers back to local, specific, unique conditions, one work at a time. This confidence with architectural forms, both history’s as well as those in the present, is missing that principle of inclusion/exclusion that instead lies at the core of internationalism, just as it lacks any idea that there are dominant centres and ancillary peripheries.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
