$UFKLWHFWXUDO Tsiambaos, K 2014 An Identity Crisis of Architectural Critique. Architectural +LVWRULHV Histories, 2(1): 6, pp. 1-8, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ah.bi
POSITION PAPER An Identity Crisis of Architectural Critique Kostas Tsiambaos*
Over the last three years Greece has been facing one of its worst crises since the 1950s, a crisis which most understand to be a financial one. The word crisis (from the Greek κρίσις) has a double meaning in the Greek language. Its first meaning indicates a radical — usually negative — change in the sum of conditions or flow of events, while its second refers to an opinion, a theory, a personal judgment or point of view towards a specific subject. I will argue that the current crisis is not just financial, but deeply cultural. An examination of the history of architectural discourse in Greece will help us better understand the cultural identity of the recent crisis by illuminating its core: the ambivalent relationship between Greece and Europe, from the establishment of the Greek state until today.
One of the major debates concerning the Greek crisis is us with new tools of understanding current, intensely the economic relationship between Greece and Europe. debated, issues. This re-conceptualization is highly impor- The debate on the causes of the crisis, and suggestions tant for a deeper understanding of the elements shaping on how to overcome it, revolves around the status of the ‘Greek case’ — its characteristics, specificities, struc- the country’s relationship with the European Union. tural difficulties and contradictions — within the broader Should we blame our participation in the EU for the European crisis environment. current recession? Should the Greek state become more As the word ‘crisis’ itself — the decisive moment, the ‘European’ in order to overcome this crisis? Should the turning point in a difficult or critical condition — implies, country abandon the common currency in order to one cannot talk about the crisis without distinguishing become productive again? the various facets of its twofold meaning. One cannot deal A study of the history of architectural discourse in Greece with the current financial crisis without urging a broader will show that an analogous debate was established at its cultural critique. very core many decades ago, and is still a dominant issue today.1 The question regarding the status of Greece as a Imported theories part of Europe, a debate on the country’s identity related During the early 19th century, the period of the founda- to the question of how Greece is, and should be, associ- tion of the Greek state which coincides with the consolida- ated with the rest of Europe, has been encountered by tion of neoclassicism in Greece, a discussion on architec- architects and theorists of architecture on numerous occa- ture in the form of a public criticism was initiated on an sions throughout the 19th and the 20th centuries. It was immediate, practical level (Papageorgiou-Venetas 1994; considered a key issue long before it emerged in current Bastéa 2000; Staikos 2003; Biris-Adami 2004). In a small discussions about the relationship between Greece, in its city with a medieval structure, where there were only a current economic crisis, and the European Union. few hundred houses still standing after the war (Lacour Most of the discussions on Greek architecture, in other 1834; von Maurer 1835), the new plan set forward in 1832 words, did nothing else but keep repeating one of the by the Greek Stamatis Kleanthis and the Prussian Eduard central enquiries existing since the creation of the Greek Schaubert, with large boulevards and open spaces, gen- state: What does cultural autonomy mean in an environ- erated intense criticism.2 On the one hand this criticism ment where influences and dependencies are continuous had to do with a question of whose buildings had to be and intense? How can an identity be maintained in an demolished or expropriated and why, or whose house was environment which becomes more and more globalised? legal or illegal. On the other hand there was a question How can one establish a clear separating line between of which buildings were ‘beautiful’ and which were not. what is native and original and what is imported? There were questions about who was legitimized to own Greece has found itself at the center of global attention. or occupy the public space and what exactly comprised The re-conceptualization of its peripheral identity in rela- this new aesthetic form. tion to the established architectural theories can provide These two questions were sometimes linked so that the use of new design tools themselves were thought to result in a more ‘ordered’ city. For example, after learn- * National Technical University of Athens, Greece ing of the advantages of the grid in city planning, plan- [email protected] ners immediately turned the grid itself into an aesthetic Art. 6, page 2 of 8 Tsiambaos: An Identity Crisis of Architectural Critique criterion. In this way regularity, symmetry and other theo- easier for Greek architects to participate in the forefront retical concepts of neoclassicism became ideas that made of a global movement, as the advocates of authenticity an acceptable aesthetic framework for the public mind. and the real connoisseurs of neoclassicism, even if this However, these aesthetic judgments often disguised indi- style and its theory was originally cultivated somewhere vidual interests rather than sincere concerns. Even those other than in their own country. who were talking about the new aesthetic principles relat- ing to the design of the city did not really believe in the It’s all Greekness to me principles. They were just seeking ways to promote their The reference of international architectural discourse to own interests or to upgrade the value of their own prop- ancient Greece was not something that began and ended erty.3 One can read, in the press of the era, about the fre- in the 19th century. Ancient Greek architecture continued quent debates between the land owners and the state, to be, for many important architects, the supreme aes- debates which finally led to the dismissal of the Kleanthis- thetic standard during the following century, the age of Schaubert plan and the inauguration of a series of alterna- modernism (Tournikiotis 1996). Especially in the period tive, more ‘politically correct’, plans.4 between the wars, Greek architects were particularly This dispute between the modern Athenians and their pleased to see their architect heroes still using Greece as state illustrates the reaction of the people of a community a constant reference.10 Le Corbusier’s participation in the to a plan ‘imposed’ on their city.5 The replacement of an 4th Congrès International d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM) indigenous urban configuration by an imported European in Athens, in August of 1933, and his declared admira- plan was nevertheless related to the establishment of a tion of the Parthenon — an admiration already affirmed formal theory of architecture. The new neoclassical plan in the pages of the journal he founded ten years earlier, had its own design principles and aesthetic values which L’Esprit nouveau — encouraged young Greek architects to were in opposition to those which currently existed.6 The assert that modern architectural structure and form was architects who designed the new plans — whether Greek constantly influenced by its ancient Greek archetypes (Le or not — had all studied abroad, importing a ‘western’ Corbusier 1935). culture, in contrast to the existing Ottoman mentalities. This direction of the revival of antiquity as an aesthetic In addition to Kleanthis and Schaubert, there were also standard for the modern era was also strengthened by Gottfried Semper, who accompanied Ludwig Thiersch in Greek writers, editors and intellectuals who belonged to Athens; Leo von Klenze, who created the second, revised an international cultural elite, such as Christian Zervos plan of Athens in 1834; Lysandros Kaftantzoglou; the (Christos Zervos) or Tériade (Stratis Eleftheriadis). These brothers Christian and Theophil Hansen; Friedrich von individuals were part of the vanguard of modern art in Gärtner and Ernst Ziller. All of these architects had a strong Paris — art critics and publishers of art magazines, where theoretical background due to their studies in Germany, pictures of modern paintings were often placed next to Italy, Austria, Denmark and other countries. They lived for photos of ancient amphorae and statues in a conscious shorter or longer periods in Athens and tested their theo- effort to aesthetically link the one to the other.11 During retical views in situ while working on the Acropolis and the decades of the 1920s and 1930s, a small number of when designing some of the most important buildings in Greek architects studying in famous schools, such as the 19th-century Athens.7 École Normale Supérieure, the Bauhaus, or the newly What was of special interest in the case of Greece, founded School of Architecture of the National Technical however, is that Greek Revival architecture — related to University of Athens (established in 1917), read those the rediscovery of Greece already explored in Stuart and magazines and felt obliged to embrace the ideology of the Revett’s The Antiquities of Athens (Stuart and Revett 1762) classical roots of modernism. and Julien-David Le Roy’s Les ruines des plus beaux monu- Since this ideology was international, the new generation ments de la Grèce (Le Roy 1758) — was not only consid- of Greek architects promoted themselves as both Greek ered an ‘international’ architecture but an architecture and European, both national and international at the same that also returned to its ‘birthplace’. This was the main time. For some members of the Greek cultural scene, how- reason that the new style was strongly legitimized in the ever, this cosmopolitanism was not well accepted since the eyes of the government, the architects, and, most impor- West, after a devastating world war, had proven its cultural tantly, the public.8 Not only was it a contemporary archi- and moral degeneration.12 This explains why, during the tectural style, since in every European city from Austria 1930s, the concept of ‘Greekness’ (ελληνικότητα) domi- and Germany to Russia and Finland one could see similar nated the search for an autonomous identity.13 buildings, but it was also something that reinstated the In architecture, Greekness was initially expressed Greek culture in the modern era. through the work of Aristotelis Zachos, who had studied Many Greek architects even took a further step and in Munich, Stuttgart and Karlsruhe, and whose teachers argued that the ‘best’ neoclassical buildings were those included Friedrich von Thiersch, Carl Schäfer and Josef built in Greece, since only these were in their ‘natural’ Durm.14 Zachos, more of a patriot than an international- environment, set into the Attic landscape, directly refer- ist, started implementing traditional typologies, materi- ring to the adjacent ancient monuments.9 In other words, als, forms and construction techniques in his buildings the fact that Greek Revival happened to be the new inter- in an effort to recognize the value of vernacular architec- national 19th-century trend in architecture made it much ture and to critically reproduce the images he had seen Tsiambaos: An Identity Crisis of Architectural Critique Art. 6, page 3 of 8 as a child: the houses of the northern Greece and the vernacular architecture, which was a product of the place Balkans, the Byzantine churches and even the Ottoman and not something imported from abroad.23 public buildings.15 This was clearly a differentiated con- This interest in traditional architecture was followed templation of the tradition, one moving towards the by a conscious effort made by both architects, during the recent, still alive, culture of Greece, and distancing itself 1950s and 1960s, to escape from an international postwar from its ancient civilization; a reappraisal of its genuine style in order to cultivate a native architectural vocabulary. eastern atmosphere as opposed to its constructed west- This could be called a ‘universal’ or ‘real’ architecture, but ern image. there is no doubt that it was — or was supposed to be — an This notion of Greekness was not, however, autono- architecture which tried to shape its identity in relation to mous, since it could not be considered in isolation. It only place and in opposition to international flows and fash- existed in opposition to something else: in response, in ions.24 Thus, in the texts of Pikionis and Konstantinidis we confrontation, in conflict. Greekness gradually became an encounter a desire to differ from the dominant images and ideology derived from the need of a nation — a nation in forms along with a parallel attempt to cultivate an origi- the racial sense, not a state in the legal sense — to con- nal viewpoint that comes from alternative or ‘peripheral’ struct a discourse against ‘Europeanisation’.16 It is no coin- sources and not from the established European centers.25 cidence that during the same period similar concepts such The Greek theorist Alexander Tzonis26 was the first to us ‘Englishness’, ‘italianità’ or ‘négritude’ were already stress this ‘center versus periphery’ distinction by intro- being discussed in other countries. The fact is that a hun- ducing the term ‘critical regionalism’ (Tzonis and Lefaivre dred years after the establishment of the Greek state, the 1981), when referring to the work of Dimitris and Souzana search for an aesthetic identity in the name of ‘Greekness’ Antonakakis.27 Kenneth Frampton followed shortly after- became a conscious instrument of criticism and blame for wards, embracing the term in a somewhat different the European cultural model in general. The new nation context (Frampton 1983) and advancing architects like claimed its determination to image itself in its very own Konstantinidis to the forefront of current architectural way (Anderson 1991). debates. However, even if critical regionalism was a theo- retical concept, the role of theory here was either not clear Local versus global enough or else deliberately made ambiguous. If regional Most agree that the first architect who systemati- architecture did not need any theory in order to be revived cally worked as a theorist of architecture in Greece was — since it naturally existed as an offspring of the place and Panayotis Michelis.17 Michelis, because of his studies in its people — then what was the value of a theory for such Dresden, approached the theory of architecture through an architecture? art history. He cultivated his architectural discourse based There was a broader issue, however. It was difficult to on the Kantian categories in relation to the sublime; the claim that Greece created a truly ‘autonomous’ architec- aesthetic theories of Kuno Fischer and Theodor Lipps; and tural tradition, whether theoretical or design-based. The the role of intuition (Einfühlung) (Michelis 1977). Michelis reference to the regionalism of Greek architecture was less neither idealized traditional architecture nor wrote spe- about a kind of exclusivity and more about the identifica- cifically about ‘Greekness’.18 Nonetheless, his attempt to tion of a practice common to many places globally. Even analyze ancient Greek and Byzantine architecture using during the 1950s and 1960s the main reference for Greek the same tools he used in writing about modern architec- students of architecture was L’Architecture d’aujourd’hui, ture (from cars and houses to skyscrapers and silos) shows an international journal in which one could discover his intent to create a continuum of aesthetic principles many and various regionalisms, from France and Finland from antiquity through the Greek middle ages to the 20th to Mexico and Egypt. Among these, the Greek regionalism century (Michelis 1955). Hence the universal archetypes was just one of many variations. of architecture, although newly approached, remained One could argue therefore that, no matter what theoretically in their known place: the Parthenon as the Konstantinidis believed, his indigenous architecture standard of harmony and Hagia Sophia as the standard of was as international as the ‘Greek’ neoclassical archi- the sublime.19 tecture was a hundred years before — a highly original Apart from Michelis, who was acknowledged world- architecture whose origins were not necessarily native wide,20 other architects also wrote extensively, for exam- or regional.28 In fact, his architecture was born, and ple Dimitris Pikionis and Aris Konstantinidis. These matured, within the field of conflict (both real and imagi- architects also studied abroad (in Munich and Paris) and nary)29 between an international and a local architectural wrote polemical essays while simultaneously promoting past, present and future; encompassing tradition, current their work and the projects they built. Although Pikionis action and future direction. or Konstantinidis may not have written concrete theo- retical essays, they both expressed, albeit in an indirect Postmodern fears way, a certain discourse through their texts.21 But unlike Architects like Pikionis and Konstantinidis were trying to Michelis, the prototypes referred to by these two archi- prove that traditional architecture was expressing a ‘truth’ tects were not to be found among classical temples, in itself and did not need further theoretical support. imperial Byzantine churches or Athenian neoclassical This is why they were usually suspicious of any theoreti- buildings.22 What moved them was the folk culture, the cal discourse coming from abroad, in its content and its Art. 6, page 4 of 8 Tsiambaos: An Identity Crisis of Architectural Critique uses. However, the younger generation did not feel the closely bound to the local architectural tradition — the same way. The 1960s brought about a vital enhancement appearance of the word ‘postmodern’ was like a danger- of architectural discourse globally, and in this context a ous weed which should be destroyed. In 1977, the only renewed discourse also developed in Greece; a discourse copy of Jencks’s The Language of Postmodern Architecture which did not care to highlight the value of the local past that reached the school was circulated conspiratorially, but preferred to envision a common global future. from hand to hand, and was read in secret. The postmod- It was in the 1960s that Takis Zenetos introduced his ern criticism could not be easily accepted. Any theory visionary cybernetic utopias (urbanisme électronique).30 menacing the well-established Greek modernism should Like other avant-garde teams, such as Archigram, the be totally rejected.32 Although postmodernism, with its Independent Group, the Japanese Metabolists, Yona historical-linguistic turn, valued the classical prototypes, Friedman, Constant, Archizoom and others, Zenetos set including the Greek ones, this architecture was rejected no limits on what technology could do. In Zenetos’s mind, by most Greek architects in favor of the more ‘authentic’ the location, at least in its historical and cultural context, modernist spirit of the 1960s.33 was also not a limit, since he was not interested in trying This mentality slowly retreated during the 1980s. In to attribute any local ‘identity’ to his projects and build- 1985 a Theory of Architecture chair was created in the ings. The location was relevant only in a strictly materialist NTUA School of Architecture for the first time.34 This pro- view: the contours of the landscape, the geology of the vided an opportunity for the cultivation of multiple theo- rocks, the direction of the sun, the intensity of the wind, retical courses, which became more and more important etc. This perhaps explains why his utopia is literally sus- as the school gradually moved away from such limiting pended in the air, at a distance from the ‘virgin’ earth. ideologies as Greekness. There even came a time, in the During the same period, Constantinos Doxiadis devel- 1990s and 2000s, when a younger generation of archi- oped an original multidisciplinary theoretical discourse tects declared an intense desire for total opposition to the which had an international impact. Doxiadis promoted regional tradition by re-introducing Greek modernism as himself as a conscious internationalist who believed that just one of the many facets of an international phenom- a new science should be established. This science, called enon.35 What was native and traditional seemed more and Ekistics, should develop new interdisciplinary models, more conservative and outdated, a remnant of the past methods and tools to deal with emerging urban phe- that could not be part of the new global scene. nomena and the existing issues of the human communi- This younger generation of architects had pursued post- ties across the world. To do this he worked closely with graduate studies in such schools as Columbia’s Graduate many important scientists and theorists, such as Marshall School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, McLuhan, Buckminster Fuller, Arnold J. Toynbee, Margaret Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, University College Mead and Barbara Ward (Kyrtsis 2006). London’s Bartlett School of Architecture and the It was in 1967 that the first issue of Architecture in Architectural Association.36 They rejected traditionalism Greece, arguably the leading architectural journal in after experiencing and evaluating both the newly emerg- Greece for more than forty years (1967–2013), was ing concept of architectural theory and design through published.31 Its editor, Orestis Doumanis, and his col- the use of advanced computer software tools (in their laborators, who were among the most important Greek education), and the global influence and prestige of a new architects and professors of architecture, attempted, from type of star architecture in the few years before the new the very first issue, to introduce a dialogue concerning the millennium (in their practice).37 production of space in Greece as a reflection of the inter- At the same time, the expansion of architectural edu- national theoretical discourse on design, architecture, cation in Greece through the establishment of three urbanism, regional planning, etc. This dialogue would be new schools of architecture in 1999 (in Patras, Volos and updated every ten years or so through the various tributes Xanthi) gave these younger architects the opportunity the journal gave to themes such as urbanism and the land- to hold teaching positions, propose alternative theoreti- scape; history and the cultural heritage; public housing cal directions, design from scratch new educational pro- and private dwelling; architectural education; classicism grams, promote novel tools and procedures, and advance versus avant-garde, and so on. the computer as the main design tool, according to their Regarding architectural education, in the Thessaloniki recently acquired experience abroad.38 school of architecture, organized by Michelis during the 1950s, Dimitris Fatouros gradually introduced various The unanswered question theoretical tools in relation to architectural design. In Although Greek architects, professors and students particular, tools from anthropology, sociology and sys- of architecture were even more in favor of globalism tems theory were considered in relation to planning and throughout the 1990s and the early 2000s, the question design, in an effort to make the newly founded School of of the identity and value of architecture in Greece (in com- Thessaloniki an avant-garde hub for the mid 20th century. parison with or as opposed to contemporary international In contrast, at the more conservative National Technical architectural production) continued intruding into their University of Athens (NTUA) the development of a con- discussions. The need for a distinction between Greece temporary theory of architecture sounded threatening. To and the ‘others’, between what is local and what is global, a school proud of its modernist heritage — a modernism still troubles architectural discourse in Greece.39 Tsiambaos: An Identity Crisis of Architectural Critique Art. 6, page 5 of 8
Especially after the 2004 Greek Olympic Games and appointed to make the plan more acceptable and the ensuing ‘depression’ which soon became a financial viable. depression as well, this appreciation of what is extro- 5 This was to be expected since the plan was not pre- verted, international and global was vastly moderated. sented to or discussed with the citizens of Athens in The realization that globalism also has its dark side any way. affected architectural discourse. Architects, even those 6 Philippos Oraiopoulos argues that a specific urban with well-established practices, saw their assignments model did exist in Greece, with its own rules and prin- diminish in an exponential way, and students now faced ciples, rather different from that of neoclassicism. See a rather uncertain professional future. A new relation- Oraiopoulos 1988. ship between the local and the global should be sought 7 Most of the aforementioned architects designed and — a new, sustainable cultivation of the local seed in the built new structures while participating in archaeo- global ground, a strong national architectural identity logical excavations. Thus, they were at the same time which might also be relevant and viable at an interna- shaping the future as a representation of the past that tional level. they researched, studied and brought to the surface. The title of the Greek participation in the 2012 Venice 8 This populist dimension of the ‘return’ of neoclassi- Biennale professed this in the most emphatic way: ‘Made cism to its ‘birthplace’ can be related to Paul Taggart’s in Athens’ was a declaration of something which not only notion of ‘heartland’. See Taggart 2000. originates from Greece but also is addressed to an interna- 9 Kaftantzoglou was constantly arguing that any neoclas- tional audience. What is considered as new, in the Greek sical building that is not faithful to its ancient Greek ori- architectural scene, is a kind of architectural Esperanto, gins is just a result of a ‘harlequin’ architecture. a hybrid of a local and a global language — a language 10 The fact that Greece is one of the most homogeneous which is less regional and more cosmopolitan, less critical countries in Europe (demographically, socially, cultur- and more communicative, less ideological and more cyni- ally, etc.) is reflected in the way that ‘Greek architect’ cal, less conceptual and more consumable.40 and ‘Greek architecture’ are usually defined as specific, This new architectural language is called ‘Greeklish’ ‘closed’ terms. language, and the new generation of architects is called 11 Zervos, mainly known as an art critic and founder of the ‘Greeklish’ generation.41 This term expresses, once the Cahiers d’art magazine, was an important patron more, the need to deal with this moving pendulum, this of modern art as well as of Greek and prehistoric art. constant fluctuation between the local and the global. In Among the books he published were books on the art other words, this term is proof that history cannot but of Crete and the Cyclades as well as monographs of repeat itself .42 If Greek architecture still speaks a language Picasso, Léger and Brancusi. Tériade, an art critic and which is both Greek and English, both native and inter- editor of avant-garde art magazines like Minotaure and national, both traditional and modern, that is because Verve, collaborated closely with such artists as Matisse, architectural discourse in Greece, even when it tries hard Braque, Picasso, Chagall, Léger and Miró. to do otherwise, has never been able to distinguish one 12 The so-called ‘betrayal’ — that is, the refusal of the from the other. But even if uncomfortable and problem- ‘great powers’ to intervene when Mustapha Kemal atic, this continuing identity crisis of critique is perhaps (Atatürk) led his troops into Smyrna, a predominantly the most interesting and productive field in the study of Christian city, in September 1922 — was also one of Greek architecture. the main reasons for the ‘moral decline’ of the West in the eyes of the Greeks. Acknowledgement 13 The word ‘Greekness’ (ελληνικότητα) appears for the This essay is based on a recent discussion of the history first time in the writings of two well-known scholars of architectural discourse in Greece between myself, of the 19th century: Konstantinos Pop (in 1851) and Savvas Kontaratos, Dimitris Philippides and Panayotis Iakovos Polylas (in 1860). The art critic Periklis Gianno- Tournikiotis. For this friendly and fruitful discussion I poulos used it extensively in the 1920s and 1930s. For would like to thank them heartily. a contemporary view on issues related to the notion of Greekness, see Damaskos and Plantzos 2008. Notes 14 Zachos was born in 1871 in the town of Kastoria which, 1 I see architectural discourse in Greece not only within back then, was still a part of the Ottoman Empire. He a formal academic framework but as a broader criti- lived as a child in the village of Belesa (today Veles, in cal discussion of architecture that includes lectures, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). treatises, books, manifestoes, magazines, newspaper 15 As a child, Zachos had not encountered any images of articles, competition entries, reviews, etc. classical or neoclassical buildings in the area where he 2 Both Kleanthis and Schaubert were pupils of Karl Frie- was raised. drich Schinkel at the Bauakademie in Berlin. 16 The word ‘nation’, as a racial term, has always been 3 Most of the time by degrading the value of the adja- more ideologically charged than the word ‘state’, a cent areas where other citizens owned the property. legal term. 4 ‘Politically correct’ here meaning: accepted by the 17 Panayotis A. Michelis (1903–1969) was born in Patras majority of land owners. Klenze was the next person and graduated from the Faculty of Architecture of the Art. 6, page 6 of 8 Tsiambaos: An Identity Crisis of Architectural Critique
University of Dresden in 1926. He began his career 28 Even projects like Le Corbusier’s 1929 Villa de Ma- as an architect in Dresden and later worked in Patras dame H. de Mandrot or his 1935 Villa ‘Le Sextant’ are and Athens. Very soon, however, he devoted himself not that far from Konstantinidis’s realizations of the almost exclusively to theoretical studies on architec- 1960s. ture, art and aesthetics. He held the Morphology and 29 I use the word imaginary in the context of Castoriadis. Rhythmology chair at the National Technical Univer- See Castoriadis 1975. sity of Athens (NTUA) School of Architecture from 30 Takis Zenetos was born in Athens, and studied at the 1941 to 1969. There was no Theory of Architecture École des beaux-arts in Paris, graduating in 1954. In department at that time. 1955 he returned to Athens and established his own 18 Michelis did not agree with the ‘architecture without office. See Kalafati and Papalexopoulos 2006. architects’ view of vernacular architecture. His opinion 31 The last issue of the journal was published in 2013, the was that even the traditional builder-craftsman was a year of the death of Orestis Doumanis (1929–2013). kind of architect-artist. For many years one could find the Greek journal in 19 Patrick Geddes, long before Michelis, had set Hagia selected bookstores worldwide, from Finland to South Sophia as the prototype for any temple. See Welter Africa and from India to Peru. 2003: 70–71. 32 This is also related to the strong anti-American feelings 20 As a visiting professor, Michelis had taught at universi- shared by most of the ‘leftist’ students and professors ties and colleges in Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, a few years after the re-establishment of democracy in Italy and Sweden) and the US (Harvard and Massachu- Greece in 1974. setts Institute of Technology). 33 It is interesting that such architects as Demetri Porphy- 21 Although not ‘theorists’ in any formal way, their rios built many postmodern ‘Greek’ buildings in the theoretical references are numerous and disparate: UK and the US, but his work was heavily criticized by Pikionis, for example, was someone who was affected many professors in Athens. by romanticism in general and Ruskin’s ideas in par- 34 Panayotis Tournikiotis and Andreas Kourkoulas pur- ticular. He had read many works that were outside sued PhD studies in Paris and London respectively, and the architectural field: pre-Socratic philosophers, the were the final candidates for the Theory of Architec- lives of Christian Orthodox saints, Indian sacred texts, ture chair. Not many teachers at the school had a PhD books by Nietzsche, Rodin, Chestov, etc. Konstan- degree at that time. In fact, many among them viewed tinidis was also influenced by various philosophers postgraduate studies as irrelevant to the education of (Aristotle, Kant), poets (Rilke, Solomos, Seferis) and an architect-master builder. modern architects (Loos, Mies). 35 From 1999 to 2005 the exhibition ‘Landscapes of 22 Indeed, Konstantinidis altogether rejected neoclassi- Modernization, Greek Architecture from the 1960s to cism as a fake, imported architectural style that was the 1990s’, curated by Yorgos Simeoforidis and Yannis not related to the living Greek tradition. Even when Aesopos and supported by the Greek Ministry of Cul- commenting on the Kleanthis-Schaubert plan he ture, was presented in Rotterdam, Barcelona, Helsinki, presented it as one of the many ‘Europeanities’ that Thessaloniki, Belgrade, Pescara, Chania and Athens. are not compatible with the ‘nature’ (the Aristotelian 36 It is a fact that while the Greek architects studying essence) of the Greek land. See Konstantinidis 1989: in the US could usually be counted on the fingers of 39–43. one hand, during the 1990s and the 2000s dozens of 23 The local was considered ‘authentic’ in contrast to the young Greek architects were accepted at famous US imported, which could be easily regarded as ‘fake’ or schools to pursue postgraduate courses or work in ‘inappropriate’. the offices of such star architects as OMA, Hadid and 24 Konstantinidis even characterized vernacular struc- Tschumi. This participation in a global educational/ tures as ‘God-built’ (the title of his last book). professional architectural environment is of course 25 While Pikionis was rather careful and moderate in related to the continued economic growth in Greece his comments, Konstantinidis used a more offensive throughout the last decades (pre-crisis). The Erasmus rhetoric and was openly against anything ‘imported’ program of student exchange has also promoted cos- — from the 19th century’s neoclassicism to the various mopolitanism and mobility as a cultural value. postmodern trends. 37 During this period Bernard Tschumi won the first prize 26 Tzonis (b. 1937) studied architecture in the National in the ‘New Museum of Acropolis’ international com- Technical University of Athens. In 1961 he moved to petition and Santiago Calatrava became the architect the United States as a Ford fellow, where he pursued of the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. The Athenian his studies at Yale University. works of both architects were intensely criticized (usu- 27 Critical regionalism was distanced from ‘national iden- ally in a negative way) by most Greek architects. tity’ in favor of ‘local identity’ in geographical terms, 38 This was the case in Patras and Volos. It is interesting having Braudel’s la Méditerranée as a reference. It is no to note that in the Xanthi School, which was organized coincidence that Dimitris Antonakakis was among the by a ‘modernist’ generation of NTUA teachers, hand- founders of the ‘Center of Architecture of the Mediter- sketching is still considered the essential expression ranean’ in Chania, Crete (est. 1997). and research technique, while the computer is only Tsiambaos: An Identity Crisis of Architectural Critique Art. 6, page 7 of 8
regarded as a rendering machine used at the very end Dragonas, P 2012 The Renewal of Design Ethos [website] of the design procedure. 28 September.
How to cite this article: Tsiambaos, K 2014 An Identity Crisis of Architectural Critique. Architectural Histories, 2(1): 6, pp. 1-8, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ah.bi
Published: 21 May 2014
Copyright: © 2014 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY 3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.
Architectural Histories is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press. OPEN ACCESS