Architecture and Politics as Marian Zervan, Monika Mitášová a Matter of Interpretation

All illustrations: Vladimír Dedeček, project and construction of the Slovak National Archive (1971–1983) in Bratislava. Source: the author’s archive and Slovak National Gallery in Bratislava

Introduction does not have to be affirmative only. It can also create alternative models of organization and coordination of society, culture and Architecture is political, enters the political world and is nature: design utopian states and cities, deal with an alternative executed in it, provokes political incidents, is politically evaluated, organization of schools and theaters as well as hospitals, prisons criticized and interpreted. Architecture exploring the arché and other power institutions. It can be avant-garde, revolutionary through creating objects and models of the world is political, if and critical. Then it usually provokes social, cultural and political alone for the fact that it affirms the architectonics of the world, incidents, as it itself creates incidental spaces and frameworks society and culture. Architectonics is the organization of all that for human activities. It thus again and again becomes the subject is constant and variable: elements and force fields, the living and of legal and political modifications, voting, social plebiscites and non-living based on a boundary (peras) and horizons, the peratic participations. Architecture simply en-ables, provides options and and apeiratic, on various levels: natural, social and cultural ones. alternatives to our housing and building, and in this respect enters There are different boundaries and horizons in nature, in society natural, social, cultural and political fields. Architecture, primarily and in culture. What is perceived as accessible and inaccessible the affirmative one, is often criticized as conservative – even as in nature is seen as public and private in society and as elitist the most conservative of all arts – but also as one that supports and popular in culture. While some deduce architecture from the the regime or celebrates political systems. However, it is even architectonics and proto-architectonics of nature and the human more criticized and attacked if it is non-affirmative and critical and body, others do so from the architectonics of society and culture. concerned not with celebrations but with alternatives, challenges Ancient cultures were predominantly affirmative in this respect, and options. seeing architecture as an activity which respects natural, social and cultural architectonics. Up to this day, there are architecture All of these tensions of architectonics, architecture and schools that teach building typology as a study of the movements politics appear in the interpretation of architecture and individual and processes of the human body and its natural, social and architectural works. The two main streams of architecture: the cultural needs, including political movements and needs. Besides affirmativeone and the critical or incidental one gave rise to private and public buildings, architecture also creates political two main approaches in architecture interpretation. The first buildings and buildings of power: from parliaments to police approach interprets architecture as a bearer of denotative and stations, military quarters and prisons. However, architecture connotative meanings and there are various interpretation models

1 Artalk Revue 3 – Winter 2018 Marian Zervan, Monika Mitášová: Architecture and Politics as a Matter of Interpretation In our text, we present two model situations of heteronomous and immanentist interpretations to see if and how they are able to reflect political, social and cultural environments and commissions. Besides interpreting these, we will further discuss one of the works by Slovak architect Vladimír Dedeček to introduce our own interpretation model which aspires to overcome 2 the extremes of the polarity of the two interpretation groups.

Model Situation 1: Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach and his Karlskirche in and Hans Sedlmayr

Structural-iconological interpretation

In one of two didactic examples of his interpretation method, which he calls structural in his book Kunst und 3 Wahrheit, Hans Sedlmayr tried to prove that the architect and the artist create an unrepeatable bridge straddling the experience level of the work, the visual character (anschaulicher Charakter from anschauen – to look at) of the work and its iconographic and iconological layers. The monumental grandeur of the Karlskirche complex with an emphasis on the light of the world and the Novum Theatrum Architecturae meets the very complex iconographic and iconological program of the St. Charles Church in Vienna (alluding to the Jesuit saint, the emperor and his links with Charles the Great and Charles the Good). The creator of this program Carl Gustav Heraeus thus paid homage to two Charleses: and Emperor Charles VI whom he wanted to glorify as a new “Spanish” Hercules and Solomon while also paying tribute to the city of Vienna as the new Athens and the new eternal . Moreover, the church’s program also responds to the period political and social events: the signing of the Treaty of Rastatt and the end of the plague epidemic in 1713 which was the immediate impulse for the construction of the church. This

that focus on revealing these. This is how most heteronomous interpretation models proceed: the iconographic, semiotic one on one hand, and the sociological and sociocultural one on the other hand. The second interpretation approach sees architecture as an autonomous and independent discipline forming its own intra-architectural meanings that emerge in the permanent dialog of architects addressing architectural problems. The first interpretation group admits direct interventions of politics in architecture – whether from outside or inside – while the second group uses the shield of immanentism against these 1 interventions.

1 See for exapmle Michael Hays, “Kritická architektura: medzi kulturou a formou,” in Oxymorón & pleonasmus. Texty kritické a projektivní teorie 2 Marian Zervan and Monika Mitašová, Interpretačné metódy v architektúre architektury [Oxymoron & Pleonasm. Texts on Critical and Projective Theory / Interpretation Methods in Architecture (Praha: Zlatý Řez – Pusté Úľany: of Architecture], ed. Monika Mitášová (Praha: Zlatý řez 2011), 60–82. Schola Philosophica 2016). Originally published as “Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form,” 3 Hans Sedlmayr, Kunst und Wahrheit (Mittenwald: Mäander Verlag 1978), Perspecta 21 (1984): 14–29. 143–152.

2 Artalk Revue 3 – Winter 2018 Marian Zervan, Monika Mitášová: Architecture and Politics as a Matter of Interpretation program had to be materialized by codified spatial and formal units reconfiguration of “pre-forms” and new contrapuntal configurations – Sedlmayr even calls them “ur-forms” or “pre-forms” (Urformen) primarily to show that Fischer von Erlach’s work affirmed and the central circular building, a with a lantern raised on celebrated the political status quo and configured the emperor as a drum, two tall columns with relief decorations and lanterns, and a saint, Hercules and an king and sage. a horizontal building with a flanked by two towers. Their configurations and reconfigurations alluded to intra-architectural Sedlmayr thus sees the outcome of his interpretation meanings by their interconnection with other historical buildings: exercise in the interconnection of sacral and secular external Hagia Sofia, Templum Jovis et Pacis and Solomon’s Temple, thus political meanings and does not address focal alternative options linking Vienna to other cities. or incidental spaces. On the contrary; even if he points these out, for instance when accentuating the innovative use of the This iconographic and iconological program could not counterpoint, or when addressing intra-architectural have been so complexly double, or even triple, had it not been meanings, Sedlmayr eventually always sticks to the level of for Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach’s innovative use of already established forms and internal and external meanings, the principle of mutual structural rearrangement of the above thus transforming the architectural work into a rhetorical form with 4 mentioned six elements (“pre-forms”) into two spatial-facade a varying degree of political convincingness. clusters of two triads. In the first cluster, the first triad consists of the central circular building with a dome and two columns while Model Situation 2: Giuseppe Terragni the second triad consists of the horizontal building flanked by two and his Casa del Fascio in Como and Peter Eisenman towers and the portico. In the second cluster, the first triad consists of the central circular building and two wings of the horizontal Interpretation as close reading building with two towers while the second triad consists of the portico and two massive individual columns with a lantern. It is When interpreting Giuseppe Terragni’s Casa del Fascio only this architecturally employed “baroque counterpoint” that located at Piazza Giuseppe Verdi in Como close to the Dome and enables the interconnection of the intra-architectural meanings with the City Theater with a portico entry, Peter Eisenman was aware a number of extra-architectural contexts. Sedlmayr’s interpretation that the creator of this building – as a convinced Christian and has shown that the visual character of Fischer’s work and the advocate of some of the ideas of Italian fascism (the published reconfiguration of its structural elements are sufficient indicators accompanying report included Terragni’s confession of this) – for us to not merely read the building as a sign structure of primarily could have accepted the period typology of the urban residences denotative meanings, i.e. its primary functions, but rather refers us of the National Fascist Party in the form of a renaissance palace to the secondary connotative meanings of the iconographic and or a modernist building with strip windows and promotional iconological program. Moreover, by using the principle of baroque political decorations, since the pressures of sociopolitical and counterpoint, it prompts us to read it not only as a sacral and allegorical building but also as a secular celebration of the emperor and his political deeds. Sedlmayr’s interpretation has thus used the 4 Ibid., 150.

3 Artalk Revue 3 – Winter 2018 Marian Zervan, Monika Mitášová: Architecture and Politics as a Matter of Interpretation 5 architectural contexts (futurists contra rationalists) were intense. extra-architectural meanings: possible fascist iconographies, as he However, according to Eisenman, Terragni eventually embodied himself sees architecture not as affirmative but as a critical enclave the intra-architectural references to renaissance palaces not of resistance. He succeeded in deciphering the seemingly formal in the facade but in the spatial disposition with an atrium and play as an intra-architectural code of reversible planar and spatial translated the urbanistic context into the logic of the reversible patterns which effectively challenged all possible forms of an pattern of rectangular longitudinals and square centrals (generic affirmative declaration of Terragni’s work; Eisenman even tended to and specific forms) which dominated the spatial organization of interpret architectural work as an activity which can if not change, the whole building both in the interior and in the exterior. It was this then at least challenge political convictions and world views. very architectural discovery of the interconnection of renaissance dispositions and the variable geometric pattern (deduced from Unlike Sedlmayr, Eisenman focuses on a thorough analysis the configuration of the piazza) that enabled Terragni to combine of intra-architectural meanings; which, however, he sees neither as several extra-architectural and architectural contexts with an conventional, nor as forever closed, but rather as open, becoming

autonomous reversible intra-architectural code; which was his more specific in the process of architectural communication, “rationalist” discovery. Through this discovery, the building – despite the fact that the forms of Casa del Fascio are close to 6 detached from its surroundings by its marked podium and its Platonic regular polyhedrons. Eisenman’s interpretation can abstract geometric appearance – managed to critically enter social thus convincingly prove the power of architecture as a creator of and cultural contexts. Period critics directed their attacks at this alternative and incidental spaces, while exempting the work from very intra-architectural code, since they were aware that it was the sociopolitical events at the same time. Intra-architectural open only way to weaken its social and cultural functionality as well. They meanings, transforming the work into text structures, have almost accused Terragni of plagiarism and unoriginality. However, they replaced external, extra-architectural meanings. were unable to explain why Terragni – now neither as a Christian nor as an Italian fascist – departed both from period typology Model Situation 3: Vladimír Dedeček and his Slovak which he had used in his early stages and from external extra- National Archive in Bratislava and the authors of this text architectural meanings which were limited to banners and images of the duce in the interiors and exteriors but were not represented Communicative interpretation; or interpretation architecturally. Quite the opposite: the entire building, despite as a reconstruction of dialogs and open meanings its allusions to renaissance palaces, makes the impression of a neutral formal geometrical play. It is here that Eisenman starts his As an example of our interpretation, we present a brief interpretation, explicitly claiming that he will not address external, description of the interpretation of one of the crucial works of Vladimír Dedeček: the Slovak National Archive in Bratislava built

5 See Peter Eisenman, The Formal Basis of Modern Architecture (Baden: Lars Müller Publishers 2006), 293–315 and compare with Peter Eisenman, Giuseppe Terragni: Transformations, Decompositions, Critiques (New York: Monacelli Press 2003), 33–151. 6 Eisenman, The Formal Basis of Modern Architecture, 85–93.

4 Artalk Revue 3 – Winter 2018 Marian Zervan, Monika Mitášová: Architecture and Politics as a Matter of Interpretation 7 between 1971 and 1983. Based on classification and comparative as de-centric clusters in other parts of the archive, signalizing analyses of the authorial report, the commission of the location the presence of intra-architectural newly discovered or newly search process, available period reviews and interpretations formed codes while entering the period debates of brutalists and as well as the drawing documentation of the designed variants structuralists. and documentation of national archives built around the world, it is clear that Vladimír Dedeček could choose from a series Within these intra-architectural debates, where meanings of binary oppositions when designing the building: 1/ from the are specified and the issues of new codes are opened – such perspective of archival documents protection, he may design the is our hypothesis partially confirmed by Dedeček’s notion of archive either as an underground or an above ground building, 2/ agglomerative and cluster configurations – the architect chooses from the perspective of relations, he may design it as a building cluster configurations as a communication platform between communicating with its context or as a strong autonomous binary options and architectural and extra-architectural contexts. landmark, 3/ he may design either a single-function monoblock Dedeček’s archive is an architectural response to the social and building or a multi-function pavilion building, 4/ he may either cultural challenges to build representative buildings for the newly prefer an administrative or a cultural building, and thus prefer 5/ formed federative republic: the vibrant cluster neither celebrates either an exemplification of an abstract look or a representation nor affirms the idea of federation, while problematizing the idea of of denotative and connotative extra-architectural meanings, and a united (monolithic) state as well as that of a complete separation eventually 6/ decide either for codified architectural codes and of the republics. However, the cluster of the Slovak National meanings traditionally linked with national archives, or connect Archive is different from the cluster of Dedeček’s addition to the the unique cultural building with an autopoietic function and an Slovak National Gallery and his new construction of the Supreme 8 intra-architectural discovery of a new code. Court and the Ministry of Justice. The archive changes its configurations and areas on the individual stories; it is a vibrant, When creating the archive, Dedeček experienced flowing, differentiating cluster. This ability of transformation of opposing political forces: the forces of differentiation right after the cluster configuration is a platform for the communicative the declaration of the Czech Socialist Republic and the Slovak interconnection of this work with Dedeček’s other constructions; Socialist Republic in a common federative republic which initiated it can link the uniqueness of the work with a distinctive the construction of new political representative institutions, universalizing authorial style and eventually with the social and including the Slovak National Archive. On the other hand, he political situation towards which it is not merely affirmative. also encountered forces which represented faith in a united Czechoslovak republic. His work was the architectural response Conclusion to these challenges. During our interpretation, it became clear that Vladimír Dedeček did not strongly adhere to any of the These findings are a basis for our interpretation process, solutions in the sense of exclusive either-or but rather sought new or the steps of our method. In the first step, we deal with the possibilities in the sense of non-exclusive disjunction: he built the assumptions of a reconstruction of the autopoietic function archive partially underground but predominantly above ground, and the intra-architectural code on the backdrop of period he chose to build on an undeveloped lot and at an elevated architectural codes and social and cultural challenges and spot, which supported the autonomous and dominant character commissions. Such a reconstruction can be conducted based of the work, while also reflecting several close landmarks and on analyses of authorial intentions and processes embodied anticipating the development of new houses and planting of a new in the realized or unrealized construction of the work based forest park in the vicinity; he further chose a monoblock of archive on preserved drawing and photographic documentation, spaces divided by wall projections to make it look as three or four period interpretations and reviews, and thus also a summary towers enriched with a ring of cell “pavilion” spaces for services of discrepancies, options and decisions. We call this step keys and administration; however, even this “archive bond” splits into to interpretation. However, neither the focus on the author, nor four individual pavilions on the top floor, while there is a pavilion the focus on the work is sufficient for us; these only constitute structure in the underground part of the building as well. important interpretation frameworks. There is the decisive second step of a hypothetic reconstruction of architectural decision- Dedeček chose the representation of primary denotative making processes which can link the authorial intentions and meanings (archive as a strongroom to store and study documents) the processes within the work and which signalize the presence and connotative external, extra-architectural meanings (the three of the open meanings at work. Their indications are naturally or four towers surrounded by a ring as cohesion – an allusion to present in the work, however, they are not as obvious as when the legend of King Svatopluk’s twigs which cannot be broken the established architectural codes are identified. What helps if tied together); however, in contrast, two of the four facades discover them is a new hypothetical architectural documentation 9 are rather abstract and non-figurative – thus self-exemplifying. with marked out possibilities and decisions. This happens within Dedeček, like in most of his works, employs generalized classical the step we call architectural interpretation and which has the forms (amphitheater, atrium) as well as forms from other historical form of drawings and diagrams. It shows to what extent the periods (high-rise buildings, castle, galleries, deep and shallow author decided to use denotative and connotative meanings and wall projections) in the archive as well. This compression of to what extent he or she managed to imbue them with the intra- diverse possibilities gives rise to classical composition in architectural code. This is done by a comparison of the preserved some parts of the archive and to variable poly-centric as well and the new – hypothetically reconstructed – documentation and by revealing the places of collisions and “discrepancies” and the 7 Monika Mitášová, ed., Vladimír Dedeček – Interpretations of His Architecture: possible workings of the autopoietic function. Last but not least, The Work of a Post War Slovak Architect (Basel: Birkhäuser 2018), 66–72. the third step, which cannot be precisely separated from the

8 Marian Zervan, Za interpretáciu a proti interpretácii architektonického diela. second one, is the reconstruction of the architectural discovery Stav a perspektívy [For and Against The Interpretation of an Architectonic Work]. This text will be published in the magazine for cultural history Kuděj by the Department of Philosophy, University of West Bohemia in Pilsen. 9 Ibid.

5 Artalk Revue 3 – Winter 2018 Marian Zervan, Monika Mitášová: Architecture and Politics as a Matter of Interpretation or the authorial architectural code. It combines architectural and text interpretation. It consists primarily in examining how the intra-architectural code can interconnect diverse contexts, what responses it can give to social and political challenges and to what degree it can link the previous work of the author with the most recent one while defining its unrepeatable and unique character. The third step further employs artistic, most often photographic interpretation. The latter has its documentation function already in the first step, however, in the third one, it transforms the autopoietic function and the intra-architectural code into images. At first glance, this might look like the traditional analysis and interpretation of forms, accompanied by drawing and photographic documentation; however, already the very presence of the hypothetical drawing documentation and bringing up the questions of autopoietic function and intra- architectural codes implies that communicative interpretation has different ambitions. It certainly sides neither with affirmative architecture nor with exclusively critical architecture. It uses the possibilities of interpretation of extra-architectural meanings and intra-architectural codes. It does not isolate architecture and politics, rather revealing their capabilities to transform political power pressures and challenges into creative architectural responses. It wants to know how architectural work shifts from the rhetoric of closed meanings to the poetics of open meanings at work, focusing on the question of what architecture has to offer to politics rather than on the problem of how architecture is fatally dependent on politics.

Translated from Slovak by Tereza Chocholová.

Marian Zervan is an art and architecture historian and theorist. Since 1993 until 2003, he was head of the Department of Art, Architecture and Design Theory at the Faculty of Architecture at the Slovak Univerity of Technology. Since 2003, he is a member of the Department of Theory and History of Art at the Academy of Fine Arts and Design in Bratislava where he lectures on the history of 20th and 21st century architecture and on the history of architectonic theory and criticism. He also works at the Faculty of Philosophy and Arts at Trnava University. Since 2010, he is a professor of art history. He deals with art and architecture theory, methods of interpretation and sacral iconography.

Monika Mitášová is an architecture theorist. She graduated from the Faculty of Architecture at the Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava. Since 2015, she is an associate professor of architecture. She deals with theory history, contemporary architecture theories and architecture interpretation. She lectures at the Faculty of Philosophy and Arts at Trnava University.

They recently published a collaborative book on the interpretation of the work of Vladimír Dedeček and keep addressing the interpretation of architecture.

6 Artalk Revue 3 – Winter 2018 Marian Zervan, Monika Mitášová: Architecture and Politics as a Matter of Interpretation