Chile and Poland, 1970–1990
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Political Postmodernisms: Architecture in Chile and Poland, 1970–1990 by Lidia Klein Department of Art, Art History, and Visual Studies Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Annabel Wharton, Supervisor ___________________________ Esther Gabara ___________________________ Fredric Jameson ___________________________ Neil McWilliam ___________________________ Alan Plattus Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Art, Art History, and Visual Studies in the Graduate School of Duke University 2018 ABSTRACT Political Postmodernisms: Architecture in Chile and Poland, 1970–1990 by Lidia Klein Department of Art, Art History, and Visual Studies Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Annabel Wharton, Supervisor ___________________________ Esther Gabara ___________________________ Fredric Jameson ___________________________ Neil McWilliam ___________________________ Alan Plattus An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Art, Art History, and Visual Studies in the Graduate School of Duke University 2018 Copyright by Lidia Klein 2018 Abstract “Political Postmodernisms” argues that postmodern architecture can be radically rethought by eXamining its manifestations in Chile and Poland in the 1970s and 1980s. Postmodern architecture tends to be understood as politically indifferent and devoid of the progressive agenda embedded in modernist architecture – a view typically rooted in the analyses of North America and Western Europe. By investigating the cases of Chile during the neoliberal dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet and Poland during the late socialist Polish People’s Republic, my project unfolds a less acknowledged narrative— one in which postmodernism is profoundly entangled with the political. Drawing from interviews I conducted with a range of Chilean and Polish architects, as well as analyses of physical buildings, urban development plans, and architectural journals from Santiago and Warsaw, I show how these South American and Eastern European sites reveal an altogether different dynamic between capitalism, democracy, and architecture. The dissertation is composed of an introduction, four chapters, and a conclusion. The Introduction discusses the current revivalism of postmodernism and its critique, tracing the roots of this criticism in foundational scholarship on postmodern architecture, and analyzing how postmodernism is defined in architectural scholarship. It also discusses why Chile and Poland are chosen as case studies. The first chapter, “Postmodernism and the State: Chile,” discusses propagandistic uses of postmodern architecture by Pinochet’s regime in Chile, using two case studies – the Plaza de la iv Constitución in Santiago de Chile (1980) and the Congreso de Chile in Valparaíso (1987). The second chapter, “Postmodernism Against the State: Chile,” eXamines the practices of architects who were members of CEDLA, an independent collective of Chilean architects established in 1977 in Santiago, who promoted a version of politically and socially engaged postmodernism that could counter Pinochet’s neoliberal agenda. Chapter Three, “Postmodernism and the State: Poland,” analyzes how the Polish Socialist Party first appropriated postmodernism as a Soviet invention and then used it as a means to appease social tensions in times of increasing unrest. It focuses specifically on state- sanctioned architectural discourse and the Na Skarpie housing estate in Kraków (1985). The final chapter, “Postmodernism Against the State: Poland,” discusses Polish architects organized under the Dom i Miasto group (1980–1984), which united postmodern inspirations with agendas that opposed the vision of society imposed by the Polish People’s Republic. It also discusses the work of Marek Budzyński, for whom postmodernism created a “third way” beyond socialism and capitalism. Across these chapters, I argue that Chilean and Polish architecture between 1970 and 1990 complicate the generally accepted view of postmodern architecture as politically disengaged and as an eXclusively neoliberal phenomenon, disinterested in any progressive social agenda. In both countries, postmodern currents were appropriated by the regimes for propagandistic purposes and used to oppose the agendas of the State. v Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................... iv Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 Current Postmodern Revivalism and its Critique ..................................................... 5 Critiques of Postmodernism ....................................................................................... 9 Qualities of Postmodern Architecture and Urban Planning .................................. 14 Theorizing Postmodern Architecture and Urbanism ............................................. 24 Chilean and Polish Postmodernism ......................................................................... 32 Recent Scholarship on Postmodernism .................................................................... 40 Scholarship on Chilean and Polish Postmodernism ............................................... 42 1. Postmodernism and the State: Chile ................................................................................. 48 1.1 From Eduardo Frei Montalva and Salvador Allende to Augusto Pinochet: Transformations in Urban Space .............................................. 51 1.2 Postmodern Architecture as Propaganda: Plaza de la Constitución and Congreso de Chile ....................................................................... 66 2. Postmodernism Against the State: Chile .......................................................................... 77 2.1 The Origins of CEDLA and Its Emergence in Santiago .................................... 78 2.2 CEDLA’s Project for Santiago Poniente ............................................................. 87 2.3 Social Housing ..................................................................................................... 95 3. Postmodernism and the State: Poland ............................................................................ 102 3.1 The Polish People’s Republic and Postmodern Architecture ......................... 102 3.2 Architecture and Propaganda ........................................................................... 103 3.3 Architektura ......................................................................................................... 107 vi 3.4 Na Skarpie (Centrum E) .................................................................................... 114 4. Postmodernism Against the State: Poland ..................................................................... 124 4.1 Oppositional Postmodernism: Czesław Bielecki and DiM Group ........................................................................................................................ 125 4.2 Reforming the System from Within: The Architecture of Marek Budzyński ................................................................................................................. 135 4.3 North Ursynów .................................................................................................. 137 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 156 AppendiX: Interviews .......................................................................................................... 160 Works Cited .......................................................................................................................... 185 Biography ............................................................................................................................. 194 vii Introduction After a period of neglect lasting roughly two decades, architectural postmodernism is coming back. In addition to a proliferation of postmodern buildings and projects worldwide, 1 the academic world has taken renewed interest in postmodern aesthetics and theory, visible in a range of eXhibitions, publications, conferences, and symposia.2 Recently, this postmodern revivalism has prompted heated critical discussions on its appropriateness in the current social, political, and economic environment. In a recent article for Dezeen, Sean Griffiths writes: There is one big reason why now is absolutely not the time to be indulging in postmodern revivalism. Its name is President Donald Trump. And while Donald Trump means that golden Baroque remains transgressive, it is now transgressive in a bad way. Bigly so, to coin a phrase. (…) As all good postmodernists know, signifiers – the vessels that convey meanings – have a tendency to become untethered from their moorings. In less dangerous times we can delight in their floating free, reveling in the magical manufacture of meaning that the detachment of the signifier from its signified permits. But the artful twisting of meaning through the gentle massaging of signifier is less appealing when the gaps between truth and representation provide a petri dish for the fake news of the alt-right.3 For Griffiths, taking inspiration from a current based on playfulness,