[ad_1]
Dagens Nyheter published an article on the Architecture Uprising on September 21. “The uprising divides Arkitektursverige into two camps,” it reads in the main headline. On the one hand, we mainly met with representatives of the uprising and the Swedish Democrats and, on the other, with Swedish architects and former Beauty Council secretary Martin Rörby. By giving the Sweden Democrats plenty of room in the article in combination with Rörby’s references to Nazi Germany, readers can get the impression that the battle for architecture is between conservative dark forces and enlightened society. In fact, the dividing line is between ordinary people and a limited number of elite-run institutions.
Although this type of browning is typical of our time, it should be noted that it is not new in the world of architecture. In various forms, it has been around since the beginning of modernism in the 20th century (first retrograde conservatism, then Nazism). Without being too focused, it can be argued that the corps of architects was the pioneer of the brown stain. If Nazi Germany had not existed, modernism probably would not have had as great an international impact as it did.
Throughout his life, Scruton was an advocate for architecture and urban planning who also took into account the residents’ sense of beauty and harmony.
Participate in the publication of DN also the new employee of the magazine Tomas Lauri. In his critical commentary on the Architecture Uprising, he refers to the recently deceased Sir Roger Scruton, and lets us know that he in Sweden is best known for being quoted by Jimmie Åkesson. This is not correct in essence, but the underlying message is clear.
Well, throughout his life, Scruton was an advocate for architecture and urban planning that also took into account the residents’ sense of beauty and harmony. At the end of his career, Scruton had the opportunity to articulate these arguments in a report to the British government. Scruton was chairman of an independent committee that on January 30 of this year presented the report “Living with Beauty.” The report is easy to find on the Internet.
It reads:
“Our proposals are aimed at long-term investments where the values that are important to people – beauty, community, history, landscape – are protected. Therefore, places, not units; main streets, not glass bottles; locally based design, not anonymous architecture that can be anywhere. We advocate for a stronger and more predictable planning system, for a greater democratic commitment in planning decisions and for a new long-term management model as a prerequisite for large development projects.
There are many good examples of modernist architecture, but even worse
Even in the UK it goes the dividing line between ordinary citizens and elite institutions.
Scruton stated that the architectural design of new residential areas must be based on the understanding that residents must appreciate the area. For them, the local environment is a kind of extension of their own home to the outside world. Therefore, the design should seek to create a kind of public home environment.
There are many good examples of modernist architecture, but even worse. There are also many good examples of classical-style buildings, but not so many bad ones. Scruton thought he had found an explanation. It would be necessary to be a very good architect to design modernist style houses because this direction is based on the idea of constant innovation, unlike classical architects who work in a tradition and therefore more easily avoid mistakes.
Scruton, on the other hand, defended not (as his opponents, of course, claim) an uncritical return to something past. However, as a conservative ideologue, he argued that in aesthetics nothing is bad just because it is old and nothing is good just because it is new. Of course, it is different, for example, in technology, medicine and science.
Not everything has to be classic or traditional, but why not welcome different directions?
The undeniable popularity of the architectural uprising is an expression of great popular discontent. A reasonable response from the architects union representatives should be to embrace pluralism. Not everything has to be classic or traditional, but why not welcome different directions? Sweden is also a country with high immigration. Why do we hardly ever see examples of architecture that are inspired by the cultures of the newcomers? What is the position of the representatives of the architects on this issue?
Read more:
The uprising divides Arkitektursverige into two camps
Tomas Lauri: “Do not look blindly at a certain style if you want better architecture”
