Of traditions, both shared and regional

Henrieta Moravčíková talks to architecture theorist Friedrich Achleitner

Friedrich Achleitner, Austria's most committed architecture critic and theorist, celebrates his 75th birthday this year. With his documentation of the architecture of Austria's various regions he has made a major contribution to broadening the effect of architecture. The first volume (Vorarlberg, Tyrol, Salzburg, Upper Austria) appeared in 1980. The last of the three volumes dealing with Vienna is scheduled to appear in 2006. Henrieta Moravčíková talked to Friedrich Achleitner about the highs and lows of Central European architecture and about its shared and its regional traditions.

Henrieta Moravčíková: What factors were responsible for the "golden eras" of architecture from 1900 onwards, such as, for example, Viennese architecture at the turn of the century or Slovakian architecture in the interwar period?
Friedrich Achleitner: There were a number of different factors. The turn of the century in Vienna was, first of all, a mirror of the political and economic situation. Although economic depressions had regularly occurred in the Habsburg monarchy, there was also considerable economic strength. In Vienna around 1900 it was the "generation of the sons" of the wealthy "founding fathers" who shaped the cultural scene, and who could afford an "aestheticisation of life". Vienna was a metropolis where, true to the motto "viribus unitis", the power, money and culture of the Habsburgs were concentrated. But there was also a certain ambivalence, still typical of Austria today, that shifted between megalomania and inferiority complex – for example towards the cultural centres of the time such as Paris, or even Munich. Out of this situation arose the reflex of the "Vienna Secession", to put it very briefly.

And outside Vienna?
The dominant position of Vienna led to conflicts with the "crown lands", which were developing their own national identities. The language debate in the Vienna parliament, for example, went back as far as 1848. The greatest mistake of the Habsburgs was not to accept Czech as the third (Slav) state language. Although twelve national languages were recognised, Czech never acquired  the same status as German or Hungarian. These conflicts have survived down to the present in people's minds. After the First World War the small "German-Austria" alone was held responsible for the consequences of the war and was economically devastated, whereas in Moravia, for example, the old industry started to flourish once again. Thanks to the intelligent politics of Tomáš G. Masaryk (1) – with the founding of the Czechoslovakian Republic – an impressive upswing started there.

Yet at that time this upswing was not so obvious. Czech and Slovak industry had been dependent on the Empire and therefore the new republic had lost many of its markets.
And yet there were many positive developments, as one can see in the architecture of the time. In all areas of architecture excellent buildings were erected that are already well documented (2). And it is not by chance that the first tendencies in the former crown lands were national-romantic concepts. There was a desire to develop an independent style, as shown for example by the work of Ivan Vurnik in Slovenia or Dušan Jurkovič in Slovakia. These were interesting attempts to create something new out of their own cultural resources.

But surely this development had already started in the 19th century? Jurkovič, for instance, built his best national-romantic works in the first years of the 20th century  – that is, still during the time of the Habsburg Empire. After the founding of the Czechoslovakian Republic he no longer pursued this line.
It was by then no longer necessary, you could say. Naturally, there was a long process of "cutting the umbilical cord" that extends far back into the 19th century. In connection with Jugendstil this was also a formal, decorative phenomenon. It was believed that something new could be developed from ornamental folk culture. These resources were quickly exhausted. And, strange though it may sound, this was also an international phenomenon that occurred throughout Europe. One can describe the different national styles using the same terms. There was one exception: Czech Cubism (later Rondo-cubism) started at a higher theoretical or ideological level and was artistically more intelligent.

An attempt was made in the 1920s to make Rondo-Cubism, which had developed out of Cubism, the official style of the Czechoslovakian Republic. Many state buildings, schools and tenement houses were designed in this style. However Rondo-Cubism also quickly grew exhausted and was replaced by Functionalism. Around this time the golden era of Czech and Slovak architecture began, but in Austria this was not a particularly remarkable period.
Adolf Loos and Josef Hoffmann were still alive, as were the students of Otto Wagner – and with Josef Frank there was a highly talented younger generation. But apart from the Viennese municipal housing block, which was socially revolutionary but aesthetically conservative, they had nothing to build. In addition, Vienna had its "Revolution of Modernism" behind it. Housing in Vienna was also primarily a work creation programme. Buildings were deliberately built in a labour-intensive way, there was no rationalisation of construction; the aim was to find a place for all the old building trades from the period before the war,
and so Functionalism never had a chance. After the world economic crisis in 1929 conservative building also established itself politically. After the Austrian corporate state and the "Third Reich" even in the post-war reconstruction period "modernism" was still seen as an adversary of the conservative tendencies…

That were very much present …
… in all European countries. My generation – that studied in the 1950s – attempted to rediscover this modernism and its heroes– Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright. We also tried to find our own tradition again. This all took place outside the architecture schools. If a student was found with a Le Corbusier book, he was told he might as well go straight away to the Communist Party. 

In Slovakia the Communists were in power but Le Corbusier was also forbidden there. In the early 1950s the Stalinist cultural doctrine of Socialist Realism was dominant throughout the entire East Block. In the field of architecture this meant using historic styles. Modernism was frowned upon by the citizens.
Socialist realism – “in spirit socialist, national in form”, if I recall correctly  – dismissed the entire leftist European culture as decadent.

Let's leave Vienna for the moment: how was it that in the second half of the 20th century such exciting developments arose in the Austrian regions?
There were two centres for the training of architects: Vienna and Graz. In Vienna the Technical University was rigidly conservative, the "Applied Arts" taught a cultivated, traditional modernism and in the Academy of Fine Arts on Schillerplatz Clemens Holzmeister ruled. Regionalisation developed initially out of the opposition between Graz and Vienna. In Vienna through Roland Rainer, the "Arbeitsgruppe 4" (Holzbauer, Kurrent, Spalt) and others a continuation of "classic functionalism" developed, against which Hans Hollein and Walter Pichler protested (1963). There followed the "club seminar" of Günther Feuerstein with the well-known groups such as "Hausrucker", "Coop Himmelb(l)au", "Zünd up", "Missing Link" etc., who opened up new perspectives. In Graz a revolution began in the studios of the Technical University that ultimately lead to the so-called "Grazer Schule". The developments in the other Austrian states are very different, complex and, as yet, not properly researched. Other reasons: in Austria cultural policy is in the hands of the individual states – each with their own laws, instruments and grants. And the various occupation zones, American, British, French and Russian, possibly had a certain influence until 1955.

Did the Russians import Social Realism to Austria?
No. Even buildings such as the communist Globus-Verlag (publishers) were planned by the old functionalists who remained faithful to the party (Rudolf Weber, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky). The "Russians" were more interested in music, theatre and literature. One did not travel to Moscow to look at architecture. It was only in the 1970s that some of my friends visited Constantin Melnikov and looked at the Constructivist buildings. These were not official trips. The Yugoslav scene, the scenes in Slovenia or Croatia for example, interested us earlier on. We also started at an early stage to investigate vernacular architecture, making trips to Slovakia and to Romania (the timber-built churches), to Greece and to Turkey. Le Corbusier was also a model in this area. This had an effect on the architecture schools and ultimately on the way regional building was addressed.

The examination of folk traditions was an interesting phenomenon. In Slovakia architects also studied vernacular architecture at the end of the 1950s and derived inspiration from it. This was part of a wider European tendency.
People in Vorarlberg, for example, looked for their roots in the Bregenzerwald and out of the protest movement of these "junge Wilde" (Young Wild Ones) – writers, musicians, graphic designers, architects and teachers – a new culture of timber building developed. The social pressure to build one's own house at the age of only 30 led to cooperatives that erected inexpensive houses and housing estates, partly in self-build. In the process new methods of timber building were developed. There were also other developments such as the "Styria model" subsidised by the regional government in association with the "Grazer Schule", "Trigon", "Steirischer Herbst" or the "Salzburg Projekt" of town councillor Johannes Voggenhuber from the Civic List group, who introduced the first design advisory committees.

Can such models be applied to other regions?
No. But the spirit, the awareness of architecture can be handed on. Architecture must reach people, it must not remain a matter for a university elite. In Upper Austria (the Mühlviertel) at present a movement of "Landnahme" (literally: the taking of land) is currently underway. Young architects are looking into the problems of the farming population, with considerable success.

What about the modern tradition? In each of these regional movements you have mentioned, modern roots can be traced.
Of course. First of all it was important that a start should be made in examining the architecture of the 20th century. In this way the regions could discover their modern traditions. The explanation and mediation of architecture play an important role here. People must be brought towards architecture. It is everywhere around them. Not only every region but also every town has interesting buildings that must be made known. This awareness is also important for the architects, who don't always see everything that exists in their surroundings. This is also why the architecture centres in the different Austrian states, which are taking on this task with increasing success, are so important.

Does something like tradition still exist today? Regionally and internationally? Is there still a regional architecture or in fact do all architects strive for an "international form"?
Gustav Mahler put it so well: "it is not the ashes but the fire that should be handed on." There is still regional architecture, but it should not become provincial. That is to say: no formalistic claddings such as "folk costume" or whatever, but an architecture that develops from the cultural and economic resources of a region and from its people. Naturally, the major international tendencies provide the standard and the criteria, but this has always been the case, from Gothic to the Renaissance and down to Historicism and Modernism.

Are the relationships to Bratislava or to the surroundings reflected upon here in Vienna?
These are two different questions. To date politically and economically they have been far too little reflected upon, I would say. This is a remarkable phenomenon. There are town and country planners who conduct cross-border discussions and are fully aware how close these two cities are to each other. But the creation of good transport connections has been neglected. As a result for years Bratislava hardly existed at all for Vienna. Culturally, I would say, we once looked at Bratislava (and also at Brno and Prague) with envy and as early as the 1960s admired the architecture of the 1920s and 1930s there.

Has the expansion of the EU influenced these relationships? Do you believe that as a result of it new kinds of relationships will develop?
Whether this has happened up to now I cannot judge. But in the future this will doubtless be the case. Alone the fact that architects can take part in all the competitions open throughout the EU will introduce new standards and open up new opportunities. Naturally, competition will also become tougher.

(1) Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (1850–1937), founder of Czechoslovakia.
Masaryk was born on  March 7, 1850 in Hodonin (present-day Czech Republic) as the son of a Slovak coachman and German-speaking mother. He qualified as a university lecturer in 1879 with a socio-psychological work and in 1882 was appointed a professor at the newly founded Czech university in Prague.
In 1891 he was elected by the "Young Czechs", whose aim was an independent state, and in 1907 as the leader of the Realists Party to the Austrian parliament. His aim of achieving Czech independence led him in 1914 to side with the Western Allies.
In 1917 he organised a "Czech Legion" in Russia, made up of defectors from the Imperial Austrian Army.  In the Pittsburgh Agreement he succeeded in uniting Czech and Slovak émigrés. In 1918 he was elected the first President of Czechoslovakia.  In 1920, 1927 and 1934 he was re-elected. Masaryk resigned for reasons of age in 1935 and died on 14 September 1937 in Lána Castle, near Prague. 
www.weltchronik.de

(2) Dulla, Matúš – Moravčíková, Henrieta: Architektúra Slovenska v 20. storočí (The Architecture of Slovakia in the 20th Century), Bratislava, Slovart 2002, 512 pages.

Friedrich Achleitner, born 1930, studied architecture under Clemens Holzmeister, graduating in 1953. Worked as a free-lance architect until 1958, then as a free-lance author (member of the "wiener gruppe"). Architecture critic and journalist, university lecturer, lastly head of the chair for "History and Theory of Architecture" at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna. Emeritus professor 1998. Chairman of tranzit-at.
Numerous literary works including "quadratroman" 1973, "kaaas", 1995, "Die Plotteggs kommen", 1995, "einschlafgeschichten", 2003, "wiener linien", 2004
As well as publications about architecture including "ÖSTERRERICHISCHE ARCHITEKTUR IM 2O.JAHRHUNDERT", 1980–95 (4 volumes), "Nieder mit Fischer von Erlach",1986, "Die rückwärtsgewandte Utopie",1994, "Wiener Architektur",1996 und "Region, ein Konstrukt? Regionalismus, eine Pleite?", 1997.

Architectural historian Henrieta Moravčíková is editor-in-chief of the Slovak architecture journal ARCH and director of the architecture department in the Slovak Academy of Sciences.

pictures