{"id":5339,"date":"2018-12-21T09:38:32","date_gmt":"2018-12-21T08:38:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.archphoto.it\/archivio\/?p=5339"},"modified":"2018-12-21T09:42:01","modified_gmt":"2018-12-21T08:42:01","slug":"giacomo-pala","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.archphoto.it\/archivio\/archives\/5339","title":{"rendered":"Giacomo Pala. Hans on the Couch"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In recent years, we have often read and heard about Hans Hollein as one of the European radical architects working in the sixties. Still, he is rarely considered as what he has become after the \u201cradical years\u201d: one of the most creative architects of late 20th<\/sup>century with an impressively large portfolio of built projects. Such a lack of deepening is partly understandable considering that, in Hollein\u2019s work, the revolt against tradition tends to prevail over the definition of a systematic corpus of doctrines and methods. Given such a background, it is not surprising to learn that the main historiographies \u2013 with rare, though important exceptions \u2013 of 20th<\/sup>century architecture tend to either exclude him or consider him as a minor figure1<\/sup><\/a>. The most explicit case among these is Manfredo Tafuri\u2019s and Francesco Dal Co\u2019s \u201chistory of contemporary architecture\u201d. In fact, they mention Hollein just once, and as follows: \u201cSenza il realismo pop di Venturi non si capirebbero [\u2026] le dissacrazioni del viennese Hans Hollein, dietro le quali occhieggia il lettino di Freud2<\/sup><\/a>\u201d; that is to say: Hollein is an architect who has to be understood by comparison to Venturi, otherwise he would appear as one who needs to go to Sigmund Freud\u2019s couch. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notwithstanding Tafuri\u2019s and Dal Co\u2019s analysis, this short text is about two main issues. The first one is the need of analysing Hollein\u2019s original contribution to contemporary architecture, while the second one is to pose questions in relation to architecture\u2019s historiography and its analytical methods. Still, in order to do so, it seems reasonable to begin where Tafuri and Dal Co stopped: with a therapy session.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hollein: Oedipus<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we know, a therapy usually begins with the reconstruction of the patient\u2019s infantile life, in this case Hollein\u2019s formative years. By the reading and analysing of the Austrian architect\u2019s early texts and projects, we can easily discover a seemingly Oedipal attitude. All of Hollein\u2019s projects, characterized by the use of exuberant language, quotations, ironic statements and allusions, seem to be continuous attempts of reconciliation between the radical critique of the architectural discipline (as when Hollein declares that \u201ceverything is architecture\u201d) and its formalism. This fact can be considered as Oedipal in the sense that Hollein often seems to define his own position against some \u201cotherness\u201d. If it is so, who are Hollein\u2019s Oedipal references? Looking at his early texts, we can find a certain number of architects he considers to be masters. We easily find Le Corbusier, Hans Poelzig, and \u2013 of course \u2013 the great early-modern Austrians: Otto Wagner, Joseph Hoffmann and Adolf Loos.3<\/sup><\/a>Among these, it is the presence of Loos \u2013 apparently an architect very different from Hollein \u2013 that demands our attention. Two examples. When, in 1967, Hollein defines architecture as an erotic art, he feels the need of introducing his thesis with a quotation from Loos: \u201cAlle Kunst ist erotisch\u201d (all art is erotic), to conclude with a very similar statement: \u201cgute Architektur ist Kunst, und Kunst ist notwendigerweise auch sinnlich, erotisch\u201d (Good architecture is art, and art is necessarily sensuous, erotic).4<\/sup><\/a><\/sup>Three years later, in his preface for the first issue of BAU, he defines Loos and Hoffmann as important architects (\u201cwichtigen Architekten\u201d) who need a reconciliation.5<\/sup><\/a>As well known, both Josef Hoffmann and Adolf Loos were among the protagonists in the debate about modern architecture in the early 20th<\/sup>century Vienna. Hoffmann, as one of the founders of the Secession andWiener Werkst\u00e4tte<\/em>; Loos, as the author of \u201cOrnament und Verbrechen\u201d. The former believed in a language based on geometric compositions and surface decorations, the latter believed in geometry, of course, but in the value of traditions and in materials as the only means to have ornamentations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given these premises, we can look at the Hollein\u2019s early work as an attempt of reconciling the Austrian masters\u2019 poetics and ideas. In other words, we can look at his work from the late sixties and seventies as the attempt of reconciling opposite values (such as \u201chigh\u201d or \u201clow\u201d) and dialectical oppositions (like \u201cabstract\u201d or \u201cfigurative\u201d). Explicit examples of such a reconciliation are the shop fa\u00e7ades that Hollein designs and builds in the city centre of Vienna. Take, for instance, the Retti Candle shop (1966) and the Schullin jewellery (1974). We see a glittering metal fa\u00e7ade in which Hollein cuts out the shape of a cartoonish ionic column (Retti Candle shop) and a monolithic fa\u00e7ade of granite broken by a free-form geometry which cuts the entrance with multiple bronze curves and tubes for air conditioning (Schullin jewellery). In these projects we see a coherent use of materials, yet those are both mundane and refined (bronze, granite, laminates, marbles and sprayed plastics). Behaving like Loos\u2019 and Hoffman\u2019s illegitimate son, Hans Hollein designs refined and elitist ironies: \u201chigh\u201d and \u201clow\u201d values become one6<\/sup><\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Retti Candle shop, Vienna, Austria, 1966<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"

<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Schullin jewellery, Vienna, Austria, 1974<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hollein: Oedipus of<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet, to understand Hollein\u2019s work as a simple reaction to the Austrian tradition of modern architecture would be way more than reductive, if not potentially erroneous. In order to move on, then, we can go back to our psychoanalytic attempt. As well known, the \u201cOedipal complex\u201d can be interpreted as something wider than just a reference to a single person, or a few people. In other words, the \u201cOedipus\u201d signifies a certain particular patriarchal culture. The Oedipal complex is a problematic relationship with what the \u201cpaternal figure\u201d represents: an indomitable \u201cotherness\u201d7<\/sup><\/a>. If this is true, then we can read Hollein\u2019s work as a symptom of the Austrian architect\u2019s relationship with what architects like Loos and Hoffman might have represented, that is to say: the origins of the modernist ideology. For instance, we can look at other two among his many projects: the \u201cCarl FriedrichV. Siemens Stiftung\u201d in Munich (1970) and the \u201cAustrian Travel Agency\u201d in Vienna (1976-1979). In the first one, we find a multiplication of heterogenous spaces (G\u00e4stespeiser\u00e4ume<\/em>): one is coated in orange plastic, another one is in wood; one is painted with blue and white stripes, another one is a marmoreal space for dinners. In the second one, we find the adoption of a myriad of materials (more than 60 just for the lobby), together with strange objects that reconstruct a sort of symbolic landscape inside the agency\u2019s main space: \u201cfake natures\u201d, golden pavilions and statues.8<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Carl Friedrich V. Siemens Stiftung, Munich, Germany, 1970<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Austrian Travel Agency, Vienna, Austria, 1976-1979<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once again, we see Hollein\u2019s playful formalism, made of multiple materials, colourful textures and contradictory shapes for the production of ironic and fictional meanings. Yet, instead of interpreting this design strategy as a way to come to terms with the Austrian tradition, we can interpret it as a comment \u2013 a critical comment \u2013 against modernist orthodoxy. Then, continuing our therapy, in this design we see that Hollein, by transforming the Austrian modern tradition in a way of producing ironies, is telling us something about (or even against) the idea of modernity as an aestheticized style of an epoch: modernity is not a white, abstract and austere space; it is rather pop and colourful, yet elitist. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hollein: non-Oedipus<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In conclusion, we can look at another facet of the \u201cstory\u201d, and perhaps the most interesting one. What if the production of ironic statements was not just a manifestation of some sort of unresolved relationship with some authorities? (whether it is an architect or a meta-language).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Going back to the \u201cpsychoanalytic\u201d allegory driving this text, we can refer to Deleuze\u2019s and Guattari\u2019s critique of psychoanalysis. In fact, their work represents the attempt of turning upside down the psychoanalytic theory: where \u201cdesire\u201d is seen as negative, they observe that it is our reality; where desire is seen as reactionary, they affirm it is revolutionary. According to them, the unconscious is the main creator of desire, not just one among the many factors of our existence. Consequently, our \u201cdesire\u201d does not originate from an absence, nor it is the simple by-product of a dialectical opposition against an otherness. Desire is the producer of meaning in our society. In turn, the Oedipus , is nothing more than \u201ca race for death.\u201d9<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then, if it is true that we can interpret Hollein\u2019s work in comparison to Loos, Hoffman, or to the cultural project of modernism; his work displays the production of a personal creative desire, as well. Let\u2019s take his project for the Abteiberg museum in the small German city M\u00f6nchengladbach (1972-1982), as a final example. This project is a sort of small city made of juxtaposing grids, shapes, figures and forms. Those are multiple objects that, by sitting on several levels, reconstruct an intricate landscape made of bricks, bronze, brass, paths, steel, bushes and aluminium. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Abteiberg museum, M\u00f6nchengladbach, Germany, 1972-1982<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As proven by this example, Hollein\u2019s architecture teaches us that architecture\u2019s functions and practical needs can be used to produce meanings via abstract composition. A built architecture, thanks to the design of spaces, figures and forms can become meaningful and communicate something; particularly when its meaning cannot be easily pinned down. Then, Hollein\u2019s provocations and use of materials show us a peculiar idea of modernity in architecture; an idea of architecture as the constant production of a creative instinct: a way to produce content. Architecture is the result of a creative desire, or, in Hollein\u2019s words: \u201cThe shape does not develop out of a purpose, but from the essence of the purpose itself, from its spiritual meaning, from the meaning of physical reality. Spiritualization of the material leads to a materialization of the spiritual.10<\/sup><\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then, by looking at the specificities of the projects and architects\u2019 work, we can find cultural and expressive values that allow us to get out of Tafuri’s and Dal Co\u2019s trap. If Tafuri and Dal Co can only read Hollein\u2019s architecture in opposition to the one of Venturi, we can look \u2013 now free from operative uses of dialectics \u2013 to Hans Hollein\u2019s work as something original; as something that, as all great architecture does, tells us something about peculiar ways of understanding, interpreting and even creating the meanings of our world and culture. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Giacomo Pala<\/strong><\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1<\/a>\u0002<\/sup>An example is Heinrich Klotz\u2019 \u201cHistory of Postmodern Architecture\u201d (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984) or, a more recent one is Eva Branscome\u2019s \u201cHans Hollein and Postmodernism: Art and Architecture in Austria, 1958-1985\u201d, (New York: Routledge, 2017)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2<\/a>\u0002<\/sup>Manfredo Tafuri, Francesco Dal Co, Architettura Contemporanea, (Milano: Electa, 1976), p. 379<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3<\/a>\u0002<\/sup>Le Corbusier, Wagner and Poelzig are quoted in \u201cTECHNIK\u201d from 1965. See: Peter Weibel (edited by), Hans Hollein<\/em>, (Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz, 2012) p.68<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4<\/a>\u0002<\/sup>Hans Hollein, \u201cEROTISCHE ARCHITEKTUR – WIE K\u00d6NNTE SIE AUSSEHEN?\u201d (1967), in : Peter Weibel, cit., p.30<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5<\/a>\u0002<\/sup>Hans Hollein, \u201cVorwort\u201d, (1970), see:http:\/\/www.hollein.com\/ger\/Schriften\/Zeitschrift-Bau\/Vorwort<\/a>(22\/11\/2018)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6<\/a>\u0002<\/sup>In this context, it is interesting to mention G\u00fcnther Domenig\u2019s critique to Hollein and the Viennese scene of architecture in the 80s: \u201cEven though they [the Viennese architects] might want to, they cannot distance themselves from the influence of such giants as Hoffmann, Loos and Wagner. That’s their problem: they are trying to overcome this tradition step by step.\u201d Quoted in: Alvin Boyarsky, Peter Cook, G\u00fcnther Domenig and Peter Noever, \u201cDrawing on dreams: G\u00dcNTHER DOMENIG: STEINHAUS \u2014 STONEHOUSE\u201d, in AA Files, No. 13 (Autumn 1986), p.100<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7<\/a>\u0002<\/sup>Here I refer to Jacques Lacan\u2019s interpretation of the \u201cOedipus Complex\u201d. Lacan\u2019s interpretation of Freudian psychology is a kind of psychoanalysis of psychoanalysis itself, at first interpreted as a Freud\u2019s obsession. In other words, for Lacan, the same need of defining a discipline such as psychoanalysis is a symptom of the modern subject\u2019s state of being. In this context, the meaning of \u201cthe Oedipus Complex\u201d is widened. As put by Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen and Douglas Brick, Lacan\u2019s interpretation of the Oedipus complex, \u201cis actually a simple reflection of the modern family crisis\u201d.<\/sup>See: Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen and Douglas Brick, “The Oedipus Problem in Freud and Lacan”, in Critical Inquiry, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 277<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8<\/a>\u0002<\/sup>the number of materials are given in accordance to the \u201cbook of materials\u201dconsulted at the AzW\u2019s archives (Architekturzentrum Wien\u2019s archives) in Vienna, Austria. Moreover, I want to seize the opportunity to thank Lilli Hollein and Mechthild Ebert for the kind availability and help<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9<\/a>\u0002<\/sup>Gilles Deleuze, F\u00e9lix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia<\/em>, trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem Helen R. Lane (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1983), p.333<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10<\/a>\u0002<\/sup>Hans Hollein, quoted in Heinrich Klotz (translated by Radka Donnell), the History of Postmodern Architecture<\/em>, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984), p.345<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In recent years, we have often read and heard about Hans Hollein as one of the European radical architects working in the sixties. Still, he is rarely considered as what he has become after the \u201cradical years\u201d: one of the most creative architects of late 20thcentury with an impressively large portfolio of built projects. Such […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":5341,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2198],"tags":[2367,2366,267],"class_list":["post-5339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-writings","tag-giacomo-pala","tag-hans-hollein","tag-radicals"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.archphoto.it\/archivio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.archphoto.it\/archivio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.archphoto.it\/archivio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.archphoto.it\/archivio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.archphoto.it\/archivio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5339"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.archphoto.it\/archivio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5355,"href":"https:\/\/www.archphoto.it\/archivio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5339\/revisions\/5355"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.archphoto.it\/archivio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5341"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.archphoto.it\/archivio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.archphoto.it\/archivio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.archphoto.it\/archivio\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}