El profesional ecléctico y la vanguardia: fobias y filias

Abstract

[ES] En los textos sobre arquitectura las “épocas” se diferencian de sus anteriores singularizándose por lo novedoso. Así, el diletante del arte o de la arquitectura puede tener la sensación de que toda la “práctica profesional” ha dado un gran paso y al unísono. Esto nunca ha sido cierto y precisamente en el periodo que nos ocupa de la vanguardia en el siglo XX, mucho menos. Ni siquiera arquitectos tan comprometidos como Ludwig Mies van der Rohe abandonaron los estilos eclécticos para entregarse totalmente a un nuevo estilo, que aún no tenía la demanda requerida para dar ese paso. Los arquitectos de vanguardia fueron minoría en una Europa dominada profesionalmente, al menos hasta la postguerra mundial, por la arquitectura ecléctica.

Desde comienzos de siglo XIX y de una forma ininterrumpida, la arquitectura se había apoyado en su propia historia para intentar construir un estilo secular. Por el contrario, las vanguardias renunciaban a la historia como elemento operativo; ésta quedaba simplemente como una disciplina más en la formación de un arquitecto. La vida articulada por la técnica y el trabajo, basado a su vez en la industria, comenzó a hacer germinar la idea funcionalista de que se debía diseñar una máquina para habitar. Esa máquina sería óptimo que proviniera de la industria y fuera ubicua. Es decir, si se perseguía la gran empresa de dotar de trabajo, educación y confort a todos los ciudadanos del mundo, esa máquina debía poder instalarse en cualquier parte. Esto chocaba de plano con la idea de la singularidad, el estudio del clima y la puesta en valor de las características geográficas y culturales aplicadas a la arquitectura por los arquitectos eclécticos. Esa noción de la belleza, extremadamente madura, chocaba con la sociedad, especialmente con la burguesía que no entendía las sugerencias, sino las formas y el color, ambos explícitos. El ecléctico, por el contrario, se apoyaba en la decoración para resaltar la antedicha singularidad cultural y geográfica. La nueva arquitectura apostaba claramente por la tecnología y la “racionalidad”, dejando vistos elementos que hasta el momento se habían considerado exclusivamente constructivos. Precisamente, esa arquitectura secular decimonónica, no pudo materializarse como tal por la firme opinión (que tenían los arquitectos) de que la construcción era parte inherente de la arquitectura, pero ella sola no era arte, no era arquitectura. Si el pensamiento arquitectónico no hubiera tenido ese tipo de “prejuicios”, la arquitectura del siglo XIX podría haber derivado, simplemente, del uso claro de los nuevos materiales. Por el contrario, los arquitectos sólo los dejaban a la vista en obras muy específicas que requerían cubrir grandes luces y en nuevas tipologías edilicias. Los elementos constructivos no se utilizaban vistos para la arquitectura doméstica o en la arquitectura monumental. Para las vanguardias, la arquitectura tradicional asfixiaba con la ornamentación, no era funcional, se utilizaban elementos que no servían para garantizar ni el confort ni la estabilidad. Por ello, los arquitectos partidarios de la vanguardia no podían evitar comparar, en sus publicaciones, su nueva arquitectura con la tradicional. La comparación no solamente se realizaba desde una nueva estética, sino que se hacía hincapié en parámetros de tipo higienista y sobre todo funcionales. Mientras los jóvenes arquitectos de las vanguardias adoptaban una postura beligerante, ¿Qué actitud tomaban los eclécticos?

[EN] In texts on architecture the "epochs" are distinguished from their predecessors by their novelty. Thus, the the art or architecture dilettante may have the feeling that the whole "professional practice" has taken a big step forward in unison. professional practice" has taken a great step forward in unison. This has never been true, and precisely in the period of the avant-garde in the twentieth century, much less so. Not even even architects as committed as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe did not abandon the eclectic eclectic styles to give themselves totally to a new style, which did not yet have the required demand to take that step. demand required to take such a step. Avant-garde architects were in the minority in a Europe professionally dominated, at least until the post-World War II period, by eclectic architecture. eclectic architecture.

Since the beginning of the 19th century and in an uninterrupted way, architecture had relied on its own history to try to build an eclectic architecture. On the other hand, the avant-garde renounced history as an operative element; it remained simply one more discipline in the formation of architecture. simply as one more discipline in the training of an architect. Life articulated by technique and work, based in turn on industry, began to germinate the functionalist idea that a machine had to be designed to inhabit. That machine would optimally come from industry and be ubiquitous. That is that is, if the great enterprise of providing work, education and comfort to all the world's citizens was to be pursued, such a machine would have to be the citizens of the world, that machine had to be able to be installed anywhere. This clashed with the idea of uniqueness, the study of climate and the enhancement of geographical and cultural characteristics. and cultural characteristics applied to architecture by eclectic architects. eclectic architects. volumes. This extremely mature notion of beauty clashed with society, especially with the bourgeoisie that did not understand the suggestions, but the forms and the color, both explicit. color, both explicit. The eclectic, on the other hand, relied on decoration to highlight the aforementioned the aforementioned cultural and geographic uniqueness. The new architecture clearly opted for technology and "rationality", elements that until then had been considered exclusively constructive. constructive. Precisely, this secular nineteenth-century architecture could not materialize as such due to the firm opinion architecture could not materialize as such because of the firm opinion (held by architects) that construction was an inherent part of architecture, but it was inherent part of architecture, but it alone was not art, it was not architecture. If architectural thought had not had such "prejudices", the architecture of the 19th century could have derived architecture of the 19th century could have derived, simply, from the clear use of the new materials. new materials. On the contrary, architects only left them on view in very specific works that required covering large spans. specific works that required covering large spans and in new building typologies. The construction elements were not used in sight for domestic architecture or in monumental architecture. monumental architecture. For the avant-garde, traditional architecture suffocated with ornamentation, it was not functional, and elements that were not functional were used. functional, it used elements that did not serve to guarantee neither comfort nor stability. stability. For this reason, the architects in favor of the avant-garde could not avoid comparing, in their publications, their new architecture with the new architecture of the avant-garde. their publications to compare their new architecture with traditional architecture. The comparison not only made from a new aesthetic point of view, but also emphasized hygienic parameters and, above all, the and, above all, functional parameters. While the young avant-garde architects adopted a belligerent stance, what was the attitude of the eclectic architects? What attitude did the eclectics take?