Effect of Politics on Architecture

One of my students, Amit Tandon, has selected this topic for his dissertation and has asked for my comments on the topic. In one way, politics influences everything that happens in a society, and architecture is essentially a political activity. This could well be the subject of an entire book.

When discussing the birth of a style, I had said that architecture is a deliberate act and can not emerge out of circumstantial factors alone. It is true that the form & extent of architecture depends on factors like resources & technology, but architecture can not happen unless somebody is willing to pay for it, and thus right from the beginning of the human civilisation architecture has always depended on the vision of its patrons.

And we need not go back to the construction of pyramids to prove this. Take the case of Bauhaus. It was founded in 1919 by Walter Gropius with the idea of synthesising all creative arts including architecture. The idea was to create art which could be mass-produced, to bring it within reach of the common man. It celebrated this emanicipation of mankind, made possible by the mass production of the industrial age. It tried to steer away from the neo-classical art forms and tried to create a new vocabulary of aesthetics. To the uninitiated the Bauhaus buildings now look as simple rectangular blocks, but they herald a revolution in architecture.

At about the same time, thousands of miles away, in Russia, a similar revolution in architecture was happening. The architects of post-revolution Russian state wanted to break away from the tradition of Tsarist past with its feudal connotations. Tsarist architecture of Russia borrowed heavily from the european renaissance, trying to match its grandeur, scale, use of rich materials and craftsmanship, signifying architecture for the king in which the common man had no place.

Thus 'Constructivism' movement owes its origin to the idea, that in the post revolutionary Russia, architecture was meant to be for the common people, and was picturised as a simple straightforward & honest in its expression. The idea thus was to portray the form defined only by the construction technology, without any embellishment, and use of the modern materials & technology like concrete, steel & glass in place of the classical stone walls & the ornamentation. It is worthwhile to remember here that the final outcome of architectural form is heavily dependant on the materials & method of construction. Once you replace the stone wall with a steel frame and glass, you end up with a form that has no connection with the historical precedents. (It is true that this is a matter of choice, as you may as well copy the classical features in a new materials, but that would go against the principle of honesty).

Looking back after about 100 years now, we can see that modern architecture has acquired many of its attributes from these movements, but political leaders in both the countries thought this kind of architecture unacceptable (to put it mildly) and put a stop to it. Both the movements died because the patrons rejected the idea.

Hitler had come to power in Germany, riding on the wave of German nationalism, and he & his henchmen found nothing that belonged to Germany in Bauhaus. The architeture of Bauhaus was devoid of any symbolism that connected it to the German spirit as seen by Hitler and his dream of the Third reich. Bauhaus architecture was branded as a communist plot to demean the cultural tradition of Germany, and the school had to close down.

When Hitler made plans to rebuild Germany, he brought in Albert Speer, who designed buildings in the neo-classical tradition of renaissance. Chauvanism had won the day.

On this background it would seem strange that constructivism would be disliked in Russia. After all, Russian revolution stood against the Tsarist tradition & values. But here too, when Stalin came to power, a renovation of the Russian tradition was sought. Dictators all over the world relish the pomp & ceremony and the renaissance palaces with their large plazas & towering structures with ornmentation appealed more to Stalin than the simplistic constructivist architecturre, which was viewed as a fascist plot to subvert the communist revolution & its ideals.

Which proves that all dictators think alike, whatever the colour of their politics. Architecture emerges as the collective will of the people but this is determined by those actually weilding the power on behalf of the people. To people in general & to the so called representatives of the people (who are the de-facto dictators of today) it is the symbolism that decides the issue, not the functional aspects which is an unfortunate but true state of affairs in public architecture of today.

Freedom of expression

In conservation studies, I came across the criticism that the present day architecture in Historic cities of India, does not respect the historical context. The idea seems to be that the historic setting is sacred, and whatever architecture that follows should be in confirmity with what has already happened.

This may seem a bit too tall an order-

Birth of a style

How do we explain a style in architecture? As a student, I was asked to refer to the History of Architecture by Sir Banister Fletcher. I remember the first glimpse of the great treatise -the tome even in its early editions looked formidable, and (as I later found out) it is indeed a great book of reference for history.

The history as presented in the book is quite systematic-every chapter begins with an introduction to the style, its architectural character, religious & political background, influences of climate and culture, resources available & so on.

All this, however, does not explain the nature of architecture that actually emerged. Take for example, the pointed arch. This arch form was known for quite some time, even during the Romanesque period, but most of the churches in this period did use only the semi-circular arch. Why then, we do not see any Romanesque building with pointed arches?

There is more to the matter than the explanation regarding climate, resources and the development of technology at that time would provide. These factors do exist in giving the final shape to any architecture, but the actual design is a conscious matter of choice. All architecture is deliberate.

Take the matter of technology first. The Romans had perfected the barrel vault but it was a bulky affair, and in a span of a thousand years somebody was bound to come up with the idea of ribs & panels, which was a great technological innovation. But it does speak a lot of the intellectual capacity of the one who thought about it- this is not something that the Church could order. The nature of innovation also suggests that it was a freemason who would put his efforts and simplyfy the construction - the architectural character of the building does not change, whether you have a cross barrel vault or a rib & panel construction.

The second aspect of the matter is the development of geometry. All the construction in middle ages was (using the current nomenclature) pre-fabricated. Each & every stone to be used in construction had to be dressed on the ground and then placed in position. This meant, that you must be able to do complete shop drawings, using the knowledge of geometry that you had, and then only you would be able to do the job right. No wonder the free masons were considered as exalted professionals-with knowledge of both geometry & construction.

The complexity of the Romanesque construction, even with the simple semi-circular arch is astonishing. The problem of the higher diagonal rib was solved by various guilds in their own ways, and provided a regional distinction. This would mean that after a certain detail was improvised & mastered-the entire region would follow the practice.

There is also the matter of the plan of the Church proper. Converting the plan to a latin cross was not a functional issue-it was more a symbolic gesture. That in fact would explain why there are many examples of later period where the plan is not a cross. So also is the issue of cardinal directions. It can be shown that symbolism of this kind has been tramnsferred across religion.

The matter of style thus is a complex affair-more about this in the next blog