Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
andtheTeam10architectswasevidentinthework
oftheSmithsons,aswellasothermembersofTeam
10fromFrance,ItalyandtheNetherlands,whosedesigns
werelargelybasedonstatecommissions.However,
alreadybythelate1960sandearly1970stheSmithsons
viewedtheinitialprojectofthepostwaryearsasmorally
pervertedandtheywouldspeakmostdisdainfullyofthe
“laborunionsociety”anditsall-pervasivematerialism.33
Disillusioned,theyopposedthecollectivesubjectivity
thattheyfeltthewelfare-statesystemhadproduced;
instead,theypreferredasocietycomposedofindividuals
withasenseofobligation,responsibility,creativityand
“reasonedchoice.”
RealExistingModernismandItsRevisions
Thesequalitiesratherexactlycoincidedwithwhat
OskarHansenhadinmindwhenimaginingthesocialist
societyforwhichheproposedtheLinearContinuous
System.IfforAldovanEyckthecrisisofmodernist
urbanismstemmedfromthe“failuretogovern
multiplicitycreatively,”34HansenarguedthattheLinear
ContinuousSystemrespondedtothiscrisisbyproposing
amodelofgovernanceforsocialistPolandthatoffered
maximalfreedomandchoiceforeveryindividual,and
allowedthemtobemobilizedwithinthecollective.
InHansen’swords,“theclassless,egalitarian,andnon-
hierarchicalcharacterofthehousingformforsociety
intheLinearContinuousSystem[…]shouldmakeitclear
howeveryoneisdependentonthecollectiveandthe
collectiveisdependentontheindividual.”35
ForHansen,thenewsocioeconomicregulation
ofsocialistPoland—acentrallyplannedeconomyaswell
asasocializedlandmarketandconstructionindustry—
wasthenecessarypreconditionforimplementingthe
LinearContinuousSystem.Thesocialiststatewasnot
onlyanindispensableagentfortheexecutionofHansen’s
project,itwasalsotheobjectofthatproject.Inother
words,Hansen’sarchitecturewasnotsimplyinstrumental
inthemodernizationprocessesasdeterminedbythe
