Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
Theseintersectionscouldhavetakenmanyforms,
asStanekshowsinhisstudyofhowHansen’sprojects
wereperceivedbytheregimeinPoland:from
“productive”criticismintroducingcorrectionstothe
coursetaken,throughto“reformism”thatdidnotfully
graspthepossibilitiesofchangeprovidedbysocialist
states;irresponsible“utopianism”thatmighthaveled
tostateresourcesbeingsquandered;stubborn
“dogmatism”thatmisunderstoodthelogicofthe
historicalmoment;dangerous“revisionism”undermining
thefundamentalsoftheParty;orpolitical“dissidence”
thatsometimestooktheformofanoveridentification
withtheregimeinordertotakethePartyatitsword.
Interactionwiththeregimesrequiredaconstant
adaptationofstrategies,andinordertonegotiate
betweenthesevariousmodesoftransgression,Hansen
adoptedanumberofpositions,includingthat
ofanexperimenter,educator,polemicistandartist.
Sometimes,architectswereabletoplaywith
controversiesbetweenvarioussectionsoftheCommunist
Party,andinthiswaypresenttheirownprojects
as“consensus“:thisishowÁkosMoravánszkydiscusses
thesuccessofCharlesPolónyi’splanningoftheBalaton
area.Polónyi,HansenandSołtanchallengedtheposition
ofarchitectswithinthedivisionoflaborintheirrespective
countries,andthiswasreflectedintheirideasaboutthe
organizationofCIAMandTeam10,asCorneliaEscher
shows.AsMrduljaš,BjažićKlarinandJelicaJovanović
argue,oneavenueforsuchareappraisalofarchitectural
laborwastodefineresearchasacorecompetence
ofarchitects,andaneutralfieldwithregardtothe
politicaldivisionsinsocialiststates.Such“neutrality”
wouldhavebeenattractiveinparticulartoarchitects
who,likePolónyiandHansen,werenevercard-holding
partymembers.ButneutralityintheColdWarneeded
tobeexpressedactively,sinceimpartialnonengagement
wasinsufficient,asEeva-LiisaPelkonencontendsinher
comparisonofarchitecturalcultureinFinlandandPoland
duringthe1960s.
