The Rise of Popular Modernist Architecture in Brazil

4. Problematizing Popular Modernism

4 Problematizing Popular Modernism Among the many problems that arise as an outcome of the tumultuous relationship among modernity, modernization, and modernism is the dilemma regarding the very definition of architecture. Many critics search for internal coherence in the field by narrowing what comprises valuable architecture (Moneo 1978; Eisenman 1979; Jencks 1990). Others argue for broadening the definition of architecture to encompass if not the totality, then at least a larger portion of the built environment (Ackerman 1980; Kostof 1995; Habraken 2005). Both groups see architecture as a field in crisis, marked by the gradual diminishment of its role and importance in society (Crawford 1991; Ghirardo 1991, 1996). As Sola-Morales (1997, 3) reminds us, both crisis and critique share the same root that in Greek means “separation.” I will argue in this chapter that the difficulty of defining what constitutes architecture results from a widening gap between both high and low as well as central and peripheral architectural manifestations. The study of popular modernism finds itself at the core of this discussion and therefore provides a relevant topic for analyzing both phenomena. Popular modernism is a phenomenon that lies beyond the boundary of what is traditionally called architecture. Yet Dell Upton and John Vlach (1986), for instance, call our attention to the fact that the notion of architecture as denoting special buildings designed by architects is only five hundred years old. Since people have been building for tens of thousands of years, how can we reconcile the “architectures” built before and after the “architect”? N. J. Habraken in Palladio’s Children (2005) introduces the idea of the field to differentiate a few outstanding buildings from the 104 Chapter 4 low high modern traditional center periphery popular modernism Figure 4.1. A three-axis diagram showing popular modernism at the crossing of high/low, center/periphery, and modern/traditional relationships. Drawing by F. Lara. common structures that form our cities, arguing for a dialogue between the two. Three main axes of figure 4.1 help us define the boundaries of architecture . One runs horizontally (across world regions) and defines what is central and what is peripheral in the production and consumption of architectural ideas, trends, and movements. The other runs vertically through different layers that share the same space, defining what is erudite , or “high,” architecture and what is popular, or “low,” architecture. The third axis separates traditional and modern. The phenomenon of Brazilian popular modernism lies at the intersection of those axes, simultaneously dealing with distinctions between center and periphery, high and low, and modern and traditional. Furthermore, an analysis of Brazilian popular modernism adds complexities and contradictions (paraphrasing Venturi 1966) to the conflicting relationship between the work of architects and the other 90 percent (or so) of what we call the built environment. The movement from traditional to modern, center to periphery, and high to low has always been depicted as problematic. As Denise Scott 105 Problematizing Popular Modernism Brown said back in 1980, “Most architectural ideas seem to originate within a small, international clique of high-culture architects, who may themselves have found the ideas outside high culture, for example in industrial architecture. These ideas are then picked up and popularized by upper-middle taste culture architects, and they become, as Modern architecture is now [1980], accepted as a style of the establishment. The process of altering Modern architecture to make it acceptable to upper-middle and lower-middle taste publics is viewed by the architectural avant-garde as prettifying and selling out, a pyrrhic victory for Modern architecture” (Scott Brown 1980, 49). The resistance of architects to popular taste elucidates how architects see themselves: the star architect, as the ultimate arbiter of good culture, has the duty of preserving high culture from any popular contamination, except when filtered by his or her expert knowledge (Hill 1998). The same goes for the architectural “centers” of Paris, London, and New York, which dictate and at the same time preserve the ultimate development of avantgarde architecture, while other places are attached to the main historical lineage as punctuated regionalist manifestations. Between Center and Periphery To address issues of center versus periphery, I will begin by discussing Frampton’s (1992) famous proposal of critical regionalism in terms of the possible interactions between those two endpoints of the central-peripheral axis. I subdivide this set of interactions along two of the axes just described: the horizontal relations between different...