133 R Research since the late 1990s into early architectural modernism has employed a bevy of oxymorons – new tradition, anti-modern modernism, moderate, conservative or traditionalist modernism, or even reform architecture – to describe architectural phenomena which, on the one hand, explicitly referenced historical precedents, while, on the other hand, were regarded as progressive.1 Essentially, three phases are distinguished: the decade before the First World War; the interwar period; and the period after 1945. In all pertinent studies in this field of interest, the question of the relationship between indicators of traditionalism and indicators of the avant-garde is a recurrent leitmotif, whereby – from a developmental-history perspective – an increasing separation of the two positions is identified, a separation that manifested itself from the 1920s onwards in the emergence of two hostile camps.2 This particular pattern of interpretation has often determined how architecture after 1900 – the focus of this paper – is represented. Talking about ambivalences and experiences of contingency in modernity has long been part of the common repertoire. But while this is convincing with regard to macrosocial phenomena – particularly if modernity is viewed as a macro-epoch – the approach seems to me to be somewhat misguided with regard to architecture. In my view, recourse to the past was actually the driving force par excellence of architectural reform and not a reactionary moment within a movement that was geared towards progress. It was precisely through explicit recourse, through historical sources of inspiration, that this movement defined its aspirations and its expectations. According to contemporary theorists and practitioners of architecture, progress could only be conceptualised and achieved by picking up on a historically endorsed aesthetic. It was through adaptation and actualisation of this aesthetic that an appropriate design for the present would be found. At the beginning of the 20th century, German architect and author Paul Schultze-Naumburg, in his series of volumes Kulturarbeiten (Works of Culture), argued resolutely against imitation in house building, calling instead for “continuation and adaptation, precisely as has been the custom throughout the centu2 u San Miniato al Monte in Florenz. Fassade, spätes 11. bis 12. Jahrhundert. u San Miniato al Monte in Florenz. Façade, late 11th to 12th century. 3 u Peter Behrens: Krematorium in Hagen, 1906/07. u Peter Behrens: Crematorium in Hagen, 1906/07.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTMyNjA1