Separation of artist’s art and his story
Is it possible to separate the artistic value of an architecture work from its author’s prestige to survive over time? Many of them have perished themselves by condemning for the crimes of their creator and not supporting the burden of memories when they are underlined by public opinion and disinterest to know in depth artistic production rather than its author.
A work was born as a reflection of the events and needs of its time, as happened with modern buildings built in periods of world conflicts, the end of the 19th century in the mid -twentieth century in Europe, by architects such as P. Troost, a. Speer, j. Neidhardt and s. Radević, among others. The life of some of his projects was short because of being labeled by the political ideals of which they were participants and whose memories are the only thing that exists.
This essay proposes to demonstrate that the discredit that can accompany an architect should not stain the architectural works that he has cemented, that the ideological life and position is not a determinant of the banishment and death of the built architecture;based on theoretical principles on form, content, artistic value and art autonomy.
Architecture being a useful art to society concerns it, from Kant’s perspective, a corresponding and co -responsible ethic (Gutierrez, 2013). However, it is difficult. Compatibilization between these two facts is a problem to be solved, since political action promotes the artistic creation of our time.
Kant talks about separate judgments corresponding to truth, goodness and beauty and that the human being will be in charge of identifying them, since it is the individual who will see them as truths, will value their benefits and enjoy their beauty. In his criticism of the trial, he presents the difference between the beautiful, what is natural and vital for life, and the sublime, the aspiration to the absolute, with what he advocates by the autonomy of art by breaking with the chains that tied himTo life, an art that should not necessarily be useful to be (Calduch, 2014). Therefore, the architectural work must serve other purposes outside of herself to survive beyond the time in which it was conceived, promote in itself an act that makes it transcend as a plausible rite in the life of those who live. This is stated by Gutierrez (2013, P.235):
“… Literature implies writing, but it is, ultimately, reading;Music implies sound, but it is, after all, listen;The painting implies color, but it ends up being a vision, and architecture certainly implies construction, but it consists of a room. In all cases, art is based on works, but lives in the communication they establish;It is a fact, but a fact that says and that is worth, not because of what its author meant, but for what the work, by itself and apart from its author, he says in fact … ”
It is a fact that emotion will always be before any logical reasoning, from there, that, in a work of art, the judgments of taste, aesthetic and ethical differ. The first can be shared, the second is only interested in form and the other. While the aesthetic judgment is just for the work, allowing him to be freely judged, the ethical judgment will be unfair to the author, conditioning his appropriation.
On the other hand, in the work art and its ways, the article on the definitions of the architecture of María Frías (2004, p.72), states that the claim of autonomy in architecture is used to justify the bubble on which the work is done, avoid external influences, reduce it to its essence, whether formal, spatial, compositional, functional or constructive. According to Zevi (1981), architecture is born from the void, from the space delimited by the activity of living and developing from being, defines it as that which bases its principles on the interior space and whose only architectural values are the form, rational architecture, andThe content, organic architecture, distinctive of modern architecture.
Rivera (2017, P.8), in the other modern architecture, expresses:
“… Few things are white or black;Most of the reality is presented in gray nuances, and a good part of our richest and gratifying architectural history is precisely the most gray … ”
When analyzing the third Reich regime, it is observed that architectural works were carried out that corresponded to a monumental architecture with a classic style such as the Haus der Deutschen Kunst (House of German Art), Reichsparteitagsgelände (party congress field) and Neue Reichskanzlei (NewReich Foreign Ministry). Little studied works in depth, in part, by the moralistic artistic thinking that condemned them or forgotten or their destruction, as he did in his time, the mid -nineteenth century, the art critic J. Ruskin. However, such buildings did not differ from several classic synchronous examples in other political states and still did not survive for the political nature that conceived them.
As Rivera (2017) mentions, denying the spirit of the time in the architecture of the third Reich reveals an ignorance of the circumstances that promoted it and, especially, an erroneous interpretation of the works. Therefore, the architectural work is aimed at satisfying a need presented by a client, which once built, will be subject to ethical and aesthetic judgments. However, its consideration as an art will be detached from its utilitarian and adhered function, in part, to what it represents in search of enjoyment and disinterested enjoyment of its users. It is necessary and important to cultivate the interest to observe the architecture with criteria outside the controversy of the masses and be aware of the autonomy that art has before its author.
Leave feedback