Vernakulær arkitektur

Architecture without architects, Bernard Rudolfsky, 1964


”Architecture without architects” was originally an exhibition shown at the Museum of Modern art (MoMA) in 1965. Both the exhibition, and the book were prepared and designed by Bernard Rudolfsky. The book is devided into two sections; the preface, and some examples, photos, from the exhibition. This is the summary of the preface.

Vernacular architecture is often partly left out of architectural history written and taught in the western world, a few select cultures are represented, and mostly only the latest phases of the evolution of architecture is included. Considering who write history, and which buildings were seen as valuable enough to preserve, architectureal history often present buildings by and for the priveliged, the houses of gods, of kings and princes, and we rarely find a few words about the houses of the lesser people. This book tries to introduce a new term to the architectural history, what he calls;

” vernacular, anonymous, sponaneous, indegeneous, and rural architecture”.

Whereas the palaces, temples and churches may teach us much about how the wealthy lived their lives, and in some examples, how the slaves served them, the tales of the “normal people” are left out. However, these tales can teach us alot, not only about how people lived, but also about architecture. This architecture, often represented by dwellings, is not the work of a few selected intellectuals or specialists, but the continuing activity of a whole people with a common heritage, acting under a community of experience. This architecture therefore goes through a slow evolution of improvement considering the needs of the users, and adaptment to the surroundings.

It is unfortunately hard to get the whole picture of vernacular arcitecture, as some examples are very temporary either due to its function, or to the materials used. There is therefore a shortage of documentations through history. Archeologists consider themselves lucky if the stumble upon the vestiges of a 5000 years old town, while we can assume that shelters have been built since the dawn of man.

The question of what “architecture” is, and if we can set the exact time when architecture started is also relevant. The author draws a paralelle between early humans and the animals we lived next to. It is likely that these animals were as sophisticated, if not even more, as the humans when it came to “architecture”. we were probably inspired by some of these animals, for instance the beavers;

”It is unlikely that beavers got the idea of building dams by watching human dam-builders at work. It is probably the other way.”

The author also implies that it is most likely that man was first inspired to build shelters by the anthropomorphous apes. The paralelle between an orang who covers itself at night with a large leaf, and the suburban man falling a sleep on the freshly mowed lawn, pulling a newspaper over his head, is drawn, and by this opening a question as to where the differences between architecture and instincts are, and when architecture actually started.

A form of architecture was created long before we walked the earth; natural formations in form of caves. Cave paintings show that these very likely were used as shelters tens of thousands of years ago. We use caves even today to secure our most precios artifacts; government and business files. This example is presented to help us free ourselves from what we see as architecture.

There is much to learn from architecture before architect was a title. We can see beutiful examples of buildings playing the same game as the landscape and its natural surroundings. While we today may prefer flat featureless land for our buildings (as it is cost-efficient?), we can see that some vernacular architecture actually seek the rough terrain. A prime example is of course Machu Picchu. They of course had their reasons, for instance security. The city walls surrounding cities in the old world provided a form of defence, but also prevented the undisired expansion we today know as urban sprawl. The author suggest much is to blame on todays architects; while people may see them as specialists with insight into the aspects of living, most architects are in fact more interested in problems of business and prestige. The author suggest we learn more from the humaneness of vernacular architecture;

“For instance, it simply never occurs to us to make streets into oases rather than deserts”

While we today design streets and parking lots for cars, we find prime examples of how the human scale is considered in the orient, where pergole and awnings spread across the streets makes them more fit for humans.

Other examples of this vernacular architecture are huge wind screens or dwellings hollowed out of a rock. Also nomadic architecture, such as portable houses, houses on wheels or tents falls into this category. Some examples this primitive architecture we can see as “new technology” today, for example prefabrication, standardization of building components, flexible and movable structures, (some japanese vernacular architecture has been using these principles for centuries). We can even see examples of floor-heating, air-conditioning, light control, and even elevators. As we today envision subterranian towns for protection against the dangers of future warfarw, we can see examples of such underground towns even today, in several continents.

Still, today, we find this vernacular architecture some how facinating. Why?

“There is a good deal of irony in the fact that to stave off physical and mental deterioration the urban dweller periodically escapes his splendidly appointed lair to seek bliss in what he thinks are primitive surroundings, a cabin, a tent (...). Dispite his mania for mechanical comfort, his chances for finding relaxation hinge on its very absence.”

These native builders did not only understand the need for confining the growth of a community, but they also understood the limits of architecture itself. The general welfare was always prioritized before the pursuit of profit and progress, and in this respect they shared their beliefs with professional philosophers. Huizinga says:

“the expectation that every new discovery or refinement of existing means must contain the promise of higher values or greater happiness is an extremely native thought... It is not in the least paradoxical to say that a culture may founder on real and tangible progress”.

fredrik, helsinki