Detail 01/1961 - J.J.P. OUD [Diskussion]
From the historically necessary turn away from the empty jewellery detail of older species growth, the reflection on the "Normal" detail. But this, as it is shown everywhere today, cannot be the last goal ever. Rather, it is true to cope in a new way with the older and newer requirements and possibilities through personal efforts in such a way that the often usual solidification is overcome.
It seems that detail in architecture is far less important today than it used to be. The architecture of our time is primarily shown in large lines: clear and simple, without anything else. In the architecture of older epochs, on the other hand, in addition to the main form, the detail soon imposes the impression. But you are not mistaken: perhaps the detail is all the more important in the present, precisely because it is no longer - in a sense - a side issue, but also the main thing itself. In older buildings, you can often separate between the whole and the detail; today this is completely impossible.
The longer I build, the more it turns out to me that the form of today's building is not only determined by a general "attitude" towards the task, but that the detail now essentially determines the architecture itself. In the present, the special thing about "organic" construction, as we like to call it, is that not the least has to do with construction only as a "free piece" as it were merely without obligation. Rather, every - plastic, space, construction, enrichment of every kind - has a share in the large total organism.
Therefore, it is e.g. B. also not of great importance, whether you build with or without ornament (then and when a profound dispute). After all, the ornament from the general attitude of our time to the basic questions of architecture has a completely different meaning than in earlier days. It is - quite understood and solved - no longer harmonised jewellery, but an integrating organ that is fully pulsating in the blood, e.g. B. the feather splendour of a peacock, from which you can't say where it begins and ends.
Nevertheless: I don't intend to talk about ornament here. The fear for the ornament is still too great in building today, and it may also be more useful that we still refrain from it for the time being in the general interest. We probably need to realise the "normal" detail thoroughly enough first before we delve into the difficulties of the "Uber detail", the ornament. - Nevertheless, this problem cannot be avoided for long, in connection with the detail work as a whole. I just need to remind you of numerous much-suffered buildings of American, consequence invoking in the functional architects, to make it clear that the questions of this context are not as untimely as it seems and to show how even in this so deeply transformed world the love of ornament gradually begins to tickle the body of objectivity, e.g B. also only veiled in the ornamentation of window arrangements and the like.
But back to the more limited and for the time being more urgent topic: the "necessary" detail. It is difficult to generally determine how to deal with it. Should one try to lead it into a personal sphere, or should one remain impersonal and be determined mainly by the relevant industrial production of details?
I think that in the future you will have to deal with the detail more personally than is usually the case at the moment. I have been disgusted by the boredom of impersonal construction for years. Once we longed for impersonal construction when pointless jewellery of the previous time had disgusted us. But now, the emptiness of many modern buildings is by no means enough gain in striving for me, with which I have looked forward to a better future.
First of all, the question arises as to whether it is and can become possible at all to be personal in our simple building. I mean yes, and that's when we try to penetrate everything that happens in a building at all, with our own personality - with our own spirit or with our own soul, as you want. Just as a good conductor knows how to transfer his personality to all the details of the orchestra and subtleties of the score, we must be just as strong and convincing in the
Detail form the whole thing.
To achieve this, during the execution of the construction, one should talk to everyone who has to do with this construction, with designers and industrial suppliers, with craftsmen and fitters, etc., always guided by one's own basic conception. Try e.g. B. to familiarise yourself with the requirements and possibilities of the different materials and to really understand the techniques according to them. You go to the factories or workshops and get there TO Explain what must be and what can be. More and more, one will then be amazed at how many play possibilities still exist today or even today, despite the shackles of industrial and commercial Necessities. Although the basic character of today's architecture apparently lies in the great gesture (and I don't want to shake it!), I am just as sure that much more will depend on the contemporary mastery of the details. Perhaps the construction of the future will even depend on it, if not primarily, very importantly. If we have the power to develop the detail into a strong potency of general value, with the chances of playing subjective interpretations, then much would have been gained on the path ahead of us to a higher and also more interesting architecture than we usually find today.
J. J. P. Oud, Architect in Wassenaar/Holland
P.S.: translation from Deutsch to English through scan to text and auto-translation. The original is provided. I am not a german native, although I lived a few years and can understand some basic german, I leave this as it is. Will accept any help on the correction of the translation if provided. Thank you for your understanding.
