Wyniki wyszukiwania - BazTech

Ograniczanie wyników

2 Kwartalnik Architektury i Urbanistyki

2 Dybczyńska-Bułyszko A.

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

Dynamika – sposób postrzegania geometrii

Dybczyńska-Bułyszko A.

Kwartalnik Architektury i Urbanistyki

2016

T. 61, z. 2

35--52

Architektura modernistyczna w ślad za rozwojem sztuki (malarstwo) wprowadziła dynamikę do kompozycji przestrzennej: neoplastycyzm oparty na rytmie jednostajnym i kompozycji otwartej; funkcjonalizm oparty na komunikacji, czyli sposobie w jaki poruszając się postrzegamy geometrię przestrzeni. W latach 30. XX w. model percepcji przestrzeni zgodny z zasadami fizjologii (rytm jednostajny) zastąpił model percepcji zgodny z zasadami psychologii (teoria bodźców) i bazujący na tworzeniu subiektywnej narracji psychologicznej. Subiektywne wrażenie, niedookreślone, aby umożliwić zróżnicowaną interpretację stworzyło nowy kanon podstawowych elementów kompozycji architektonicznej (Norberg-Schulz): centrum, kierunek, obszar - tym charakterystycznych, że nie definiują granicy formy. Wieloznaczność, czyli swoboda interpretacji przestrzeni dopuszcza (jako opcję zaproponowaną, a nie narzuconą przez architekta) przekaz wartości. Przykładem jest pawilon na światową wystawę w Paryżu w 1937 roku projektu Romualda Gutta, gdzie narracja psychologiczna mimo „formy otwartej” kulminuje się w geometrii konkretnej - czaszy muszli koncertowej. To przekaz architekta, który w 1936 roku uznał, że największą wartością ówczesnej Polski na forum światowym jest jej wartość kulturowa – tu symbolicznie reprezentowana przez koncerty muzyki Chopina.

In the wake of the developing art (paintings) modernist architecture introduced dynamics into spatial composition. Neoplasticism based it on regular rhythm and open composition, while functionalism based it on movement – the way we perceive geometry while moving through space. In the 1930s the spatial perception model in accordance with physiology principles (regular rhythm) was replaced by the perception model in accordance with the principles of psychology (theory of incentives) and relied on the creation of a subjective psychological narrative. The subjective impression, kept vague on purpose, enabled diverse interpretation and created a new canon of the basic elements of architectural composition (Norberg-Schulz): the center, the direction, an area - characteristic because they did not define borders of the form. Ambiguity or freedom of interpretation of the space allows (as an option proposed rather than imposed by the architect) for a transfer of values. The pavilion at the world exhibition in Paris in 1937 with the design by Romuald Gutt can be viewed as an example where the psychological narrative despite the “open form” culminates in definite geometry - the acoustical shell’s dome. It serves as a message from the architect, who in 1936 had decided that the greatest value of Poland in those times, at the international exhibition, was its cultural value - represented symbolically by concerts with Chopin’s music.

Pawilon Polski na światowej wystawie w Paryżu 1937 r.

Dybczyńska-Bułyszko A.

Kwartalnik Architektury i Urbanistyki

2005

T. 50, z. 3-4

143-162

The first world exhibition in London (1851), being a strictly commercial project, introducing the principles of free trade, took the form of a purely engineering construction of the "Crystal Palace" by J. Paxton. The change of form, to detached national pavilions, proposed at the "Decorative Art'' World Exhibition in Paris (1925), resulted in a wider perception of the goals of great exhibitions by the message of national ideas, at that time reflected mainly by architectural form. The subsequent decade turned out to be crucial for the development of exhibition architecture, from urban solutions, via looking for spatial and formal relationships appropriate to the function of temporary exhibitions, to experiments with new means of expression. The General National Exhibition in Poznań opened in 1929, is a perfectly documented example of such a phenomena on the territory of the Second Republic of Poland. The significance of the contemporary relationship of the exhibition to the city was questioned by modern ideas brought by the French "Expo '37" contest, such as the proposition of a division into simultaneously operating parts situated in lager French cities. The organisers, counting on a repeat of the success of 1925, did not take these ideas into consideration. The last of the great exhibitions, gathering the elite, taking place in the centre of a European capital - the World Exhibition in Paris - was organised in 1937 with the slogan "Art and technique" in the traditional form of national pavilions. Poland, as one of the first countries, confirmed its participation. In 1936, a closed competition for the conceptual project of a pavilion resulted in the creation of solutions including: R. Gutt - an open garden composition referring to a park allotment and B. Lachet in the form of a structure embedded in the ground. The court entrusted the performance to B. Pniewski and St. Brukalski, whose pavilions with geometric forms and symbolic accents better met the expectations. In the chaos of forms, scales and stylistic concepts presented at the exhibition in Paris, the group of pavilions with typical exhibition feature, represented by the pavilions of Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Finland and the "Pavillon des Tempes Nouveau" (Designed by Le Corbusier) stands out. The Polish pavilion adopted the form of a "garden interior", including two contrasting cubages: an honorary rotunda with monumental architecture features (designed by St. Brukalski and B. Pniewski) and the exposition pavilion itself (designed by St. Brukalski, B. Pniewski, B. Lachert and J. Szanajca) referring to forms of avant-garde architecture. The Polish pavilion was appraised very well by both Polish and foreign artists, mainly for the original concept, professional quality, culture, and refined exhibited interiors. This was confirmed by the highest prize of A. Perret, the Exhibition Commissioner. In the meantime, Polish non-architectural circles strongly criticised it for lacking the dominant features of a superpower. As a matter of fact, the structure's authors did not make an unequivocal decision, and the solution's ambivalence must have attracted attention amongst the uniform blocks of other pavilions, in particular those of Germany and Russia. From today's perspective, the Polish pavilion of 1937 is interesting evidence of the level of our interwar architecture, its autonomy, innovation and also the dynamic development of though and cooperation skills formed in the pluralistic society of the Second Republic of Poland.