Contemporary Interpretations / Recycling of Mediterranean Architecture
Introduction
The purpose of this article is to show how sensitivity and taste, ideology and myths, the political climate and professional challenges led groups of architects at different times during the past 2 centuries (19th and 20th) to re-interpret and update (some) historical architecture in countries bordering the Mediterranean.
We begin with the assumption that there are three moments – three historic periods – which characterize this relationship between Mediterranean heritage and the disciplined world of architecture, and that in each of these three moments there are different, even contradictory conceptions of the content, forms and management of this heritage.
With regard to the doctrines of architecture, the main and recurrent issue is to formulate the real content of the relationship between modernity and tradition. But the economic and strategic, political and philosophical aspects specific to each period will complicate the terms of this relationship, while also helping it to evolve.
The periods are as follows:
- The first extends from the mid-eighteenth century to the First World War: neoclassicism – in other words a reinterpretation of the Greco-Roman heritage – confronts Orientalism.
- The second covers the period between the two world wars. Around the concept of “Mediterranean-ness”, nationalist and reductive interpretations of the Mediterranean idea in architecture (“Latin-ness” in Italy “Greek-ness” in Catalonia) are set against a more universal vision. The latter, focused on a humanist vision of the “marriage” of East and West, was championed by a group of architects of the Modern Movement – though not without certain ambiguities.
- The third extends from the 1950's to today, and is characterized by a revival of the theme of identity in its local dimension, rather than across a whole region. During this period universal and internationalist thought continued and was now set against sensitive approaches and specific cultural traditions in building methods. With these what we could call “Mediterranean-ness” seemed to disappear in favour of specific places, more geographically and culturally circumscribed.
Finally let us note there are national, and thus different, visions of this issue – they involve the split between north and south, and between East and West. In the following text it will be difficult to escape a certain ethnocentrism, more or less situated on the north and western banks of the Mediterranean.
Introduction
Neoclassicism versus Orientalism
Greek, Roman and Latin versus M...
Adapting modern architecture ve...
Elements of bibliography
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to show how sensitivity and taste, ideology and myths, the political climate and professional challenges led groups of architects at different times during the past 2 centuries (19th and 20th) to re-interpret and update (some) historical architecture in countries bordering the Mediterranean. We begin with the assumption that there are three moments – three historic periods – which characterize this relationship between Mediterranean heritage and the disciplined world of architecture, and that in each of these three moments there are different, even contradictory conceptions of the content, forms and management of this heritage. With regard to the doctrines of architecture, the main and recurrent issue is to formulate the real content of the relationship ...
Author
Bonillo Jean-Lucien
Architect and historian, Professor at ENSA Marseille.