par Devos, Rika 
Référence Ed. Ph.D. thesis, Ghent: Faculteit Ingenieurswetenschappen
Publication Publié, 2008
Référence Ed. Ph.D. thesis, Ghent: Faculteit Ingenieurswetenschappen
Publication Publié, 2008
Ouvrage auteur unique
| Résumé : | Expo 58 was the first post-war international and universal world’s fair. The event was organised in Brussels, at the Heysel site, from April 17 to October 19 1958. The area covered 200 hectares, comprised some 200 building among which 145 pavilions built by participants. 43 nations were represented at this world’s fair, visited by over 41.5 million of fairgoers. “After the expo, everything was modern,” still is a lasting catchphrase in the popular history of Belgium. 80% of all Belgians visited the fair, 95% of which considered the exhibition a grandiose success. At Expo 58, the public at large became acquainted with modern architecture. Indeed, as contemporary critics unanimously observed: at Expo 58, everything was modern and this situation resulted in a rapprochement between modern architecture and the general public. Yet the modern architecture at the world’s fair was all but uniform. Its many faces reflected the then situation of an ever more splintering Modern Movement. Moreover, the festive clamour of the fair was determinant for the extraordinary condition of the exhibition, which posed a specific challenge to the then practices and theories in modern architecture.This study seeks to contribute to the historiography of modern architecture by assessing the edifices and visual language of Expo 58. The study focuses particularly on the way this post-war modern architecture was used to create an image of an affluent post-war nation or firm. It investigates how different actors in the design process of pavilions and exhibition environments take positions vis-à-vis the Modern Movement in order to inform the millions of fairgoers on their post-war successes. Yet these stances differ following the parties involved: the goals and motivations of the organizers do not necessarily coincide with those of the commissioners of pavilions, nor with those of the architects. Moreover, the built result was likely to be interpreted in different ways by the public at large or contemporary critics. From this point of view, the production of and communication through modern architecture at Expo 58 resulted in a fragmented, but broad debate on the contemporary status and position of modern architecture which was revelatory of an architectural culture which involved the professionals, but equally the establishment and the public at large. The aim of this study is threefold: (1) to document the entire built environment of the fair and its reception history; (2) to qualify and analyse the extraordinary situation of the exhibition and its effects on architecture and (3) to exemplify the contemporary tendencies in modern architecture manifest at the fair and the way this architecture was used and motivated at Expo 58.This dissertation comprises four parts, of which the middle two constitute the main body of the text: part II presents the facts and details of the edifices of the world’s fair and their contemporary reception. The last chapter develops a frame for the further analysis of the modern architecture at the fair. Part III implements this information and frame by focusing on the aims and context of the different actors in the process of conception and production of this modern architecture. These middle parts are introduced by a general sketch of the economic, political and social context in post-war Belgium. The main findings are summarized in a conclusive essay on the expression of national or company modernity through modern architecture at Expo 58. The text is completed by four addenda, bibliography and index of names.Chapter 1 focuses on the origins and background of Expo 58 in Belgium. The economic and political internal and external affairs relevant to the times and the motivation for organising the first post-war world’s fair in Belgium are mentioned. The period studied (1946-1958) was dominated by the effects of two conflicts: the aftermath of the Second World War and the emerging Cold War. Expo 58 might be interpreted as a proof of Belgium’s pioneering modernization in the European context. The materialization of these modernization processes is summarized as well. The chapter demonstrates how, in the optimist era after the period of reconstruction, large infrastructure works and the rise of new, large-scale buildings in the capital have put pressure on the Belgian building industries and contemporary discussions on modern architecture in Belgium.Chapter 2 is shaped as a visit to the exhibition site. The text comprises the entirety of the built environment of Expo 58, describes its large structural layout, the amenities, parks and streetscape together with, albeit briefly, the exteriors and interiors of the pavilions. The text is structured as a promenade – following the physical proximity of the buildings – lavishly illustrated and based on the information available to the visitors of the fairs. The panorama is preceded by a short overview of the results of a contemporary scientific opinion poll on the fair. Chapter 3 seeks to clarify the fair’s reception in the contemporary Belgian and foreign architectural press. This evaluation is preceded by a short sketch of the modest position of Expo 58 in the historiography of modern architecture in Belgium and abroad. A variety of themes is traced in the comments, as well as two constancies: (1) at Expo 58, all architecture was modern and (2) Expo 58 has fostered a rapprochement between modern architecture and the public at large.Chapter 4 introduces the hypothesis that modern architecture at Expo 58 is used as a mass medium to transmit the messages of the actors responsible for the production of the pavilions and of the overall imagery: the organizers of the fair, the commissioners of a single pavilion and the designers of the edifices: architects, engineers, interior decorators and so on. Based on Umberto Eco’s Semiotics of architecture, the chapter argues that these actors could assume three stances vis-à-vis the given modern context of Expo 58: they might express a consensual, reformist or subversive attitude – a diversification similar to the possible political stances in post-war modern architecture as was suggested by Sarah Williams-Goldhagen in Anxious Modernisms. The chapter engages in a closer investigation of the difficulties in using and interpreting modern architecture as a mass medium –shaped essentially according to the taste of the visiting masses.Chapter 5 presents the organizers of Expo 58, shows their organisation and looks for the personalities in charge of matters in architecture. The text clarifies how the organizers tried to control the promotion of the fair by the choice for a distinct, modern visual language, a reflection of their modern humanist theme: “Balance Sheet for a more Human World.” The chapter explores the ways the organizers of Expo 58 also controlled the modern image of the architecture of Expo 58 by participating in the promotion of the modernization works in the capital, through their buildings on the fair site and through their regulations and incentives for the architecture of the pavilions of the commissioners. The text is revelatory of the organizers’ half-hearted embrace of modern architecture. While modern architecture was forwarded as the establishment’s expression of post-war success, the declarations, plans and regulations of the organizers are also revelatory of their implicit, rather dismissive esteem of the interwar International Style.Chapter 6 focuses on seven pavilions in the Foreign Section, structured according to the three possible stances vis-à-vis the modern environment of the fair as suggested in Chapter 4. The selected pavilions – of West Germany, Finland, the USSR, the Vatican, the USA, Japan and Italy – illustrate the contemporary concepts on modern architecture in the international government’s circles involved with overseas propaganda. While modern architecture is coupled rather bluntly with the political situation in the home country, these pavilions prove to be highly sophisticated and mediated architectural fabrications telling of these nations’ esteem for modern architecture and, often implicitly, of the position of the pavilions’ architects in these debates. The architectural fabrications triggered reactions with the architectural press, the fairgoers, but also with the homeland public, whose vision on a fit representation abroad often differed from the official narratives at Expo 58. The analyses of the position of modern architecture in these pavilions – in both the building and the exhibition – reveal fragments of the official esteem for modern architecture, as well as indications of the diverse tendencies in contemporary modern architecture.Chapter 7 explores the motivations of a selection of architects and designers active in the Foreign Section, largely overlapping with the selection of Chapter 6: René Sarger (France and Marie Thumas), Le Corbusier and Xenakis (Philips), Jerzy Sołtan and his team (Poland), Reima Pietilä (Finland), Sverre Fehn (Norway), Egon Eiermann and Sep Ruf (West-Germany), Karl Schwanzer (Austria), James Gardner (UK), Bernard Rudofsky (USA), Kunio Maekawa (Japan) and Ernesto Rogers and his colleagues (Italy). Again, the possible stances vis-à-vis the modern fair context are used to structure the chapter. The chapter seeks to explore variables and constancies in the then splintering of the Modern Movement as was manifest at Expo 58. Motivated by the theme of Expo 58, which suggested a balancing of Technology and Humanism, the attitudes of these architects are measured through their involvement with engineering, popular culture or national traditions in building. The text traces the anxiety of the period: anxiety about the right choices in modern architecture, about the aptness of these choices and about the liberties of the modern designer in this process. Chapter 8 assembles the findings of the previous chapters in a conclusive essay. |
