Asumiendo esta realidad y aceptando la profunda dife- rencia de este contexto europeo con los territorios tran- satlánticos, vale la pena plantearse algunas preguntas. ¿Es posible exigirle a los pioneros modernos de una arquitectura como la uruguaya un discurso de base utópica y una larga lista de manifiestos radicales como manera de legitimar su modernidad, aun cuando los cambios sociales se anticipen e institucionalicen legalmente mediante acuerdos y normas consensuadas entre todos los partidos políticos de un país?, ¿por qué sería necesario el panfleto con nuevas verdades instauradoras en la arquitectura uruguaya cuando en el país predominaba una clase media emergente, dispuesta a consumir modernidad en aspectos tan variados como la construcción de sus propias casas, sus edificios públicos, así como también adaptar los más importantes espacios de la ciudad a nuevas demandas funcionales y simbólicas? Estas son preguntas fundamentales que permitirán entender por qué la modernidad en el Uruguay ha sido un fenómeno paralelo o contemporáneo -pero no afectado o subordinado en términos culturales- a la experiencia europea. Al mismo tiempo permitirá explicar las diferencias de mensajes, de preocupaciones y hasta de “temperatura” establecidas con la modernidad del viejo continente. Analicemos los distintos vectores que marcan muchos discursos historiográficos, activando una comprensión incompleta –cuando no errada- de nuestra modernidad, entendida casi siempre como un fenómeno cultural de tipo periférico 2 . Se trata de vectores que deben ser desactivados para una mejor interpretación de los procesos históricos de la arquitectura y, muy especialmente, de la arquitectura moderna uruguaya en tanto fenómeno de singular impronta social y cultural.
and Amsterdam-, it is possible to distinguish true parts of the city defined under a modern predominance. Modernity could not emerge strongly enough in the rest of the urban fabric, by the mere impulse of the taste or cultural trend of its citizens. Definitely, the society of the old continent was quite resistant to change, although canonical history has referred little to this, in order to better explain the artistic radicalism of the avant-garde, as well as its failures in the first half of the twentieth century. The fundamental reason for the discursive extremism of an important part of the modern movement -with so many manifestos from the left and the right- must be sought in a visceral backlash, which was truly installed in Old World society. This is the struggle against a cultural and mental corset that involves the great majority of Europeans, even when the revolutionary euphoria of the avant-gardes seems to prevail -by history´s action - as a true temporal charac- terizer or supposed zeitgeist. Assuming this reality and accepting the profound dif- ference of this European context with the transatlantic territories, it is worth asking some questions. Is it possible to demand from the modern pioneers in architecture like the Uruguayan one, a discourse with a utopian base and a long list of radical manifestos as a way to legitimize their modernity, even when social changes are anticipated and legally institutionalized through agreements and norms agreed upon by all the political parties of a country? Why would it be necessary to produce a pamphlet with new truths that would establish Uruguayan architecture when the country was dominated by an emerging middle class, ready to consume modernity in aspects as varied as the construction of their own houses, their public buildings, as well as adapting the most important spaces of the city to new functional and symbolic demands? These are fun- damental questions that will allow us to understand why modernity in Uruguay has been a parallel or contemporary phenomenon -but not affected or subordinated in cultural terms- to the European experience. At the same time, it will allow us to explain the differences in messages, concerns, and even "temperature" established with the modernity of the old continent. Let us analyze the different vectors that mark many his- torical discourses, activating an incomplete understanding -when not mistaken- of our modernity, understood almost always as a cultural phenomenon of peripheral type 2 . These are vectors that must be deactivated for a better interpre- tation of the historical processes of architecture and, espe- cially, of modern Uruguayan architecture as a phenomenon with a singular social and cultural imprint. Is it possible to demand from the modern pioneers in architecture like the Uruguayan one, a discourse with a utopian base and a long list of radical manifestos as a way to legitimize their modernity, even when social changes are anticipated and legally institutionalized through agreements and norms agreed upon by all the political parties of a country?
↧ Hospital de Clínicas, de la Universidad de la República. Arquitecto: Carlos Surraco. Año: 1930. Clinic Hospital of the University of the Republic. Architect: Carlos Surraco. Year: 1930.
2 Sarlo, B. Una modernidad periférica. Buenos Aires 1920-1930. Buenos Aires. 1988.
2 Sarlo, B. A peripheral modernity. Buenos Aires 1920-1930. Buenos Aires. 1988.
↦ 9
Movimiento Moderno / Modern Movement
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker