Culturas de Investigação em Arquitectura: Linhas de pensamento nos centros de investigação, 1945-1974

Abstract

A presente Tese visa problematizar a adopção da investigação na arquitectura, questionando os reflexos na profissão e no ensino. Para este efeito, debruça-se sobre o período que se seguiu à II Guerra Mundial, pautado pela relevância dada à investigação, nomeadamente entre a Inglaterra e os Estados Unidos da América, decorrente do aceleramento da pesquisa provocada pela guerra e pela urgência da reconstrução. Reflecte-se como este contexto potenciou uma cultura de investigação em arquitectura de suporte à prática profissional e teve a sua contraparte na criação de estruturas dedicadas à investigação, ligadas ou não a escolas de arquitectura, e cujas actividades se traduziram em diferentes estudos visando contribuir para um corpo de conhecimento. Considera-se este processo à luz da hipótese de que se verificaram diversas linhas de pensamento em formulação naquelas estruturas, permitindo identificar várias culturas de investigação em arquitectura, a demarcarem-se como sinal de uma pós-modernidade que se anunciava na prática arquitectónica e, desde logo, também na investigação. Na Primeira Parte, “Conjunturas da Investigação em Arquitectura”, estabelece-se um encadeamento de uma linha de pensamento transversal a contextos diversos, orientada segundo a conjuntura de uma construção objectiva do conhecimento. Num primeiro capítulo, recua-se ao intervalo entre guerras para referir estudos embrionários numa situação de inflexão para uma nova objectividade no período de Dessau na Bauhaus bem como para uma via pragmática da Vkhutemas, junto da Associação de Arquitectos Contemporâneos (OSA). Na passagem para o segundo capítulo, pondera-se como a introdução de uma cultura moderna em Inglaterra ao longo dos anos de 1930 despertou uma particular atenção para a investigação, desde logo no grupo Modern Architectural Research (MARS), com reflexos no Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) durante a II Guerra Mundial, ao ser visada uma ciência da arquitectura. Decorrente deste período, frisa-se a promoção da investigação durante a década de 1950, perante a conjuntura política e económica favorável à transferência da investigação em guerra para o contexto de paz. Esta transição seria acalentada na profissão pelo desenvolvimento da indústria da construção, para posteriormente ser transmitida para o ensino, manifestando-se em investigações, colectivas e individuais, aqui veiculadas por exemplos que abordam distintamente a investigação em torno da forma arquitectónica e urbana. Consequentemente, na Segunda Parte, “Estruturas da Investigação em Arquitectura”, foca-se o auge de diversas estruturas dedicadas à investigação, motivadas por arquitectos ou por outros profissionais. Com o intuito de identificar distintas culturas de investigação em formação, os dois primeiros capítulos aprofundam diferentes abordagens protagonizadas pelo Centre for Land Use and Built Form Studies (LUBFS) em Cambridge e pelo Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies (IAUS) em Nova Iorque, fundados ambos em 1967, respectivamente por Leslie Martin e por Peter Eisenman. Estes casos são alvo de um estudo no que diz respeito aos seus projectos e problemáticas, contribuindo para uma leitura das suas especificidades como demonstração de linhas de pensamento diversas. Conclui-se sobre uma divergência numa cultura de investigação de matriz analítica, inicialmente partilhada por Eisenman em Cambridge, e que no LUBFS avança pela via quantitativa e dedutiva numa aproximação à matemática, enquanto o IAUS inflectirá pela via indutiva, com aproximações tanto à sociologia como à semiologia. No último capítulo, reflecte-se sobre o grau de participação do contexto português em diversas culturas de investigação, a partir dos estudos desenvolvidos tanto no Centro de Estudos de Urbanismo e Habitação Engº Duarte Pacheco por José Pedro Martins Barata e Duarte Castel-Branco, como no Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil com a coordenação de Nuno Portas, onde se procuravam efectivar pontos de intersecção com as linhas de pensamento no contexto internacional, enfrentando problemáticas na arquitectura, na cidade e no território. Nas considerações finais “Conjecturas da Investigação em Arquitectura”, confirma-se a relevância da complementaridade do triângulo “profissão, ensino e investigação”. Recorrendo às experiências anteriormente abordadas, quando se resvalou para qualquer um dos vértices, a cultura arquitectónica saiu fragilizada, fosse pela perpetuação dos ditames modernistas na profissão sem uma correspondente actualização teórica, ou pelo extremar da multiplicidade dos conhecimentos curriculares nalgumas escolas, ou ainda pela investigação desligada da prática profissional. Pelo que se conclui sobre a pertinência deste triângulo para a contemporaneidade, assumindo as topografias fluidas de actuação dos arquitectos, e onde se perspectiva a criação de estruturas dedicadas à investigação como contributo para uma acção crítica, tanto a nível profissional como pedagógico. RESUMO (EN)

The current Thesis aims to problematize the adoption of research in architecture, questioning its reflections upon the profession and the education. For that purpose, it revolves around the time period following the II World War, lined by the prominence given to research, namely in England and the United States of America, due to the acceleration of research by the war and the urgency for reconstruction. It is reflected on how this context has influenced a research culture in architecture that supports the professional practice and which has had its counterpart in the creation of structures dedicated to research, whether or not linked to architecture schools, and whose activities have been translated into different studies contributing to a body of knowledge. This process is considered under the hypothesis that diverse lines of thought are being formulated in those structures, allowing to identify various research cultures in architecture, which are detached as a sign of a post-modernity that was being announced in the architectural practice and also in research. On Part One, “Conjunctures of Architectural Research”, it is established a transversal line of thought linked to diverse contexts, guided according to the conjuncture of an objective construction of knowledge. The first chapter goes back to the inter-war period to refer to the early studies under a situation of inflection towards a new objectivity in the Dessau period of the Bauhaus, as well as towards a pragmatic approach by the Vkhutemas, close to the Contemporary Architects Association (OSA). Moving to the second chapter, it is questioned how did the introduction of a modern culture in England, during the 1930s, arise a particular attention to research, right away by the Modern Architectural Research (MARS) Group, with reflections on the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) during the II World War, when an architectural science was envisioned. This period brought along the promotion of research during the 1950s, by a political and economical conjuncture that favoured the transfer of war research to a peace context. This transition would be cherished in the profession by the development of the building industry, to be subsequently transmitted to the teaching, and present in researches, both collective and individual, here conveyed by the examples that distinctively approach research on the architectural and urban form. Consequently, on Part Two, “Structures of Architectural Research”, it is focused on the peak of diverse research dedicated structures, motivated by architects or by other professionals. Aiming at identifying distinct research cultures in formation, the first two chapters deepen different approaches led by the Centre for Land Use and Built Form Studies (LUBFS) in Cambridge and by the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies (IAUS) in New York, both founded in 1967, respectively by Leslie Martin and Peter Eisenman. These cases are the object of a study in regard to their projects and problematics, contributing for an understanding of their specificities, as a demonstration of distinct lines of thought. It is concluded on a divergence of a research culture with an analytical matrix, initially shared by Eisenman in Cambridge, and which has moved in the LUBFS towards a quantitative and deductive approach close to mathematics, and which will be pursued in the IAUS by an inductive approach, near to sociology and semiology. In the last chapter, it is reflected upon the degree of participation of the Portuguese context on diverse research cultures, through the studies developed both in the Centro de Estudos de Urbanismo e Habitação Engº Duarte Pacheco by José Pedro Martins Barata and Duarte Castel-Branco, as well as in the Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil with the coordination of Nuno Portas, where operative intersection points with the lines of thought of the international context were sought, facing the problematics on architecture, the city and the territory. In the final considerations, “Conjectures of Architectural Research”, the relevance of the complementarity of the triangle “profession, education and research” is confirmed. According to the previously addressed experiences, when a slip occurred towards any of those vertices, the architectural culture has been left weakened, either by the preservation of the modernist principles in a profession deprived from a corresponding theoretical update, or by taking to the extreme a wide range of curricular knowledge in some schools, or yet by the disconnection of research from the practice. Thus, it is concluded on the relevance of this triangle for the contemporaneity, assuming the moving grounds where the architects act, and where it is envisioned the creation of structures dedicated to research as a contribution to a critical action, both in a professional as in a pedagogical level.

The current Thesis aims to problematize the adoption of research in architecture, questioning its reflections upon the profession and the education. For that purpose, it revolves around the time period following the II World War, lined by the prominence given to research, namely in England and the United States of America, due to the acceleration of research by the war and the urgency for reconstruction. It is reflected on how this context has influenced a research culture in architecture that supports the professional practice and which has had its counterpart in the creation of structures dedicated to research, whether or not linked to architecture schools, and whose activities have been translated into different studies contributing to a body of knowledge. This process is considered under the hypothesis that diverse lines of thought are being formulated in those structures, allowing to identify various research cultures in architecture, which are detached as a sign of a post-modernity that was being announced in the architectural practice and also in research. On Part One, “Conjunctures of Architectural Research”, it is established a transversal line of thought linked to diverse contexts, guided according to the conjuncture of an objective construction of knowledge. The first chapter goes back to the inter-war period to refer to the early studies under a situation of inflection towards a new objectivity in the Dessau period of the Bauhaus, as well as towards a pragmatic approach by the Vkhutemas, close to the Contemporary Architects Association (OSA). Moving to the second chapter, it is questioned how did the introduction of a modern culture in England, during the 1930s, arise a particular attention to research, right away by the Modern Architectural Research (MARS) Group, with reflections on the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) during the II World War, when an architectural science was envisioned. This period brought along the promotion of research during the 1950s, by a political and economical conjuncture that favoured the transfer of war research to a peace context. This transition would be cherished in the profession by the development of the building industry, to be subsequently transmitted to the teaching, and present in researches, both collective and individual, here conveyed by the examples that distinctively approach research on the architectural and urban form. Consequently, on Part Two, “Structures of Architectural Research”, it is focused on the peak of diverse research dedicated structures, motivated by architects or by other professionals. Aiming at identifying distinct research cultures in formation, the first two chapters deepen different approaches led by the Centre for Land Use and Built Form Studies (LUBFS) in Cambridge and by the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies (IAUS) in New York, both founded in 1967, respectively by Leslie Martin and Peter Eisenman. These cases are the object of a study in regard to their projects and problematics, contributing for an understanding of their specificities, as a demonstration of distinct lines of thought. It is concluded on a divergence of a research culture with an analytical matrix, initially shared by Eisenman in Cambridge, and which has moved in the LUBFS towards a quantitative and deductive approach close to mathematics, and which will be pursued in the IAUS by an inductive approach, near to sociology and semiology. In the last chapter, it is reflected upon the degree of participation of the Portuguese context on diverse research cultures, through the studies developed both in the Centro de Estudos de Urbanismo e Habitação Engº Duarte Pacheco by José Pedro Martins Barata and Duarte Castel-Branco, as well as in the Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil with the coordination of Nuno Portas, where operative intersection points with the lines of thought of the international context were sought, facing the problematics on architecture, the city and the territory. In the final considerations, “Conjectures of Architectural Research”, the relevance of the complementarity of the triangle “profession, education and research” is confirmed. According to the previously addressed experiences, when a slip occurred towards any of those vertices, the architectural culture has been left weakened, either by the preservation of the modernist principles in a profession deprived from a corresponding theoretical update, or by taking to the extreme a wide range of curricular knowledge in some schools, or yet by the disconnection of research from the practice. Thus, it is concluded on the relevance of this triangle for the contemporaneity, assuming the moving grounds where the architects act, and where it is envisioned the creation of structures dedicated to research as a contribution to a critical action, both in a professional as in a pedagogical level.