area 116 | Norway

Strategies to live between heaven and hearth
That architecture is a phenomenal instrument of political and economic promotion is clear to all ruling countries, and this phenomenon becomes even clearer if we consider the growing attention on the part of public institutions for the promotion of the national architecture of a country as Norway, which has in the last two decades imposed itself among the leading European nationals. While Norway until some decades ago appeared in the collective imagery as an exotic land, and at most suggested the myth of an initiatory journey all the way to the North Cape in order to enjoy the aurora borealis and sunrises that were unimaginable at mediterranean latitudes, things have changed rapidly, also due to the fact that the country has become one of the world’s leading oil producers. The discovery of immense oilfields in the national  territorial waters in the Seventies has definitely projected this country, which vaunts three times the area of Italy but only one-tenth of its population, among the leading countries of the western world. A country that has in the last three years found itself – according to what economists write – with the world’s first Sovereign Fund and which has gradually acquired authority and consciousness on a financial level, but which has also understood that it is not enough to pay great attention to the life quality of its citizen – current and future – in order to become one of the trendsetting nations of the west. Norway has in fact understood that the dimension of a cultural visibility is the essential path to repositioning the country in another category in the international collective imagery. And this is one way to explain the growing presence of highly variegated cultural expressions of this country in the international media. Observing the phenomenon from an italian viewpoint we may say that if Giò Ponti had the opportunity to admire Arne Korsmo and his wife Grete Prytz at the 10th Triennale in Milan in 1954 (where they won the gold medal for the best national exhibition design), the event was probably seen as a kind of recognition of the quality of the most peripheral of the “Scandinavian countries” on which the attention of the sensible and cultured Italian architect – as well as the national design world more in general – was focused at that moment: it was above all the Swedes who led the Scandinavian area with their “Swedish grace”, which was later to be referred to more in general as “Scandinavian design”, after the critical appreciation of the national production of the Fifties and Sixties, inspired by a social-democratic strategy concerned with welfare also from an architectural viewpoint, understood as social practices aimed at improving the life of the community. To see some kind of testimonial and recognition of the cultural importance of this remote and largely unknown norwegian people one had to wait until the realization of the Pavilion of the Scandinavian Countries in the gardens of the Venice Biennale in the Sixties, result of a composition won by a not even thirty years old and completely unknown Sverre Fehn. To a person with the sensibility and intellectual honesty of Giancarlo De Carlo, the appearance of that gentle but authoritative personality – this was the impression the very young Fehn made on him from the very start – did not go unnoticed. The introduction, first to the CIAMs and then to the mythical Team X – to which Fehn was always invited – and the ILAUD of Urbino evidently gave rise to a profound and mutual acquaintance that was soon to become a very sincere appreciation. Thus, in the Seventies and Eighties, Fehn’s design research was published almost exclusively in “Spazio e Società”, and was only to appear in the other italian magazines in the early Nineties. When we visited Norway in 1992 to meet Fehn, to then begin studying his work and accepting the challenge of getting to know that architectural culture and the roots which had produced it, including the less known masters, the norwegian political institutions had already commenced the promotional efforts that were not long afterwards to make important national cultural promoters invite Fehn to the competition by invitation for the new Movie Palace in Venice. The anthological exhibition presented at the Palladian Basilica of Vicenza – together with the simultaneous publication of a monograph – coincided with a progressive increase of attention, on the part of the architectural culture, to the norwegian production. The awarding of the Pritzker Prize of 1997 to Fehn, while the exhibition in Vicenza was being opened, crowned a success which is, it is true, personal but also political and social: we must not forgot that his recognition as acclaimed master of international architecture was perfectly coherent with the strategies aimed at promoting the country-system of Norway, pursued with determination by its cultural and political institutions. Alongside the history of Sverre Fehn, who embodies the myth of the single and independent hero, typical of the nordic saga so excellently stigmatized by Peer Gynt, the figure created by Henrik Ibsen for the homonymous dramatic poem, another, more recent one may be observed. It centres on the incredible adventure of a small collective of architects and architecture students based in Oslo, which in 1990 won – to the astonishment of everyone, and none more than themselves – the international competition for the design of the Library of Alexandria! Teams formed by great and international design firms leapfrogged by a somewhat improvised and anarchic little group of enthusiastic designers who, daunted by neither the magnitude of the competition nor by the fact that they had no experience (and in some cases even the degree) participate, and win, what seemed to be one of the greatest architecture competitions of all times. Snøhetta is the singular name of the group (a somewhat ambiguous word with various meanings, including that of ‘small snow-covered top’).  Also this is a nordic kind of saga, the fruit of a cultural strategy that prioritizes the promotion of the abilities of individuals who are taught, sometimes even excessively, not to be afraid of anything and that everything is possible. An education to self-esteem which has produced many results in every field of knowledge and doing, yet again fruit of a social-democratic strategy that is attentive to the individual. This is also demonstrated by the fact that Norway is the only country, together with Italy, vaunting a truly consistent number of one-person or small architecture firms. In our country this is due to the impossibility to find another position than the autonomous one, with all the limits this entails. In Norway it is because even small firms have no difficulty in establishing themselves and participating on an equal level in competitions and obtain assignments (at least within the Scandinavian context).
It is no coincidence that Norway has in the same period, that is to say in the early Nineties, and in a by then mature cultural context, launched a program of investments to enhance its greatest natural resource: the powerful and austere nature, embodied in the collective imagery by fiords and granite hills, covered for long months by snow. There are two sides to this project, a domestic and a foreign one. In fact, the enhancement is aimed both at norwegians, in terms of an improvement of the services and infrastructures along the roads of the country, and at foreigners, in terms of a building of an iconic imagery that exploits the great attraction that “wild” nature still vaunts. Indeed, the slogan adopted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to promote the country is still today “Powered by Nature”. But the aspect that never ceases to surprise is that the government has commenced this national promotion project by resorting to architecture, establishing that the assignments for the single rest areas, along the so-called New National Panoramic Roads, must be awarded through public competitions. Along with firms that are generally small and medium-sized, some important ones have been added over the years, as for instance the aforementioned Snøhetta. Also by winning these competitions, the small firms grown and are increasingly frequently invited to exhibitions and international conferences, inside and outside the universities, promoting both their country and their work. Moreover, the works are published more and more often, also in the international press, because the projects are soon realized. Also here in Italy these architects are gaining ever greater visibility (especially Jensen & Skodvin, C-V. Hølmebakk and K. Hjeltness) but analogous attention is given contemporary norwegian architecture by international magazines such as “A+U” or “Architecture au jour'dui”.
It being understood that it is backed by an efficient promotion and support (also in terms of opportunities) from the national cultural institutions, what makes this movement of young norwegian architecture recognizable and what makes it united and homogeneous, despite the great variety of approaches to composition and construction, in terms of strategies and attitudes to the introduction of works both in a natural and urban context? On the basis of the research conducted in these years during numerous trips, meetings and publications one may attempt to put the question in a nutshell as follows:
a) great attention to tectonics and construction; b) awareness of the fact that natural sites are an inexhaustible figurative and emotional treasure; c) a pragmatism that is immune from the pressure of any desire to make a striking effect, that often draws on the national tradition without prejudice, but also from international trends. This had already happened with the classicism of the early years of the 20th century and the rationalism of the Thirties, when architects combined nonchalance and irony with a measure  incomparable to any other contexts beyond Scandinavia.
Let us examine these three points more closely for a moment. As to tectonics, one must remember that the extreme conditions (especially in terms of climate and meteorology) do not allow for any weak points. The construction must be rigorous, or the work will be a failure regardless of the figurative apparatus the individual architect may decide to stage. This attitude often reduces the architecture to verging on the elementary – we might say on the brutal –, but it always makes them pertinent and never specious. As Fehn put it, wooden architecture establishes that poetic of the “straight line” which bears witness to a leans towards prefabrication, that mainly conceives architecture as an assembly of boxes that lie on the ground, rather than having deep foundations. This also accounts for the special relationship which is established with the place involved in the project, which is almost always commenced with a phase of meticulous topographic survey (with annotations to the centimeter), based on the certainty that nature and its infinite morphological variables vaunt riches that the architecture can only aspire to, and that it is therefore important to use them whenever possible, without overshadowing or, worse, destroying them. To rest lightly on the ground is a conceptual trait that is certainly opposed to that of burying roots, to cutting through nature to penetrate into its guts in order to raise oneself as if wanting to decree its defeat, or perhaps more dismally its submission to man, master and demiurge of everything. To norwegians nature is a hospitable mother who must not be offended, and only in this sense, never humiliated by the presence of new elements.  It is to be continuously profaned with skill, and thus constantly reintroduced to contemporary uses, to quote a writing by Giorgio Agàmben on the indispensable process of “profanation” which does not mean disavowal of the value of the places, but rather the awareness of the responsibility assumed by those who work and transform nature for collective purposes. These norwegian architects are free from taboos when it comes to erecting architectures in the most extreme places, and we must observe them attentively.
It is sufficient to know the rules according to which nature moves and breathes, treat it like a living organism, not as a mere res extensa, something that is inanimate and that may therefore be subjected to anything. And if they use concrete, steel and wood to do this, it may come natural that many of the compositive/constructive strategies developed by masters as Korsmo, Knutsen, Selmer, Fehn, Henriksen  and others may resurface and be manipulated and readapted in various ways. It is not a question of historicism or eclecticism: it is that one recognizes a principle of concreteness and pragmatism which authorizes and leads one to use processes, systems and solutions that have already been used by others before, within and without the national borders. This nonchalance is certainly alien to the central european and mediterranean culture, and its results are very distant from the postmodern pastiche in which the latter has remained entrapped for many years when it has sought to follow similar paths. In the contemporary norwegian scenario the work of Space group is exemplary in this sense. The firm was founded by Gro Bonesmo who, after years of active collaboration with OMA in Rotterdam, elaborates languages and strategies characteristic of the thought of Rem Koolhaas, adapting them to the norwegian reality and context. The result is a hybrid which succeeds in finding the right distance between the dutch paradigm and the conditionings of the context: and the firm has in fact won the competitions for many of the most important national building sites, as for instance the competition for the realization of the new railway and intermodal station of Oslo Central.
But the same can also be said of Snøhetta, Jarmund& Vigsnæs and of other firms whose works are united in this volume. Indeed, this character is so radically cultural that the eclecticism of the references may also be recognized within the production of one firm which changes its references over the years, according to the design occasion. The works of Lund Hagem, Helen & Hard, 3RW, Knut Hjeltnes, Reiulf Ramstad, 70˚N Arkitektur, Code, a-lab and BKARK, just to mention some firms, are for instance exemplary in this sense. This intrinsically eclectic and pragmatic nature of norwegian architecture may also be understood as a cultural trait that may be assimilated with what is defined Open Access in the world of technology: it is no coincidence that the Architecture School of Oslo (one of the three present in the national territory, the others being in Bergen and in Trondheim) launched the editorial chain “As Built” some years ago to collect monographic experiences of single architectures, on the scale of the construction details, in order to realize a repertory/catalogue of solutions in an attempt to contrast the monopoly of the great multinationals that dominate the building components sector.
At the same time, the chain becomes an instrument – open access, precisely – accessible to colleagues and students, almost a kind of new architecture manual prepared collectively and made available to the community. The Norwegian school is strong on this level, fully aware that figurative experimentation must be aimed as much as possible at a “simple” solution that is quick to realize and assemble (it is difficult to work in building sites with snow and truly rigid temperatures for long months) which must if possible be prepared in the workshop and then quickly assembled. There are few figurative aspects that make this school of architecture recognizable as much as the pragmatism inspired by the fundamental consideration that architecture is, in primis, a service to people, to help them live in a nature that would otherwise be inhospitable. And the fact that to do so, one must use the right resources in the best way to resolve the theme posed, without ever exceeding. Also because the perennial white more often than not renders the works on figuration illegible while it exalts those on the silhouettes, as the norwegian master and historian Cristian Norberg-Schulz writes in his Nightlands.
In this context the reflections made by Francesco dal Co in his introductory treatise to the monograph on Sverre Fehn has always appeared beautiful and illuminating; it seems to us a metaphor that still succeeds in suggesting a key of interpretation to which all the norwegian projects presented in this issue seem to be, in the final analysis, retraceable: “Fehn has written that …the immensity of the sea has inspired naval constructions…: on land, the architecture can only translate the principles of the art of building that the masters of the axe possessed, adapting them to circumstances and uses. Because the value and the rational coherence of those principles cannot be denied, what the architecture reveals is the violence exercised against it by the spirits of the place”. Architectures are therefore not monuments to norwegians, but consciously limited and temporary machines/masks that man builds according to traditional skills to meet other human beings and live on earth. Before moving on to look for other places, other opportunities to make their dreams reasons for places in which to live better, for themselves and others.

Gennaro Postiglione is an Associate Professor in Interior Architecture at The Politecnico di Milano. Researches focus mainly on domestic interiors, on  museography and on preserving and diffusing collective memory and cultural identità. Besides, he has a specific interest in the architecture of Nordic countries. From 2004, is promoter of Public Architecture@ Polimi and from 2006
is promoter of IFW-Interior Forum World. On going researches: “Dealing with Conflict Heritages” (National grant); “European Museums and Libraries in/for the Age of Migrations”. Main publications: Norwegian Talks, Macerata 2010 (ed. with N. Flora). Unplugged Italy, Siracusa 2010; Interior Wor[l]ds, Torino 2010 (gen. ed. L. Basso Peressut, I. Forino); Places & Themes of Interiors (gen. ed. with L. Basso Peressut, I. Forino).

Nicola Flora (1961) has a PhD in ‘Interior Design‘ and he is researcher at “Scuola di Architettura e Design E. Vittoria di Ascoli Piceno”, Camerino University. He has always explored the themes of domestic spaces and small scale architecture. From 1990 he studied the architecture of Nordic countries, Norway in particular. In 2009 he founded in Ascoli Piceno the “MobilArchGroup“, a researching and experimentation collective on moving living, strategies to reuse abandoned buildings as residential and tourism buildings with the support of many companies. He is currently developing an experimental research on the reuse of public buildings in the center of Aliano (MT) with the Municipality and many furniture companies of Marches.