Interview with Alexandra Vougia by Rajeel Arab

DIS-LOCUTIONS: ARCHITECTURE AND THE POLITICAL MA HISTORY AND CRITICAL THINKING DEBATES: ALEXANDRA VOUGIA

Alexandra Vougia is currently pursuing her PhD at the Architectural Association School of Architecture and is also a practising Architect. She was invited as a part of MA HCT Debates: ’Dis-­‐locutions: Architecture an d the Political’ where she presented her research on the Hellerhof Estate as an architectural project situated in larger part of a socialist ideology within the idea of Alienation and estrangement.

This interview focuses on one aspect of her presentation that is the role of the Architect and his political ideology within the architectural construct and whether or not that affects the final outcome of design.

Rajeel Arab: “I was really interested in the ‘Socialist’ idea that you were talking about in the presentation, ill start with the first question.‘ Subjective spirit against the object form’ or the ‘Objectification of the spirit’ Is a very interesting title, you said between form and social context of what produces form we analyse the architectural object. Could you elaborate on this?”

Alexandra Vougia: “First of all this was a quote not from an Architect but Georg Simmel, a German sociologist, on one hand this was more like a catch phrase and he was particularly interested in general cultural forms rather than architectural ones, so he was talking about media, production of literature etc. I was interested in the architectural forms and this is why I started looking into Georg Simmel as the basis of my introduction and how to frame the over all argument and it is different from what he says and how I perceive it. Its more straightforward if you think about the cultural forms in general and that relationship would be more immediate than architecture, which is like a slower process and I am not sure if you can find explicit translation from cultural context to architectural forms. It’s quite complicated.”

RA: “You said the Architect brought socialist politics into design? I am really intrigued by how one can bring his political ideology into design, could you elaborate on that?”

AV: “Actually, this was a very fascinating story about the New Frankfurt programme. I mean Ernst May was himself an architect and he was employed by the municipality of Frankfurt in the early 1920s. He was an Architect and a Planner and he was particularly employed by the ‘socialist municipality’ and then May employed Mart Stam; who was not a secondary figure but an equally important one in this relationship between literal translation from politics to design. As he was also May’s employee and he was given the complete planning and the future planning (of Frankfurt)… I think it was the ten year plan which he had to submit for the city of Frankfurt, which involved the whole range of things like social housing, institutions, infrastructure, buildings, building regulation and legal framework that would support all the design features, so it was the holistic approach to planning. Within this framework, Politics were first translated into Law.. like written planning and then the Design. Hellerhof Housing Estate is and example of that.”

RA: “And in the same context you mentioned, “..It is not Architecture’s fault when people design or bring the political ideology into design” Do you not believe that Architecture is a larger construct and when we bring into it, a political ideology it is only to help Architecture get better? Or is it important to find balance between the two to not let one overpower the other? And if its so would you blame the Architect for not being able to find this balance?”

AV: “..Hmmm thats a tough one and interesting because it is a broader question. It is open ended.. I mean there is no right or wrong. There are Architects that are not necessarily interested giving an ideological message or there are some who think ideology is very much embedded in the design process. I would say.. I think the truth lies between this broad space and in-­‐between those two, but its important, particularly in interpreting works of architecture just to be aware of the context that has produced so I mean the design part is very individual. but on the other hand when you also do the part of theory and critical thinking so it is important to understand what was the intention behind the design otherwise there is only forms left and we can judge this without any ideological background.”

RA: “Mart Stam said “..It was to some extent forgotten that a type may hardly be designed, it may only be developed as a result of constant changes and improvements” Despite giving the Hellerhof Housing Estate project the option and scope to improve and grow further, the society didn’t accept the Hellerhof Housing Estate and the ‘architecture’ suffered. Could it be said that maybe Mart Stam couldn’t analyse the society well?”

AV: “Well, I think that was more regarding the failure of Hellerhof Housing and this has to do with large parts and other factors that came into the design and came into the project after the design.. I think we discussed about this a little bit. If you segregate social class it is not going to.. I mean it was the place for workers and I don't know what more architecture can do other than offer immediate relief from housing shortage and give them basics of a Modern household.. I am talking about the 30s now. I think the large part of the failure of the project had nothing to do with design because Mart Stam really tried to improve and as you mentioned in the quote he had this open endedness to the design in his mind when he was searching for the ideal type but he felt that it was a process rather than you know, that there will be at some point an ideal type!.. and if you consider the design as the process and that it is evolved within its context and it can all get better. It is important to see Hellerhof as an instance within this process and you wont judge it as a failure, which I don't think it really deserves; and again we are not talking about formal merits.

RA: “If we place this object into a socialist thinking that failed, is there any other political ideology you think would have worked better for a housing? Or we should keep these two things; the housing and the politics separate?”

AV: “Well, I mean it really depends it was a very novel idea during the 20s to provide social housing due to the housing shortage which was massive and unprecedented in the 19th century. Cities had expanded and so it was a problem that influenced the life of the city in a very direct way.. so I mean then why would providing housing estate.. a publicly funded housing; should be something wrong. I don't think so. Its was a particular time, the 20s and the Wiemar period and today I don't think what would work but for example it was very similar to what happened in the UK after the war with the post war reconstruction… no? that we see here in London..this massive housing project. I really think it's a good thing and I don't know how would you place that in terms today.”