ambiguous design
[f29]
HT Structure, 1955
Oskar Hansen, Lech Tomaszewski
Izmir International Fair
[f30]
Pavilion, 1959
Oskar Hansen
Sao Paulo International Fair[f31]
Extension of the Zachęta Gallery in Warsaw, Oskar Hansen, Lech Tomaszewski, Stanislaw Zamecznik, 1958, The intention of adaptability can be seen in the way the floor plates are designed to be on a sliding track system, depicted in two different conditions in the model.
[f32]
Extension of the Zachęta Gallery in Warsaw, Oskar Hansen, Lech Tomaszewski, Stanislaw Zamecznik, 1958, The intention of adaptability can be seen in the way the floor plates are designed to be on a sliding track system, depicted in two different conditions in the model.While most architects designing for change in the latter half of the 20th century were concentrated on megastructures and anticipating obsolescence, one designer was intrigued by designing for flexibility through indeterminate and ambiguous designs. Oskar Hansen’s Open Form Theory, developed in the late 1950s, strongly captures this sentiment of flexibility. Hansen started teaching at the Warsaw Academy of Fine Arts in 1950 and eventually experimented with his design approach interests with his students. As Hansen was exploring his theory, he did so through pavilion designs that were constructed at a series of fairs in different cities – Stockholm in 1953, Izmir in 1955, and Sao Paulo in 1959.(17) The basis of the Open Form theory is, “that no artistic expression is complete until it has been appropriated by its users or beholders.”(18) Hansen’s theory brought a new intention to architectural design. It was not about proposing a design solution, but rather setting the stage for users to enter the creator role and bring on an identity to the design. In an interview with Wojciech Wlodarcyzk Hansen states, “Conceptualism results from the slavery of visible things, and what I propose are things that are as yet invisible. What I propose in Open Form is something that I cannot ultimately foresee. Open Form trusts people. My task is to believe in them and reveal them. Their story will be as they themselves are. His story will be as he himself is. The “art of events” – a polemic of visualized individual forms in a set of statements – will influence artists’ thinking. This will surely be an influence towards ‘democracy.’”(19) This response follows Wlodarcyzk bringing attention to Hansen referring to Open Form being an “art of events” and mental process. While there is no evidence of Hansen finding inspiration in Walter Benjamin’s essay on technological reproducibility and the conversation Benjamin sets up on consuming art and architecture passively, it is easy to draw parallels between their interests and conversations regarding inviting people to an attentive state while existing in their surroundings. In terms of Hansen’s attitude as a designer, it is apparent that he saw necessary the transitioning of agency between designers and users. It could be said that Hansen believed the designer’s role was to create an offering for users to interact with. As a result, he did not have a strong aesthetic image or style he leaned towards. “Interesting to note is not only the aspect of openness towards context and to appropriation by users, but also Hansen’s understanding of form in its ability to anticipate unforeseen aspects, establishing indeterminacy as a core quality, or as Hansen said: ‘In my work the form can never be ideal.’”(20) His objective was to design to entice, not to create the perfect form or function.
(17) “Oskar Hansen.” Monoskop.
(18) Axel Wieder and Florian Zeyfang, Open Form: Space, Interaction, and the Tradition of Oskar Hansen.
(19) Axel Wieder and Florian Zeyfang, Open Form: Space, Interaction, and the Tradition of Oskar Hansen, 31.
(20) Axel Wieder, Florian Zeyfang, Open Form: Space, Interaction, and the Tradition of Oskar Hansen, 57.