Architecture And Rhetoric

Architectural Review, The, Oct, 2000 by Layla Dawson

By Elisabeth Tostrup. London: Andreas Papadakis Publisher, 1999. [pound]35

'There has never been so much as a shadow of a doubt among architects about the legitimacy and importance of the competition system' (Odd Brochmann, Disse architektene, Oslo, 1986). Norway's positive experiences are not universal. Do competitions encourage experimentation and new impulses or lead to conformity? Do anonymous entries allow the imagination free rein or lead to conformity, as competitors try to anticipate jury's tastes? At different points in a nation's development what architectural vocabularies, visual and literary, lead to an entry's success?

These questions are touched on in Elisabeth Tostrup's examination of architectural competitions held in Oslo between 1939 and 1997. Thirty-six competitions, the majority for public projects, their submitted images, models and texts, are dissected in detail. For a research report this is very easy reading and offers both factual information and a fascinating insight into Norwegian society. This small nation's homogeneity in socio-political aims makes for a manageable investigation into the rhetoric of competition entries, the art of employing words and images to influence or persuade juries. Whether Norway's experience is relevant outside Scandinavia is debatable. In nations with delusions of grandeur, unable to accept their lost empires, or striving to dominate global markets, architects and building industries display more aggressive and confrontational attitudes. Competitions as debates, civilized discussions which aim to eventually arrive at consensus are, unfortunately, not the norm. Professed political democracy does not automatically do away with patronage, a modern version of the old school tie, or a male elite.

Architectural texts describing plans as 'rational', speaking of 'fluidity', 'flexibility', and 'non-monumental, non-threatening facades' which are 'transparent', are writing in a code which can only be deciphered with reference to site, project, clients and building users, within a specific society. The charm of the various Scandinavian civilizations is that they assume everyone else is striving for the same open liberality.