Ds alvaraalto

Organicism in Modern ArchitectureProfessor Jonathan Massey

Alvar Aalto and exploration of human-nature relationships through anthropomorphic forms

Dinçer Savaşkan

Alvar Aalto

"Architecture cannot disengage itself from natural

and human factors, on the contrary, it must never do so…

Its function rather is to bring natural ever closer to us."

--Alvar Aalto

Alvar Aalto’s designs concerned relationships

between human and nature— He always tried to find

mediation between nature and human life. You can see

these relationships throughout his work, from his buildings

to his furniture and object designs. One of the key

accompanying ideas to achieve his architecture was to

create a national identity through modern architecture. His

architecture was heavily influenced from Nordic references

that are sensitive on handling of the natural local materials

and the curves as representation of Finnish culture.

However, Aalto’s work is so complex that some of his work

can appear to oppose to his idea of vernacular. It is

Savaşkan | Alvar Aalto and exploration of human-nature relationships through anthropomorphic forms

2

possible to understand on some of his work that

vernacular agenda or functions can be a supplementary to

his initial formal experiments.

Being a Finnish architect, Alvar Aalto was educated in

an environment where Finns sought a national identity

separate from Russian influences. Alto, however, was

nonetheless influenced by the American architect H.H.

Richardson, as well as by architectural abstractions in

modernism. He successfully synthesized modernism with

vernacular architecture. The forms were incorporated into

the nature of the conditions of the Finnish climate, to the

landscape characteristics of Finland and even in use of

local materials. Curves, plants, natural materials were all

fused into a statement that is more tactile than the white

walls of International Style. This unique approach during

that time was sensitive to local Finnish tradition, climate

and the landscape.

Since the beginning of his career, Finnish culture was

a very important theme in Alto’s architecture. His early,

published writing discussed the architecture of Finland and

highlighted the theoretical problem of modernism and


3

geography. He saw International style as a way to

assimilate Finland as a part of Europe in terms of culture.

However, Aalto didn’t really define a certain framework for

his style. He defined his national style as an analysis with

the creativity of the architect that is meaningful to the

spectator of Finland. In this sense, architecture wasn’t an

inherited skill set, neither form nor element, but rather an

artistic creation. Aalto considered “style” as a non-material

concept of architecture, rather than exclusive to constant

national essence. Aalto’s style was more dynamic in

creating form, to which he referred as “living form." His

aesthetics deal with how the forms can be experienced

and are linked to the culture by which it is produced. His

architecture emerged through formal explorations of form

and the local characteristics of Finland. Even though it

could be said that his architecture followed the same

typology wherever he built, his artistic approach in form

generation was always in relationship with the changing

political position of Finland and its building national

identity.


4

Aalto believed that culture was grown organically

from the people and the soil. Culture depended on shared

customs, learning through experience by maintaining their

organic traditions of a place. Aalto’s work emphasized lines

and textures over the subject, with psychological

equivalents of emotions transformed into lines and forms.

According to this reading, even an object like a vase could

affect our emotional life. Instead of the landscape or

culture giving birth to a style, “style” revealed its meaning

through the perception by the people in that culture. So

this style wasn’t about fixed meanings, ornamentations or

forms, but more of a cerebral response of the viewer in

Finland. So, the lines, forms and/or textures embody the

national essence and affect the senses.

Aalto’s formal and material explorations distance him

from the strategies of early modernism. Aalto’s idea of

modernism was about analyzing the way nature creates

the form— but it was also about understanding the

organizational and functional principles of nature, which is

in a way very similar to contemporary notions of new

materialism today. He used technology to maximize and


5

discover new potential of the materials, like bending in

wood. So the technology and nature can form a

relationship with humanity, and evolve and grow

organically.

Figure 1. Aalto Material Study, Laminated chair leg, 1929-35


6

Figure 2. Aalto Material Study with wood, 1930


7

Figure 3. Aalto Material Study with laminated wood, 1929-35

Curvilinear forms in Aalto’s design can be seen from

his furniture designs to object designs to complete

buildings. Even though they are made from different

materials and in different scales, the form always followed

both material and function. For example, laminated wood

could bend in one direction and also create a very stable

form, where this form that is dictated directly by the

material finds functionality in his furniture design like

chairs. Notwithstanding, his abstract curvilinear forms


8

create a different logic of functional relationships. His

formal explorations generally gain function later on as

furniture, vases, objects or building. While a vase doesn’t

directly derive from the material qualities (like the legs of

laminated wood chair) or function, the form suggested a

new dynamic way of displaying the flowers. So in this way

new functions and material combinations were revealed.

Figure 4 Aalto Material glass Vase, 1937


9

Figure 5. Aalto, Paimio Chair, 1938

One of the great examples of Aalto’s "functional"

style is the Viipuri Library (1925- 1935). Library's internal

spaces flow into each other with a ceiling in form of

gradually stepping planes. The building is planned

according to human needs rather than the functional

mechanic calculations of the spaces. In the meeting room

a wood curvilinear and a wooden textured ceiling also

creates a very natural environment. The wooden ceiling


10

was a combination of formal experimentation and

functional requirement. The form can be seen just as

material play, however a distribution of sound waves

shows that the undulating wood ceiling was an outcome of

the functional requirement of a meeting hall. Formal

experimentation translated into function and worked in a

way which transformed into a feeling. Relationship

between the form and life create a dynamic relationship.

The ceiling wasn’t simply conceptualized as a sound

distributor but also its visual and spatial effects created a

feeling that embody the function in form, a synthesis in

mutuality within the space.


11

Figure 6-7. Aalto, Viipuri Library, 1927 -35

Figure 8. Aalto, Viipuri Library, section of the auditorium 1927 -35


12

Aalto also gained recognition among the world critics. The

Stockholm Exhibition especially brought attention to the

modern movement in Scandinavian countries. Later, Aalto

received an invitation from Philip Johnson to the MoMA

Modern Architecture International Exhibition in 1932 for his

Turun Sanomat Building, a work included in the exhibition.

Aalto’s functionalism considered to be anti-internationalist

because of being heavily nationalistic. However, MoMA

Exhibition ignored all the political subtext underlying his

architecture, as the exhibition catalog was organized

according to individuals, not according to countries.

The goal of the curators of the exhibition, Philip

Johnson and Henry-Russell Hitchcock were to portray a

consistent style and Turun Sonamat Building was coherent

with the International Style. Despite this, Aalto wasn’t

really an easy fit for the style. Turun Sonamat and Viipuru

Library could fit into the style with their flat roofs, however

his use of wood in Aalto House (1936-37) and the Finnish

Pavillion at the Paris Exposition Internationale (1936-37)

made a more clear statement in his idea of nationalistic

modernist architecture. The furniture section in the


13

pavillion bridged the gap between the International Style

and local architecture and materials.


14

Figure 9-10. Aalto, Turun Sonamat Building, 1931

After the International Style Exhibition, MoMA also

endorsed the idea of nationalism and localization of

modern architecture with a series of other exhibitions. So

when Aalto designed his Finnish Pavillion for New York’s

World’s Fair (1939-40) after MoMA’s exhibition series,

Aalto anticipated the architectural culture of America was

changing from geometric regulations of International Style

to organic qualities of localized modern architecture.

Aalto’s Finnish Pavilion was a curvilinear multimedia wall

that displayed the pictures and industrial products of

Finnish culture. The exhibition space in the pavilion was a


15

tall wooden undulating form made from vertical strips of

woods. The wall, with its multimedia installation over it and

long vertical lines resembled northern sky with Finnish

landscape expressed on the undulating forms, possessed

layered symbolic meanings in its form. In this design, Alto

focused on creating an atmosphere, an impression of

Finland that can be felt through the senses rather than

observed through individual exhibited items.


16


17

Figure 11-12. Aalto, Finnish Pavilion in the New York World’s Fair, 1939

Aalto’s architecture was considered to have become

more complex and ambiguous during 1960s. Aalto wasn’t

actually always politically correct or consistent in his

architecture. There were times he moved away from

Finnish culture and include even Japanese details in his

buildings that are even far from European traditions.

Notwithstanding, Finland was still his inner energy to

derive his architecture, however more ambiguous this

relationship between his architecture and Finland became

later on. The architect discovered his architecture found

new meanings in new contexts. The free form of the


18

curvilinear gained a symbolic meaning in America,

associated with individualism and a free American society.

Aalto’s architecture promoted interaction through

dynamism in form, but also created a relationship between

history and future by creating a dialog with nature. He saw

modern architecture had emphasized form, while style

ignored its effects on the human being, galvanizing Aalto

in his architecture. Formalism that is generated through an

artist’s approach create a more humanistic derivative in

architecture, as Aalto pointed to in the relationship of

organisms and their environment. The Human being and

their environment coexist in a web of relationships, which

drove Alvar Aalto to focus on the process, unlike early

modernist architecture that focused on the product. Just

like nature and biology creates endless possible

organizations with similar tissues, architecture should also

be in constant search in suggesting new forms and

solutions.

Aalto declared himself as a practicing artist. Instead

of focusing on the rational solution for a project,

sometimes he simply began a project as work of an


19

abstract art. However, Aalto’s design method never

ignored the geographical content. His formal and material

explorations were related to a political context of Finland,

which was also in a state of change throughout his life.

Nature was a symbol of freedom for Alvar Aalto, and

following the logic of nature and its self-generative

process, his architecture likewise generated freedom and

promoted freedom in human society. His architecture was

always in a state of development and change, and such he

proactively adapted his architecture with the changing

political weather of Finland and also its extension to world.


20

Bibliography

1. Pelkonen, Eeva-Liisa. Alvar Aalto: Architecture,

Modernity and Geopolitics. New Haven: Yale University

Press, 2009.

2. Curtis, William J. R. Modern Architecture Since 1900.

3rd ed., [Rev., expanded, and redesigned]. London:

Phaidon, 1996.

3. Schildt, Göran. The Early Years. New York: Rizzoli,

1984.

4. Schildt, Göran. Alvar Aalto: The Decisive Years. New

York: Rizzoli, 1986.


21

5. Schildt, Göran. Alvar Aalto, the Mature Years. New


6. Schildt, Göran. Alvar Aalto: His Life. [Jyväskylä]:

Alvar Aalto Museum, 2007.

7. Aalto, Alvar, and Göran Schildt. Masterworks. New

York: Universe Publ., 1998.

8. Aalto, Alvar, and Göran Schildt. Alvar Aalto in His

Own Words. New York: Rizzoli, 1998.

9. Aalto, Alvar, and Göran Schildt. Alvar Aalto: The

Complete Catalogue of Architecture, Design and Art. New


10. Weston, Richard. Alvar Aalto. London: Phaidon

Press, 1995.

11. Alvar Aalto. Architectural Monographs ; 4. New York:

Rizzoli, 1979.

12. Pearson, Paul David. Alvar Aalto and the

International Style. New York: Whitney Library of Design;

Watson-Guptill Publications, 1978.


22

13. Neuenschwander, Eduard. Finnish Architecture, and

Alvar Aalto. Books That Matter. New York: Praeger, 1954.

14. Gutheim, Frederick Albert. Alvar Aalto. The Masters

of World Architecture Series. New York: G. Braziller, 1960.

15. Fleig, Karl. Alvar Aalto. 4.a ed. español/inglés. Obras

y Proyectos = Works and Projects. Barcelona: G. Gili, 1994.

16. Alvar Aalto-museo. Aalto Interiors 1923-1970.

Jyväskylä: Alvar Aalto-museo, 1986.

17. Aalto, Alvar, and Museum of Modern Art (New York,

N.Y.). Alvar Aalto: Between Humanism and Materialism.

New York: Museum of Modern Art : Distributed by H.N.

Abrams, 1998.

18. Aalto, Alvar. Alvar Aalto Houses: Timeless

Expressions = Aruvā Aaruto No Jūtaku: Sono Eien

Narumono. Tōkyō: Ē ando Yū, 1998.

19. Aalto, Alvar. Alvar Aalto. New York: Praeger

Publishers, 1975.


23

Documents

Ds alvaraalto