VUOKSENNISKA CHURCH | ALVAR AALTO | 1955_1958 | CASE STUDY_FORMAL STRATEGIES_NATALIA MULEKOVA

“Nothing old is ever reborn. But it never completely disappears either. Anything that has ever been always re-emerges in a new form.” (Aalto, 1921).

Architectural career, design perspectives and life-based philosophy of a Finnish architect Alvar Aalto, who started practicing architecture almost a century ago, remain intriguing subjects for exploration. Aalto’s view towards the architectural form had been evolving over decades and penetrating through the fabric of his designs including the Vuoksenniska Church. Attentive look at the building reveals an abundance of information unwrapping architect’s thoughts regarding architectural form.

1 | stylistic formapproach | chronological overviewfocus | architectural form through exploration of style

The exploration diagram 1 revealed the presence of typology of hall churches with campanile in Aalto’s repertoire prior to design of Vuoksenniska. The linear composition as a mean of formal analysis allows for observation of stylistic alterations leading from historicism and classical forms to pure functionalist and, eventually, sculpturesque motives within the remained typology of a hall church with a bell tower. Stylistic form of Vuoksenniska ties strongly to Aalto’s vision of functionalism. Although an architect is sometimes called a father of Scandinavian modernism, the architectural form of the church expands beyond mere following the function of a building. Indeed, Aalto conceived of a form in relation to a society, i.e. as a representation of social propriety, befitting to customs/ideology and practical convenance [1]. In contrast to the basics of a modernist movement mentioned by Eisenman, such as a generalized formula ‘form follows function’ and a shift of anthropocentric perception of an individual to non-

humanist principles [2], Aalto pursues immaterial social realm as a driver for an architectural form. Most importantly, Aalto ignores fitness of an architectural form with its immediate effect: “the befitting of today is an embarrassment of tomorrow…” [1, p26]. On the contrary, he explores much wider scope of the linguistic possibilities of a form, i.e. its ability to recall ideas, memories and other immaterial properties that constitute the term ‘propriety’ in relationship to time. Due to the importance of social propriety as a form generator, perhaps, the architect sought a true definition of it by drawing the comparison between a form and a language. Foucault in Discourse of Nature identifies this ability of the “true language” to formulate an accurate denomination of natural history by remembering past memories and knowledge from the continuity of an examined subject [3].

2 | form in spaceapproach | spatial viewfocus | architectural form through vectors and stretched space

The abstracted spatial perception of an architectural form is based on understanding of a campanile as a major vertical element contrasting with a mass of the church spreading out horizontally. The vector of the bell tower represents a movement shooting upwards and balancing the horizontal floating kinetics of the major volume of Vuoksenniska. Stretched space that is ‘draped’ over the vectors contribute to the understanding of spatial behavior of both horizontal and vertical masses of the building.

The idea of propriety and wide associative possibilities of form become an underlining logic of the design of the church. Further expansion of these ideas fed the functionality of Vuoksenniska. Even though Aalto does not create a form as a direct footprint of a function, he draws the functionality upon the practico-social implications. The church is still a highly functional creature responding to both necessities of the users and social associations from the past. However, the architectural ability to stay away from the mainstream modernist movement resulted in individuality of a building (what now may be called sculpturesque motives), regionalism and humanity. The building successfully responds to two functionally opposite activities – religious (worship hall) and civil (offices and accommodation), allows for flexible size of the main hall (by means of the moving partitions) and reflects on the distribution of light and sound as major programmatic objectives.

3 | generation of formapproach | acoustical study

focus | logics of an overall form based on expansion of sound waves

4 | perception of formapproach | acoustical studyfocus | logics of interior form based on acoustics

5 | perception of formapproach | light studyfocus | logics of interior form based on lit and shaded surfaces

6 | perception of interior form approach | curvature study focus | active vs passive forms in the interior based on curvature

7 | perception of interior form 8 | perception of interior formapproach | kinetics study approach | typological analysis | iconographic campanile

focus | dynamic vs. static forms in the interior focus | logics of typological progression through alteration

Aalto’s attitude towards architectural typologies has influenced his search for an architectural form alongside the rule of propriety and linguistic possibilities of form. An attempt to make an architectural form socially legible brings the necessity of its typological codification. In other words, a form that relies on social immaterial ideologies from the past can perform its task only through the alteration of an existing architectural type. For Aalto, architecture gains wisdom through those various typological modifications. Aalto entirely accepts a typology, as Argan describes it, i.e. a feasible classification and accumulation of principal ideas that exist in order to be a base for infinite possibilities of architectural alterations. Interestingly, the architect focuses on referencing and modifying existing typologies and never extends to an acceptance of new ones [4].

9 typological formapproach | typological analysis | iconographic basilica

focus | logics of typological progression through mathematics

10 | typological formapproach | planimetric typological analysis | relation to public building layout

focus | logics of typological form progression through mathematical grid transformation (acc. to D’Arcy Thompson)

11 | hypothetical formapproach | sectional analysis of solids and voidsfocuse | possibility of architectural form development

references

1. Porphyrios, D. Sources of Modern Eclecticism. Studies on Alvar Aalto. London: Academy Editions,1982.2. Eisenman, P. Post Functionalism in Hays, K.M. ed. Architecture Theory since 1968, p236-239.3. Foucault, M. The Order of Things: The Discourse on Nature, 1970.4. Argan, G.C. On the Typology of Architecture in Nesbitt, K., ed. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, 1996, p 242-246