Versión clásicaVersión móvil
OpenEdition Books

Figure de la ville et construction des savoirs

 | 
Frédéric Pousin

Partie III. Architecture, communication et culture visuelle

Chapitre IX. On the representation of contemporary Greek architecture

A survey of greek architectural publications

Vassiliki Petridou y Elias Constantopoulos

Texto completo

  • 1 Le Corbusier, L’Atelier de la recherche patiente, Paris, Vincent Fréal et Cie, 1960, p. 27.

Quand on voyage et qu’on est praticien des choses visuelles, architecture, peinture ou sculpture, on regarde avec ses yeux et on dessine afin de pousser à l’intérieur, dans sa propre histoire, les choses vues. Une fois les choses entrées par le travail du crayon, elles sont inscrites. Dessiner soi-même, suivre des profils, occuper des surfaces, reconnaître des volumes, etc., c’est d’abord regarder. C’est être apte peut-être à observer, apte à découvrir [...]; à ce moment-là le phénomène inventif peut survenir. On invente et même on crée.
Le Corbusier1

  • 2 P Portoghesi, Aldo Rossi, The Sketchbooks, 1990-1997, Londres, Thames and Hudson, 2000, p. 7.
  • 3 Since the Renaissance, a long line of illustrious precedents can be traced back to Piranesi, Ledou (...)

1It is a common assumption that architectural drawings are a key element in understanding architectural design. Paolo Portoghesi, in referring to Aldo Rossi’s architecture, has characteristically suggested that: «For a long time drawing was the only way for Rossi to create architecture; he used drawing not just as a means of producing plans for a building, but as a tool for teasing out the fruits of his imagination».2 This is just one instance of many, which demonstrates that architectural representation is not only an instrument of communication but also a primary vehicle for developing architectural ideas. Since the Renaissance and the division between intellectual design and manual building, drawings have been used as tools, either as means to communicate with the clients or as instructions to the master builders. Furthermore however, they also constitute the essential means through which architects envisage and elaborate their thoughts3.

  • 4 The research is based on previous investigation on the history and presentation of Greek architect (...)
  • 5 Architecture in Greece and Design + Art in Greece, are bilingual reviews (Greek and English), publ (...)
  • 6 During the last twenty-five years a few architectural monographs of distinguished post war Greek a (...)

2This research constitutes an enquiry into the meaning of representation in contemporary Greek architecture, as it appears in the architectural press4. This is a first attempt to deal comprehensively with the subject, based on the observation and interpretation of material published in the major Greek architectural publications of the last thirty-five years. The annual reviews Architecture in Greece and Design + Art in Greece are the only architectural publications to have remained constantly in print since 1967 and 1970 respectively5. Though the research also extends to monographs of major Greek architects, it makes only occasional references to them when necessary, for reasons of economy of space6.

3The essay concentrates on two main issues. The first examines the ways in which the design process is communicated to its public through architectural representations. The second concerns the importance of representations and the degree to which they may be instrumental in constructing Greek architectural discourse.

  • 7 Historians such as Helene Lipstadt and Marc Saboya have dealt with the subject of the diffusion of (...)

4At this stage of the research we have concentrated especially on manners of representation as they appear in publications of realised buildings and more specifically on their published drawings. While the representational value of published architectural drawings is unquestionable regarding unbuilt projects, it may not be equally apparent when it concerns built projects. The employment of only a limited number of visualizing techniques (photographs and plans) for buildings in print and the rather rare use of three-dimensional drawings and sketches, tell us of a very particular way of presenting architecture to its public7. The study centres upon the way in which Greek architects present their buildings when they are published, as well as the importance they allocate to their drawings, according to the frequency of their publication.

  • 8 Robin Evans: «All two-dimensional representations lack the sense of three-dimensionality that is t (...)
  • 9 One may legitimately consider here that even the experience of walking through real buildings, doe (...)

5The significance of the study of representations is paramount for the study of architecture, through all its stages from conception to realisation8. Architectural representations assist us in understanding and judging the intentions of an architect against the built result -realized space9. As will become apparent in the present paper, published Greek architecture by not disclosing enough information so as to elucidate the design process, it also promotes buildings as discrete and autonomous objects, unrelated to context. Thus it appears unable yet to consciously articulate the appropriate means of constructing the contemporary environment. Such a lack of interest regarding the design process has an important side effect for research, namely the lack of archival material based on drawings which would permit more extensive and in depth studies to be made.

Architectural representations in print

6The ongoing research that is presented here, has located a wide spectrum of methods of representation, wich are current in Greek architectural reviews. Two broad areas can be distinguished within this spectrum:

  1. The first and most frequently used method, which may be characterised as standard or normative, is that of orthographic projections - plans, sections and occasionally elevations - as a key to understanding building photographs.
  2. The second, less frequently used method, which is to be found in only a few select published examples, is that of freehand sketches and three-dimensional drawings, such as perspectives and axonometrics, as means of enriching the understanding of buildings.
  • 10 Gabriela Goldschmidt has very astutely addressed this issue in her article «Processus privé et ima (...)

7In the first case, regarding the overwhelming majority of published and realised projects an obvious lack of interest in three-dimensional drawings is apparent. It seems that photographs of buildings in themselves suffice to explain the three-dimensional nature of the works, substituting fragmentally on paper, the actual experience of using or walking into a building. Two-dimensional drawings such as plans are used in these presentations as the sole and sufficient means of deciphering buildings, as a key to understanding and deco-difying their photographs. An important observation with significant consequences to our subject must be made here, regarding the size and the relative scale of these drawings. The size of drawings usually varies greatly within the same publication, thus enforcing the primacy of magazine or book layout at the expense of architectural readability and clarity, obstructing the comparative study of buildings and further research on them10. In addition, the smallness of their size also makes them unintelligible for any purpose of understanding or practical use. This disparity in scale between drawings hinders the reader from understanding their precise relation.

8In the second case, sketches and three-dimensional drawings, from conceptual drawings to precise renderings, are employed in order to enrich our understanding of buildings. At one end of this spectrum there are drawings which form an impression of the kind of architecture that architects are striving for. Such drawings are usually mere illustrations of an accurately designed end product, a formally fixed space. In this case drawings do not serve as a tool helping us to understand the passage from representation to architecture. At the other end of the spectrum, there are drawings architects use in order to actually construct through them a new reality on paper. In this case the drawings themselves are the agents of such a transformation.

9It is useful at this point to refer to a select number of published examples by Greek architects, to further clarify these points. It is often the case that two different kinds of drawing appear, pointing towards a discord between the representation of existing architecture and the representation of a new architectural project. Whereas drawings of buildings appear as representations of autonomous self-contained objects, drawings of existing landscapes or cityscapes rather romantically display a sensitive reading of a place, representing the totality of a specific environment.

  • 11 D. Philippidis (ed.), «Alexandras Tombazis», Design +Art in Greece, 24, 1993.

10The published drawings of existing parts of cities or the landscape, which form an introduction to Alexandras Tombazis’ architectural monograph11 for example, differ greatly from the drawings of his technological buildings in the following pages. His precisely rendered perspectives of the city or the countryside consist in dense patterns of lines, showing buildings inextricably related to their surrounding environment. On the contrary, drawings of his designs which have been realised, are abstracted from their physical environment, existing somewhere in limbo. It must however be noted that these drawings are also executed in various modes, adapted to various building issues, thus representing an architectural specificity that changes continuously from one project to another.

  • 12 House and home decoration magazines both in Greece and abroad normally operate on the first level (...)

11An interesting and revealing example of the conscious use of representation to enforce an underlying but unrealised idea, appearing after the design of a building, is that of the second publication of Tombazis’ solar house in Trapeza Aegialias in the Peloponnese. In this case a house designed in stark formal contrast to its surrounding environment, a strict technical conception, reappears a few years later enmeshed in nature, as if, after the passing of time, it has become an inseparable part of the environment. These drawings can be interpreted as an illustration of the architect’s hope and wish that someday nature will take over, so that the building will eventually merge in with the surrounding nature, thus belonging to a world similar to his sketches of existing landscapes. Such cases raise the issue of a methodology regarding the relation between architecture and its representation, and the influence of international design trends that are publicised through unbuilt projects12.

  • 13 D. Philippidis (ed), «Dimitris Fatouros», Architecture in Greece, 32, 1998.
  • 14 A. Giacumacatos (ed.), «Tasos & Dimitris Biris», Architecture in Greece, 27, 1993.
  • 15 P. Tournikiotis (ed.), «Issaias/Papaioannou», Design +Art in Greece, 26, 1995.
  • 16 A. Giacumacatos (ed.), «Kyriakos Kiokos», Design + Art in Greece, 27, 1996.
  • 17 A. Giacumacatos, Venice Biennale, op. cit.

12Similar observations can be made about the published drawings, though different in technique and scope, of some other architects such as Dimitris Fatouros13, Tasos & Dimitris Biris14, Issaias /Papaioannou15 and Kyriakos Krokos16. The sensitive approach of such important Greek architects is apparent in their drawing manner, exhibiting their architectural conceptions but also their deeper, underlying intentions. It is possible to detect in some of these the specific problems concerning Greek architecture and its cultural identity. Interestingly enough the portraits of two young women representing perhaps, two faces of the Greek urban and rural landscape, as Yota Kalavrytinou has observed, precede both the Biris and Krokos monographs (fig. 1, fig. 2). Such portraits, along with their accompanying photographs or drawings of neo-classical architecture, display a melancholic sensitivity for the past, reminiscent of fayum portaits. Drawings however of their buildings presented in the following pages make hard to identify the ways in which such sensibilities are transformed into their realised architecture. Through such contrasts the issue of the identity of contemporary Greek architecture and its true locus comes into relief. Occasionally, Krokos’ lyrical renditions of the Greek landscape are recreated in some of his drawings for his houses or the Byzantine Museum, in an attempt to reconstruct the qualities of light and texture he imagines. His drawings in particular are presented in a separate introductory publication of his Venice Biennale monograph17, quite apart from his buildings. His rather naïve but also quite surrealistic renditions of vernacular or neoclassical buildings - mostly elevations and less frequently perspectives - set within their natural environment make a strong impression not only of the forms, but even of the light, the shadows and the atmosphere of the Greek countryside.

13The drawings by Constantinos Decavallas differ from the ones discussed so far, in forming a more consistent relation between the representation of the existing and the proposed architecture. Decavallas, a modernist architect of the sixties, masterfully uses perspective drawing, as he himself confesses, in order to judge result against intention, the built space next to the one imagined. As Dimitris Philippidis recounts:

  • 18 The Greek word σχέδιον is difficult to translate into English, because of its dual meaning that co (...)
  • 19 D. Philippidis (ed.), «Constantinos Decavallas», Architecture in Greece, 28, 1994, p. 63. Also see (...)

In many cases Decavallas returns to the built work and takes a photograph with his old Leica, from the same spot that he had originally selected for his perspective. In this way he surveys himself and this is one of the rare moments he allows himself an expression of satisfaction for what he has designed18. He shows me proudly the sketch, then the photograph from the same spot, he compares them and finally announces: «It has become as I sketched it», or «The final design changed»19.

Figure 1. T. and D. Bins, photograph of apartment building in Polydrosso, Halandri, and painting of «House at the lake» by T. Biris (Architecture in Greece, 27, 1993). With the kind permission of the editor.

14Decavallas’ clearly outlined perspectives without any shadows, are characterized by the great amount of information which they contain, be they plants and paving in exterior spaces, or interior furnishings and lighting (fig. 3). Decavallas makes his perspectives as realistic as possible through his detailing and foregrounding (in the form of a carpet or a table, the leaves of a tree, or tiles and cobblestones), in order to draw the reader into his picture. Thus Decavallas manages to construct very convincingly the ambience of an international modernity that already exists in the western world and which is celebrated in his drawings as if it also existed in the Greek landscape. Drawing in this sense becomes a sort of naturalising agent for the introduction of a certain kind of modernist sensibility to a specific place. Elements of the Greek landscape itself, such as the ever-present verticals of cypress trees are introduced, in contrast to the proposed linear, horizontal buildings. Through his drawings the natural landscape coexists and is contrasted to the ordered cosmos of modern architecture.

Figure 2. K. Krokos, painting of young woman and photograph of school in Samos (Design + Art in Greece, 27, 1996). With the kind permission of the editor.

  • 20 D. Philippidis, «The Expressive Means of Aris Konstantinidis», in Five Essays on Aris Konstantinid (...)

15The sketches by Aris Konstantinidis20 similarly trace a related ground. In this case however the schism between what exists and that which is proposed is greater. It is possible to clarify this point by referring to a contrast between Konstantinidis’ properly draughted plans, and the intention to add furniture or landscaping ornaments to the drawings (fig. 4). Thus the rationality of the plans is compromised when seen against their freehand, sketchy embellishment, with plants and other more «rustic» elements and furnishings. Konstantinidis also draws his sections, elevations and perspectives in a similar manner, treating the rational structure with a secondary layer of natural elements. Thus he brings into his drawings images of the countryside, of the landscape and its anonymous constructions, the primeval shelters of the Greek vernacular which he revered in so much. Konstantinidis’ drawings of Greek vernacular archetypal structures have indeed a rare clarity and formal strength, an abstraction of lines akin to Chinese calligraphy. Similarly the perspective drawings of his buildings are made with very thin lines, but are cluttered with details of building materials and natural forms, such as bricks and leaves drawn in an identical, repetitive manner. His is an attempt to align his own contemporary architecture with the structural clarity and integrity of the vernacular, he so strongly admonished during his lifetime, both in his buildings and writings.

Figure 3. C. Decavallas. perspective drawing of house in Porto Rafti, (Architecture in Greece. 28, 1994). With the kind permission of the editor.

Figure 4. A. Konstantinidis, one family house, Pentell (A. Konsiantinidis, Projects and Buildings, Athens, Agra, 1981). With the kind permission of the editor.

  • 21 E. Constantopoulos (ed.), «Dimitris and Suzana Antonakakis», Design + Art in Greece, 25, 1994.

16The published drawings by Dimitris and Suzana Antonakakis21 have a more analytical character, compared to what has been discussed so far. The choice of their means of representation and their systematic publication aim to make transparent their spatial organization, the formal disposition and the relationship between interior and exterior space (fig. 5), as well as of various levels between them, in order to clarify to the fullest extent their conception of architecture. The Antonakakis seem to pay great care to the presentation of complete sets of plans (and often sections and elevations) of their buildings all to the same scale, so that they can be understood clearly and correctly. They also insist in publishing conceptual diagrams, either plans or sketches of bird’s eye views of buildings and their sites, in order to illustrate movement paths, views, orientation and volumetric disposition. Finally, they make extensive use of axonometric drawings and especially of exploded axonometrics, in order to clarify the complex spatial organisation of their buildings. Axonometric drawing is, for the Antonakakis, a real tool of understanding how spaces are related to each other, a way of replacing models on paper and resolving three-dimensional issues. Drawings, in their case, constitute a means of explaining and not merely illustrating the design process, assisting the architect’s struggle towards materialisation.

Figure 5. Atelier 66/D. and S. Antonakakis, sketch, section and entrance photograph of apartment building at 118 Em. Benaki str., Athens (K. Frampton, Atelier 66. The Architecture of Dimitris and Suzana Antonakakis, New York, Rizzoli, 1985). With the kind permission of the editor.

17A similar case could be made regarding the published works of architects Yiorgos and Eleni Manetas, and Michalis Souvatzidis. Tasos and Dimitris Biris have also frequently published sketches or three-dimensional drawings in order to show their work in progress, either in the form of axonometrics or perspectives. Perspectives are used by them in order to illustrate patterns of movement in space. These take place in the interior or exterior of their buildings, which they represent as self-contained urban microcosms. Axonometric drawings are also used for a different purpose, in order to illustrate their structural and constructional methods and the ways in which structural members are joined to each other.

18Last we consider the published work of two Greek architects, Dimitris Pikionis and Takis Zenetos who, despite their entirely different architectural approaches, provide the most poignant examples, for whom drawings constitute a new vision of the built environment.

  • 22 D. Philippidis, «The Attic Drawings of Dimitris Pikionis», in Dimitris Pikionis, Honorary Publicat (...)

19Pikionis’ transformation from an architecture based on the modern tenets of abstraction to those of regionalism is closely accompanied or even predated, by a change in his drawing techniques, which highlight his search towards the genius loci. Pikionis’ drawings22 not only show the imprint of time, memory and use on them, but also remind one of the measured drawings of archaeologists, which are made in order to precisely record the exact condition of ruins. The element of time that has passed over buildings, embedding them in our collective unconscious, is used by Pikionis in order to show his new projects, as if they had always been there. Thus drawing becomes necessary in presenting a vision of the new as old, since the value of the old is considered to be perpetual, by this architect. Pikionis’ naturalistic charcoal elevations or perspectives, seen from the point of view of a pedestrian, are striking in their abundant, almost dominating use of nature with plants, bushes and trees surrounding the buildings, and in their rendering of materials, mainly wood and stone, which create a vision of a ver)’ prominent, almost tactile physicality (fig. 6). These drawings do not simply represent the buildings, but are in themselves very powerful images of the architectural environment that Pikionis wishes to create, embedding or returning buildings back to nature, in an attempt to reconciliate the natural with the manmade.

20Zenetos proceeds from a very different standpoint, that of an entirely fresh and unprecedented view of Greek architecture in the sixties. His modern stance though, does not turn its back on the existing environment, neither does it rest on the vernacular or on the recollection of memory. On the contrary, Zenetos’ architecture looks for clues in the urban cityscape or natural landscape in order to form the basis of his designs. Zenetos’ agonises passionately over the kind of architecture that he proposes, his drawings being a vehicle of this anxious search. He uses mainly perspective drawings, somewhat akin to those by Mies Van der Rohe, in order to formulate his vision. His perspectives are characterised by the endless horizontality of his spaces. The vanishing lines are not limited in an attempt to organise a specific space with all its material qualities, but rather represent the expanse of an endless sequence of flexible spaces (fig. 7). The crossing of lines and planes directly impresses on us the idea of transparency and lightness, which constitute a key concept of Zenetos’ glass architecture. His insistence in publishing his working perspective drawings, alongside photographs of his buildings, explains the importance he accorded to his drawings, not as mere representations, but as constructions against which the real buildings could be judged.

figure 6. D. Pikionis, perspective drawings of house. (D. Philippidis, «The Attic Drawings of Dimitris Pikionis». in Dimitris Pikionis, Honorary Publication on 100 Years from his Birth, Athens, National Technical University of Athens, 1989). With the kind permission of the editor.

Figure 7. T. Zenetos, perspective drawings of house. (0. Doumanis (ed.), Takis Ch. Zenetos, 1926-1977, Athens, Architecture in Greece Publications, 1978). With the kind permission of the editor.

Epilogue

21By way of an epilogue we must refer to the role of the context, of the surrounding environment, as it appears in the presentation of realised Greek architecture. The importance of the built or even the natural environment seems to be diminished by its absence in Greek architectural publications. Publications of post war Greek architecture appear to have completely exorcised the surrounding environment, as if architectural forms are born in a vacuum. The city especially, is conspicuous by its absence, despite the gigantic proportions it has actually assumed after the extensive post war urbanisation.

  • 23 Architecture in Greece, 19, 1985, p. 154-159.

22Even in cases where architecture in the city is the primary subject of a publication, the city is nowhere to be seen - not even in photographs. In the publication of «Five Office Buildings in the Center of Athens» by Alexandros Kalligas23 for example, the architect’s stated intention of an architecture related to the city context, is in no way convincingly or adequately justified in the accompanying photographs and plans.

23Such publications enforce the view that architecture is considered primarily as the production of autonomous objects, of freestanding buildings unrelated to context. It also serves as an indication of the private and atomistic character of contemporary Greek cities, in which the creation of public space is just an issue that is not being addressed at all in architectural terms. There are only a few, occasional references to context in Greek architectural publications. Even in such cases though, they do not convincingly come through as proposals for the relation between architecture and the city and even less as a conscious and worthwhile problematic regarding the issues of understanding architecture and its representation. Sketches or three-dimensional drawings by architects such as Biris or Antonakakis, which illustrate the spatial organisation of their buildings, appear however as representations of self-contained urban microcosms, within the perimeters of their site. Exceptional can be considered the drawings by Pikionis and Zenetos which, in their different ways, seem to somehow acknowledge the presence and the importance of the surrounding environment in the creation and representation of architecture. Even in these cases though, the context is often the site and the natural landscape, rather than the city itself.

24What seems to come forcefully out of this exploratory search into the role of representation in contemporary Greek architecture, is that of the absence of a plethora of issues regarding architectural and visual culture, which may allow the transition from thought to drawing and then to building. Thinking - drawing - building: These three concepts which testify architecture’s existence seem to be missing from publications. Each of these and all together in accord are necessary to fully realise any architectural proposition. The partial fulfilment of this process in publications poses a series question as to whether contemporary Greek architecture is capable of developing its own discourse, and also as to the ways in which its architectural visions can be successfully transformed into matter.

Notas

1 Le Corbusier, L’Atelier de la recherche patiente, Paris, Vincent Fréal et Cie, 1960, p. 27.

2 P Portoghesi, Aldo Rossi, The Sketchbooks, 1990-1997, Londres, Thames and Hudson, 2000, p. 7.

3 Since the Renaissance, a long line of illustrious precedents can be traced back to Piranesi, Ledoux, Boulle, Lequeu and J.-M. Gandy, reaching up to the 20th century with Antonio Sant’ Elia, Jakov Chernikov and Hugh Ferriss and more recently with the likes of Peter Eisenman, Aldo Rossi, Zaha Hadid, Daniel Libeskind and Lebbeus Woods, to name only a few of many daring visionary architects, that often had a long and lasting influence amongst their colleagues. See E. Constantopoulos, «The Deceptive Charm of Architectural Drawing», Ntizain, 1, Nov. 1991, p. 44-46.

4 The research is based on previous investigation on the history and presentation of Greek architecture in periodicals by V. Petridou, «Browsing through thirty Years of Architectural History», Design + Art in Greece, 30, 1999, p. 94-95, and E. Constantopoulos, «Covers of Architectural History», Architecture in Greece, 30, 1996, p. 124-126.

5 Architecture in Greece and Design + Art in Greece, are bilingual reviews (Greek and English), published annually by Orestis Doumanis in Athens.

6 During the last twenty-five years a few architectural monographs of distinguished post war Greek architects have been published, though still quite limited in scope and number. These are the following, in chronological order:
O. Doumanis (ed.), Takis Ch. Zenetos, 1926-1977, Athens, Architecture in Greece Publications, 1978.
A. Konstantinidis, Projects and Buildings, Athens, Agra, 1981.
E. Constantopoulos (ed.), Nicos Valsamakis 1950-1983, London, 9H Publications, 1984.
K. Frampton, Atelier 66. The Architecture of Dimitris and Suzana Antonakakis, New York, Rizzoli, 1985.
A. Kotsaki and A. Karabatzos/A. Markopoulou (eds.), G Theodosopoulos. The Architect and his Work, 1938-1988, Athens, 1989.
D. Pikionis, Architect, 1887-1968, A Sentimental Topography, exhibition catalogue, London, Architectural Association, 1989.
Y. Simeoforidis (ed.), Panos Koulermos, Topos, Memory + Form, exhibition catalogue, Athens, 1990.
D. Porphyrios, A. Betella, A. Sagharchi, Demetri Porphyrios, Selected Buildings & Writings, Architectural monographs n° 25, London, Academy Editions, 1993.
A. Pikionis (ed.), Dimitris Pikionis, vol. I/II/III/IV’, Athens, Bastas Plessas, 1994.
A. Stylianidis. V. Stylianidis, Architecture, Heraklion, University of Crete Publications, 1995.
A. Giacumacatos (ed.), The Architect Kyriakos Krokos, exhibition catalogue, VIe International Exhibition of Architecture, Venice Biennale, 1996.
C. Panousakis, Nikolaos Mitsakis 1899-1941, Athens, Benaki Museum Documentation Centre for Neohellenic Architecture, 1999.
A. Ferlenga, Dimitris Pikionis, Milano, Electa, 1999.
There have also been the following publications on contemporary Greek architecture:
H. Fessas-Emmanouil, New Public Buildings by N. Valsamakis, S. & D. Antonakakis & A. Tombazis, exhibition catalogue, Ve International Exhibition of Architecture, Venice Biennale, 1991.
S. Condaratos and W Wang (eds.), Architecture of the 20th century: Greece, Munich, Prestel/Hellenic Institute of Architecture/DAM, 1999.
Y. Simeoforidis and Y. Aesopos (eds.), Landscapes of Modernism: Greek Architecture 1960 s and 1990 s, Rotterdam, Metapolis Press, 1999.
E. Zenghelis (ed.), Exhibition catalogue, 7th International Exhibition of Architecture, Venice Biennale, 2000.

7 Historians such as Helene Lipstadt and Marc Saboya have dealt with the subject of the diffusion of architecture in periodicals, and special issues of important reviews such as Casabella (440-441, 1978) and L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui (272, 1990), are devoted to it. In Greek bibliography relevant studies by Bruno Zevi, Franco Raggi, Ezio Godoli and an interview by Andreas Giacumacatos of Guido Canella and Akos Moravanszky have been published in Architecture in Greece, 20, 1986, p. 99-113. An important speech on the subject of «Architecture in Print» by Manfredo Tafuri in Milan, on 18th March 1989, has also been translated in the Greek architectural review Tefchos, 14-15, 1995.

8 Robin Evans: «All two-dimensional representations lack the sense of three-dimensionality that is the essence of buildings and hence are reductive abstractions of built reality. It is for this reason that architects as well as painters have developed other representational means that compensate for this shortcoming, through the creation of the illusion of the third dimension, known most commonly as perspective or axono-metric drawing.» Quoted in R. Evans: «Translations from Drawing to Building and other Essays», in AA Documents 2, London, Architectural Association, 1997.

9 One may legitimately consider here that even the experience of walking through real buildings, does not reveal everything about their planning and construction, let alone the intentions of the people who created them.

10 Gabriela Goldschmidt has very astutely addressed this issue in her article «Processus privé et image publique dans la représentation architecturale», Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale et urbaine, «Pouvoir des figures», mai 2001.

11 D. Philippidis (ed.), «Alexandras Tombazis», Design +Art in Greece, 24, 1993.

12 House and home decoration magazines both in Greece and abroad normally operate on the first level only of pictorial representation, using photographs, without any reference to drawings. The study of the way in which photographs of (the most photogenic aspects of) a house constitute a virtual visual walk-through, that supposedly unveils and makes transparent the interior of a building, would certainly be an interesting research subject to follow up. Especially as the reading public of home-owners and decorators of such magazines is interested primarily in the ambience and the character of interior spaces and not in their organising plan or section.

13 D. Philippidis (ed), «Dimitris Fatouros», Architecture in Greece, 32, 1998.

14 A. Giacumacatos (ed.), «Tasos & Dimitris Biris», Architecture in Greece, 27, 1993.

15 P. Tournikiotis (ed.), «Issaias/Papaioannou», Design +Art in Greece, 26, 1995.

16 A. Giacumacatos (ed.), «Kyriakos Kiokos», Design + Art in Greece, 27, 1996.

17 A. Giacumacatos, Venice Biennale, op. cit.

18 The Greek word σχέδιον is difficult to translate into English, because of its dual meaning that conflates the two distinct terms, design and draw.

19 D. Philippidis (ed.), «Constantinos Decavallas», Architecture in Greece, 28, 1994, p. 63. Also see C. Decavallas, Of all I Have Said and Written, Athens, Libro, 1999.

20 D. Philippidis, «The Expressive Means of Aris Konstantinidis», in Five Essays on Aris Konstantinidis, Athens, Libro, 1997, and D. Iliopoulou-Rogan, «The Drawings of A. Konstantinidis», Kathimerini newspaper, 5.2.1989.

21 E. Constantopoulos (ed.), «Dimitris and Suzana Antonakakis», Design + Art in Greece, 25, 1994.

22 D. Philippidis, «The Attic Drawings of Dimitris Pikionis», in Dimitris Pikionis, Honorary Publication on 100 Years from his Birth, Athens, National Technical University of Athens, 1989.

23 Architecture in Greece, 19, 1985, p. 154-159.

Índice de ilustraciones

Leyenda Figure 1. T. and D. Bins, photograph of apartment building in Polydrosso, Halandri, and painting of «House at the lake» by T. Biris (Architecture in Greece, 27, 1993). With the kind permission of the editor.
URL http://books.openedition.org/editionscnrs/docannexe/image/4301/img-1.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 120k
Leyenda Figure 2. K. Krokos, painting of young woman and photograph of school in Samos (Design + Art in Greece, 27, 1996). With the kind permission of the editor.
URL http://books.openedition.org/editionscnrs/docannexe/image/4301/img-2.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 93k
Leyenda Figure 3. C. Decavallas. perspective drawing of house in Porto Rafti, (Architecture in Greece. 28, 1994). With the kind permission of the editor.
URL http://books.openedition.org/editionscnrs/docannexe/image/4301/img-3.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 323k
Leyenda Figure 4. A. Konstantinidis, one family house, Pentell (A. Konsiantinidis, Projects and Buildings, Athens, Agra, 1981). With the kind permission of the editor.
URL http://books.openedition.org/editionscnrs/docannexe/image/4301/img-4.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 130k
Leyenda Figure 5. Atelier 66/D. and S. Antonakakis, sketch, section and entrance photograph of apartment building at 118 Em. Benaki str., Athens (K. Frampton, Atelier 66. The Architecture of Dimitris and Suzana Antonakakis, New York, Rizzoli, 1985). With the kind permission of the editor.
URL http://books.openedition.org/editionscnrs/docannexe/image/4301/img-5.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 67k
Leyenda figure 6. D. Pikionis, perspective drawings of house. (D. Philippidis, «The Attic Drawings of Dimitris Pikionis». in Dimitris Pikionis, Honorary Publication on 100 Years from his Birth, Athens, National Technical University of Athens, 1989). With the kind permission of the editor.
URL http://books.openedition.org/editionscnrs/docannexe/image/4301/img-6.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 156k
Leyenda Figure 7. T. Zenetos, perspective drawings of house. (0. Doumanis (ed.), Takis Ch. Zenetos, 1926-1977, Athens, Architecture in Greece Publications, 1978). With the kind permission of the editor.
URL http://books.openedition.org/editionscnrs/docannexe/image/4301/img-7.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 70k

Autores

Vassiliki Petridou, architecte, historienne de l’architecture, est professeure associée à la Faculté d’architecture de l’Université de Patras et enseigne également à la Faculté d’architecture de l’Université nationale technique d’Athènes. Elle a publié divers articles dont: «P.F.L. Fontaine et L.H. Lebas: une double paternité pour la Chapelle expiatoire à la mémoire de Louis XVI et de Marie-Antoinette» dans Le Livre et l’Art. Études en hommage à Pierre Lelièvre, Paris, 2000; «La remise en question du passé: un tremplin pour l’avenir. La quête de l’architecture au seuil du nouveau millénaire», Annales d’Esthétique, vol. 41B Athènes, 2002; «L’architecture comme mémoire dans l’œuvre d’Aldo Rossi», Architectes, n° 45, Athènes, 2004.

Elias Constantopoulos, Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, University of Patras (Greece). Studied at the Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London (B.Sc, Diploma, M. Sc.), Member of Do.Co.Mo.Mo., Hellenic Institute of Architecture & Hellenic Society of Aesthetics. Research on 1930’s residential architecture in Athens. Co-editor of 9H & Ntizain, consult, ed. of Architecture in Greece reviews. Author of numerous articles and monographs and of 4 books (Nicos Valsamakis’ Architecture, Contemporary Industrial Design in Greece, History of the Decorative Arts, Architecture of the 20th Century: Greece (Consult, ed.). Founder of Sigma Design (Industrial design award 1992).

© CNRS Éditions, 2005

Condiciones de uso: http://www.openedition.org/6540