Norway Architecture and Figurative Arts

By | December 17, 2021

Architecture

Like the other Scandinavian countries, also Norway presents the central problem of the search for its own national and cultural identity, to be found in the context of a long tradition, for the past closely intertwined with the events of the entire team of Nordic civilization. This datum must be kept in mind when dealing with the modern development of architecture in Norway, since here as elsewhere in Scandinavia the architectural-urbanistic culture takes on similar issues with full awareness, and is therefore largely influenced by them. For Norway culture and traditions, please check aparentingblog.com.

Between 1814 and 1905, when Norway obtains independence, the roots of the identification process lie, which will continue to develop up to the present day in parallel with a radical transformation in the social democratic sense of the economic and political structures. Urbanization poses organizational problems outside the country’s construction tradition. The ancient art of carpentry without nails (Tommerhus) and with poles (Stav) and the urban structures modeled on the autonomous farms scattered throughout the territory, from Telemark to Nurnedal, from Saetersdal to Gudbransdal, provide poor and reductive models. Rejecting imported architecture (e.g. Trondheim Cathedral), Norwegian architects refer to the wooden paneling of the century. 18 °, intended to mask the load-bearing framework of the buildings, and which offer wide possibilities for decorative variations in the surfaces. Against this background the characters of modern Norwegian architecture take shape: composition as an assembly of parts, urban design freely articulated and free from geometric patterns, fantastic rendering of details and finishes. The basic question will be identified in the search for a “style” capable of reflecting the contemporary Norway Tommerhus and the venerable ecclesiastical buildings in Stav they had represented the image of the legendary land of the Vikings. Overcoming, between the 19th century and the first thirty years of ours, the neoclassical (University of Oslo, 1841-53, CH Grosch), eclectic (Oslo Parliament, 1866, EV Langlet), and neo-medieval (Sandvika Town Hall, 1917) experiences, M. Poulsson), Norwegian architects, under the influence of Sweden and the needs of new technology, approach international rationalism. From the Thirties to the end of the Second World War, architects working in a climate of adaptation of national characters to rationalism constitute the majority (G. Blackstad, H. Munthe-Kås, O. Bang, F. Brynn, A. Korsmo and others). Works to remember: Gallery of the artists’ society, Oslo 1930; house in Ullern, 1932; buildings for the University of Oslo, 1937; Social center in Oslo, 1940. The last post-war period gives rise to problems of reconstruction. Also on this occasion, the Norwegian architects are committed to ensuring that from a problem of generic transformation, a renewal of relations and methods of land management in an ever more advanced sense arise; as had already happened at the time of the birth and the first affirmation of the country as a nation. A similar climate resulted in the expropriation law of 1946, which offers architects a privileged position, in collaboration with the organs of the state administration, for the purpose of implementing a building policy aimed at spreading high standards in buildings and using balanced of urbanized territories. The success of this commitment posed by Norwegian architectural culture certainly cannot be said to be high: the reconstruction of cities, the birth of new neighborhoods and the average level of buildings, although correct, remain substantially within the confines of limited and short-range solutions. of influence. Only a few personalities, A. Korsmo (villa in Oslo, 1955), E. Viksjo (Government Palace, Oslo 1959), S. Fehn (school in Oslo, 1964), E. Hultberg and NO Lund (Skjetten district, 1973), offer a pungent contribution to the theme of the re-foundation of an architectural language, modeled on the complex instances of current reality. you see they remain substantially within the confines of solutions with limited scope and short range of influence. Only a few personalities, A. Korsmo (villa in Oslo, 1955), E. Viksjo (Government Palace, Oslo 1959), S. Fehn (school in Oslo, 1964), E. Hultberg and NO Lund (Skjetten district, 1973), offer a pungent contribution to the theme of the re-foundation of an architectural language, modeled on the complex instances of current reality. you see they remain substantially within the confines of solutions with limited scope and short range of influence. Only a few personalities, A. Korsmo (villa in Oslo, 1955), E. Viksjo (Government Palace, Oslo 1959), S. Fehn (school in Oslo, 1964), E. Hultberg and NO Lund (Skjetten district, 1973), offer a pungent contribution to the theme of the re-foundation of an architectural language, modeled on the complex instances of current reality.

Figurative Arts

Two important factors influenced Norwegian art of the 20th century, nature and E. Munch, determining the stylistic dominance of the Expressionist school. Alongside this, however, a decorativist orientation also had a certain importance in Norwegian art which, originating from Matisse, was introduced in Norway by J. Heiberg (1884-1976) and J. Rian (1891). K. Fjell (1907) also ranks along this line, but he differs for a greater national characterization of his style, marked by folkloric motifs. If R. Nesch (1893-1975) and E. Enger (1899) can be considered the typical exponents of Norwegian art of the thirties, it is much more difficult to find such widely representative artists for the forties and fifties. A. Schultz (1901) abstracts his own experience of nature. At the end of the 1950s, Norwegian art becomes progressively more abstract while retaining naturalistic elements. This is the case of the vigorous painting by K. Rumohr (1916) or that of I. Sitter (1929), with simple monumental forms, in which black and gray dominate and which seems to want to stop the moments of a fleeting past. The work of J. Weidemann (1923) has instead been developing from clear geometric forms towards the indefinite forms of an informal art, while that of J. Johannessen (1934) started from spontaneism to arrive at realism. The painters GS Gundersen (1921), H. Bleken, R. Wold, L. Tiller and the sculptor O. Tandberg (1920) can in all respects be considered exponents of concrete art, particularly interested in spatial representation. C. Nesjar (1920) also has he began to work in abstractionism first in painting, then with his monumental sculptures, and he worked for some time in collaboration with Picasso. In the 1960s he created water sculptures that turn into ice sculptures in winter.

In the sixties and seventies the most significant artistic production was, on the whole, that carried out, in the context of orders from public bodies, by artists such as A. Haukelund (1920) and Norway Aas, both sculptors. At the beginning of the seventies the tendency towards a new romantic realism is manifested, an example of which is O. Nerdrum who, in his painting, comes close to “historicism”. However, the influence of nature is always present.

Norway Architecture