which in Janák’s realization validates the aspirations of the relieve to achieve a dynamic animation of mass in the manner of their historical antecedent. Secondly, the space-creating possibilities of a Triangular form preoccupied Janák for much of his Cubist period, leading him to examine them in various contexts, but particularly in that of perception (Fig.12). But the ideal of internal unity in the relationship between plan and elevation, of invoking the architectural content through the medium of the facade was never fulfilled. Thirdly, the analogy with the Pyramid consisted in its “being both the core and the minimum of corporeal dimension”. For Janák, of a variety of plans of disparate cultural types, he concluded that it was the triangular, rather than the square, ratio that dominated the formative stages of architectural history and, most particularly, that at medieval architecture. Ultimately, he concluded that it was primarily the “triangle square, which is both the base and the constructive probe - a circumscribed equilateral triangle” [8]. Exceptional in this respect was Janák’s competition proposal for the Žižkov monument in Prague (1913) (Fig.13), as elaborated in two alternative schemes in collaboration with his friend, the sculptor Otto Gutfreund. This compelling pyramidal structure of crystalline forms comes the closest to the ideals of spiritual abstraction.
COMPLEXITY OF FIGURE AND THE PURITY OF FORM
The function constitutes the actual truth of architecture; the form can at best be an expression of that truth.
Jan Kotěřa, “O novém umění” [On New Art], 1900
Functionalism, just the word itself, provokes a negative or even mechanical reaction. In this way, discussions and rhetoric lean more toward stylistic reference and cultural meaning. Pavel Janák, who had worked in the Studio of Jan Kotěřa, had exposed a radically different view.
Towards the ideological questions, the attitude of Janák from functionalist, was different. He has never renounced the artistic claim to link Riegel’s artistic desire (“Kunstwollen”) [9] with the purpose of building. The idea of form has neoclassical roots where beauty became more customary rather than natural [10]. According to Neoclassical rhetoric, if figure is dependent on custom, then form can be viewed as positive or natural beauty, dependent on geometry. Just as figure includes conceptual and associative meaning, form excludes it. Form, in its exclusion, can be reduced to as “a-historic degree zero” Creativity, it will advance in its pursuit of plastic form, and in the plastic realization of architectural concepts.
Conclusion: Dutch influence, classicism, constructivism and functionalism - this is not Janák’s self-developed architectonic means of expression. Form’s primacy over function and its spiritual and perceptual roots, were strongly advocated by the Czech Cubist architects even though several, including Janák. As an adaptable, flexible person, it simply takes on the tendencies of the 1920s, enriches them with their own elements and leads them to a successful realization. Janák did not accept constructivism and functionalism as a political-ideological social program, as was promoted by a young generation of architects around K. Teige. He has aesthetically and stylistically translated his ideas into social, functional and moral architecture. This form also then becomes more about revealing aspects in buildings that are not readily apparent in the external world, which has essentially been lost or disconnected from meaning. He set the abstract thoughts of forms above the individual properties of materials, not only does he respect, but also counts on the strength and bearing properties of materials, which is exposed certain stresses and tensions from the custom.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Teige, (Transl. into Eng. Ž. Murray & D. Britt), Modern Architecture in Czechoslovakia and Other Writings, Los Angeles, 2000, Jan Kotěra and His Times, pp. 97-113.
[2] N. Kiesling, Pavel Janák, Prague, 2011.
[3] J. Kroha, Věda a bydlení (Science and Housing), in: Stavba 11, pp. 184-188, 1932-1933.
[4] K. Teige, Liquidierung der Kunst(Liquidation of art). Frankfurt 1968, specifically in: Der Konstruktivismus und die Liquidierung der Kunst (Constructivism and the liquidation of art), Prague, pp. 53-69, 1925.
[5] P. Janák, Rozřešili jsme již nejmenší byt?( We have solved the smallest apartment?), in: Styl 11, pp. 81-83, 1931-1932.
[6] S. Templ, (Transl. into engl. K. Lum.), Baba, The Werkbund Housing Estate in Prague, Basel, pp. 21-37, 1999.
[7] A. Stocks, “Stones of Rimini,” in The critical Writings of Adrian Stokes, vol.1 London, p.233, 1978.
[8] Ž. Murray, Sources Of Cubist Architecture In Bohemia: The Theories Of Pavel Janák, (manuscript) Montreal, 1990.
[9] A. Riegl, Problems of style: foundations for a history of ornament, Princeton, 1993.
[10] Cf. A. Colquhoun, Essays in Architectural Criticism: Modern Architecture and Historical Change, London, 1981.