Helen Fessas-Emmanouil

Aris Konstantinidis (1913-1993):

His architectural legacy and worldview
in: Cofano, P. – Konstantinidis D.A. (ed.), ARIS KONSTANTINIDIS (1913-
1993), Milano: Electaarchitettura, 2010, p. 55-70.

My essay proposes a reassessment Aris Konstantinidis (1913-1993), a leading

figure of Greek contemporary architecture, whose holistic approach
transcended the placelessness and anti-traditionalist principles of Modernism.
Important as Konstantinidis was as an architect, he was equally outstanding as
a thinker and a critic. But, unlike the majority of prolific writers on architecture,
he wrote only because he built and only in accordance with what he had built.
This is an essay of mine published in the Italian monograph of the architect by
Electa (2010), accompanied by an English translation.
Aris Konstantinidis (1913-1993):
His architectural legacy and worldview

By Helen Fessas-Emmanouil

Foreword

My essay proposes a reassessment of Aris Konstantinidis (1913-1993), a leading

figure of Greek contemporary architecture, whose holistic approach
transcended the placelessness and anti-traditionalist principles of Modernism.
It will focus on those aspects of the architect’s work that confirm the following
view of Greek painter and poet Nicos Engonopoulos (1907-1985): “The years, in
my view, teach us that the greater the local character of an art [and craft], the
more global is its interest. That the more personal it is, the greater its universal
significance. And the more of its own time it is, the more eternal its content”.1
(Engonopoulos N., 1999: 15 [1938, interview] &
http://www.engonopoulos.gr/_homeEN)

Konstantinidis was an architect with a capital A, (Achleitner, 1965; Fessas-

Emmanouil, 1993: 50-59; and 2001: 96-117) well able to integrate theory with
practice, who worked only in Greece. However, his true contemporary
architecture with its essentially anonymous ethos has a more than local and
historic value. This applies also to his architectural philosophy. Aris
Konstantinidis was one of the few architects of his time who not only fought for
principles but who also worked and lived up to them until his death. The
architect insisted very much on that point.2 (Konstantinidis, 1981a; Fessas-
Emmanouil, Η., 1993: 50-59 & 2001: 95-117). He never lacked the courage to
name and criticize architects whose work often contradicted their words, not
shying away from the mythical names of Loos, Le Corbusier etc.3 (Konstantinidis
A. 1987: 29, 31, 32, 90, 91)

Formation and personality

I would like to start with some formative factors and personal traits which hold
a key to understanding his architectural approach and work.
Aris Konstantinidis was born in 1913 in Athens. His father Dimitris, a
medium-management bank employee and music-lover of Cypriot origin,
offered his three children and especially his son educational opportunites
far beyond his means. His mother Marika Andrianidis came from a middle-
class patriarchal family of the provincial town of Corinth in the
Peloponnese4 (Konstantinidis Α., 1987: 15-35 & Eleni [Nitsa] Konstantinidi:
interview…) The architect lived and worked in one of the most turbulent
periods of Greek and European History. As adolescent he was shaken by
the tragedy of 1,300,000 Greek refugees arriving from Asia Minor in
Greece, which was at the time a country of only five million people
exhausted by successive wars – the two victorious Balkan Wars of 1912 and
1913; World War I (1914-1918) preceded by the National Discord of 1915-
1917; and the Asia Minor disastrous campaign (1920-1922).

Konstantinidis studied architecture at the Technical University in Munich from

1931 to 1936. During the first three years of his studies the new faculty
members Adolf Abel (1882-1968) and especially Robert Vorhölzer (1884-1954)
tried to open the conservative syllabus to modern ideas, a trend that was
forcibly brought to an end in 1933 by National Socialism.5 (Nerdinger, 1993: 87-
109 &1985: 147-180; http://eng.archinform.net/arch/120.htm;
http://www.architekten-portrait.de/robert_vorhoelzer/index.html.)
Unsatisfied with his academic training, Konstantinidis read and travelled
extensively, often by bicycle, in Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Italy,
Austria and Hungary.6 Through this self-teaching process he came into direct
contact with avant-garde European architecture and managed to meet Mies
and other modern masters. He thus entered the world of his art with an
unadulterated outlook.7 (Konstantinidis A.,1992: 38-56) & 1981: 274)

Konstantinidis worked chiefly during the Cold War period, when Greece was
attached to the chariot of the Western bloc headed by the United States. He
reached manhood and started his career at the time of the Metaxas
dictatorship; fought in the victorious defensive War of Greece against Italian
Fascism (1940); went through the hardships of the German-Italian occupation
(1941-1944), the Resistance and the tragedy of the Greek Civil War (1946-
1949); produced his most important work in the 1950s and 1960s; and finally
went through the 7year Dictatorship of the Colonels in Greece (1967-1974).8
(Konstantinidis A., 1992: 69-132).

Konstantinidis’ strong character was built by experience and hardships. He had

a rebellious nature, strong artistic flair, natural propensity for drawing and
building things with his own hands. A man with integrity, a sense of mission and
cultural sensitivity, Konstantinidis was contemplative, persevering, inspired by
reality, tradition and nature in a poetic way. He was also self-assertive, critical
and egocentric.

As we shall see, he was creatively influenced by anonymous architecture, by

architects of the Modern Movement and Frank Lloyd Wright, as well as by
great poets and philosophers of antiquity and of the modern times.9
Acquainted with significant contemporary Greek painters, sculptors and poets
–including Diamandis Diamantopoulos (1914-1995), Yiannis Tsarouchis (1910-
1989), Yiannis Moralis (1916-2009), Odysseus Elytis (1911-1996) etc.– he
shared their concern for integrating modernity and tradition. 10 (Konstantinidis,
Α., 1992, 1: 250-256) Konstantinidis’ marriage to the sculptress Nathalia Mela
(b. 1923), scion of an historic Athenian family,11 (Konstantinidis, Α.,1992, 1:129-
131) helped him to become known in influential circles.

Self-knowledge and quest for a true contemporary architecture

Aris Konstantinidis’ approach and work were the creative products of

dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction with the status quo, whether academic,
professional or social, was the architect’s most characteristic companion
throughout his life. 12 (Tripp, ed. 1976: 35)

After his return to Athens, Konstantinidis’ well-bred instinct made him turn
away from the opposing courses of Greek interwar architecture; namely the
formalistic alignment with mainstream or avant-garde developments abroad13
(Fessas-Emmanouil, 1987, p. 103, 110) and the reactive or critical course of
regionalism, which had been opened up by Aristotelis Zachos (1871-1939)14
and modified by Dimitris Pikionis (1887-1968)15. (Fessas-Emmanouil, 2001: p.
76-95, 114-117; Ferlenga,1999); Frampton,1985: p. 287, 334) This was done
fairly soon after a short professional experience Konstantinidis had as an
employee of Yiannis Despotopoulos (1903-1992), who was a militant
modernist, 16 (Fessas-Emmanouil, 2001: 439 & 2009 (ed): 250-261; Kardamitsi-
Adami, 2006: 53-68) as well as an assistant of Pikionis at the National Technical
University of Athens. Deeply dissatisfied with those renowned architects,17
(Konstantinidis, 1981a &1992, 1: 125-127) he took a clear position against the
“colonial” modernization of Greek architecture and its parochial regionalism or
fake populism.

The Second World War18 and the architecturally inactive period of the German-
Italian occupation and of the Greek Civil War proved a most fertile interlude.
They offered Konstantinidis the opportunity to pursue a lonely but fruitful
process of self-knowledge in his passionate search for a true contemporary
architecture19. (Konstantinidis, 1992: 46-87) He wandered extensively
throughout Greece with his inseparable camera and sketchbook to study his
native architectural language, equiped with the language he had learned
abroad20. Through these “de-schooling” studies he discovered the archaic
simplicity, serenity and artistic wisdom21 of vernacular architecture – both
traditional and contemporary – as well as the harmony and spirituality of the
Greek landscape. He also discovered the identifying features of Greece’s age-
long architectural tradition, namely its ability to assimilate both Western and
Eastern influences; its moderation and tolerance of diversity; the organic
relation of buildings with their physical environment22 ; and the ancient Greek
tradition of the tripartite Megaron with its room, covered area and open
courtyard, which had survived in local anonymous architecture23.
(Konstantinidis A., 1975: 309-313 1981: 274 & 1992:117-118; Fessas-
Emmanouil, 1993: 106-108)

Moreover, he realised the fundamental difference of modern standardization,

which lead to an impersonal uniformity, from pre-industrial typicality; e.g. from
the Greek classic sense of the typical which was identified with the ideal
individual specimen or paradigm, or from the typicality of vernacular
achitecture which did not exclude creativity, freedom and variety. Thus
Konstantinidis fairly soon made up his mind that it is indispensable for an
architect to belong not only to his own time but also to a specific culture, if he
wants to create a work that will live and last.24 (Konstantinidis, 1987a: 181) In
doing so he broke away from artificial dilemma “Modernity or Tradition?”25
and set up to reconciliate its “horns” with his personal struggle for a true
contemporary architecture.

Konstantinidis turned into a fervent opponent of neoclassicism, which he

considered as the fake tradition of Greek urban architecture. Sharing Frank
Lloyd Wright’s and Victor Hugo’s anti-Renaissance position, he held the
Vitruvian theoretical tradition in abhorrence, and was also very critical of the
symbolic and megalomaniac “architecture parlante”, its neoclassical parents –
Etienne-Louis Boullée (1728-1799), Claude-Nicolas Ledoux (1736-1806) and
Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand (1760-1834)– and its postmodern reinterpreters -
Ricardo Bofill, Mario Botta etc. Starting from Hugo’s belief that out of the true
art of Antiquity the Renaissance created a fake and socially irrelevant one,
Konstantinidis went on to blame it for inaugurating the “career of rythmology”
in architecture – i.e. Renaissance, Baroque, Rococo, Neoclassicism, Art
Nouveau, Art Déco, Postmodernism etc.26 (Konstantinidis, 1975: 322; 1978: 20-
21; and 1987: 23-24)

Konstantinidis’ self-knowledge process is related to one of his favourite mottos,

namely the maxim of the ancient Greek poet Pindar “Learn what you are and
be such”. His quest for a true contemporary architecture was influenced by his
favourite Greek poet Dionysios Solomos (1798-1857) who addressed common
and essential matters “with thoughts and dreams”. It is the writings of this poet
that inspired Konstantinidis’ reluctance to be allured by the charm of
anonymous architecture or imitate its forms27 in the so-called neo-vernacular
way. His belief in the value of true architecture –contemporary as well as old–
is also indebted to German thinkers such as: the romantic poet Friedrich
Schiller (1759-1805) who believed in “the ageless worth of the genuinely
popular”28 (Konstantinidis, 1975: 323) and the aphorism of the scientist Georg
Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799) “That which is new is seldom true, that
which is true is seldom new”. Rilke’s motto that “Although the world
transforms fast, like the clouds of the sky, what is perfect is a return to the
old”.29 In spite of his agreement with Martin Heidegger’s dictum “…poetically
Man dwells…”, Konstantinidis is not really indebted to him since his
architectural views were formed and published at an earlier date
(Konstantinidis, 1947 –1950) 30 than the German philosopher’s influential
papers “Das Ding” (1950/1951), “Mensch und Raum” (1951) and “Bauen
Wohnen Denken” (1951). Furthermore it is more probable that both
Heidegger and Konstantinidis were influenced by the German poet Friedrich
Hölderlin (1770-1843) who postulated that “Man inhabits this earth as a useful
being, but also as a poetical one”.30 (Konstantinidis, 1975: 317; Lefas, 2009)
Konstantinidis expressed his view as follows: “Beyond the incidental symptoms
of an era, true architecture registers in its whole being certain basic and eternal
values and truths that are often common to many countries. This gives it an
international identity and existence and value, since people everywhere on
earth have the same dreams, the same bonds, the same loves. One and the
same humanity”.31 (Konstantinidis, 1981: 277) This view suggests a longing for a
stable world and hence a skeptical attitude to rash change.
The architect

Aris Konstantinidis worked both as a civil servant and as a free-lance architect.

His vicissitudinous career started in 1936 and ended in 1978. As a civil servant
he would serve in ten posts in four different Government agencies – the City
Planning Department of Athens (1936-37, 1939-40), the Ministry of Public
Works (1942-1953), the Low-Income Housing Department (OEK) (1955-57) and
the National Tourist Organisation (EOT) (1957-67). During those years he would
interrupt his civil service career twice – in 1937 to do his military service and in
1940 to serve on the Albanian front; and he would resign twice – in 1957 from
OEK and in 1967 from EOT32. As head of the architectural departments of OEK
and EOT, he allowed his subordinates a great deal of freedom. The bulk of his
buildings was produced in the 1950s and 1960s. In his twelve years service at
these two state departments, he produced 31 buildings, which represent 66%
of his built work. (Kontantinidis, 1981: 5-11, 274-275; and1957)

Konstantinidis was less fortunate in his private practice, which started in 1938,
yielding only 16 buildings mostly one-family houses33. This is due to
Konstantinidis’ unwillingness to be trendy and to compromise with the whims
of his clients.

In his opinion, the architect should work both as a skilled craftsman –i.e. as a
shoemaker– and as a poet who lays hold of reality, gets rid of what is useless
and exercises his regulatory art, which he has cultivated with patience, love and
faith.34 (Konstantinidis, 1992a: 36, 36) He also rejected specialization in
architecture. “I do not believe”, he wrote in 1966, “that an architect can be a
“specialist” ; the architect, because of the nature of his work, requires a
comprehensive view of his subject and, since “he has a knowledge of the
causes of what is being done” (Aristotle), he is able to exercise an overall
control over the realm of construction, and therefore “compose” a synthesis
and create forms and shapes, not only through the power of technique, but
also through the heart, with emotion and artistic wisdom.” (Konstantinidis,
1992a:184-189)

Konstantinidis was deeply influenced by Aristotle’s conviction that a work of

creative art has its efficient cause in the maker, not in itself35 (Tripp, 1976: 33)
or in its consumer. His understanding and respect for nature, which allowed
him to act according to her “few, plain and most reasonable rules” was not only
a matter of disposition.36 It was also indebted to great thinkers and poets, such
as Aristotle who maintained that art completes what nature left unfinished37
(Konstantinidis, 1992a: 131); and André Gide for whom “the work of art is a
part of nature seen through a temperament”.38 (Tripp, 1976: 35) ,
Konstantinidis’ humility in face of the architectural problem and its realities
originates in ancient Greek thought; probably in the tragic poets Aeschylus and
Euripides who believed that nothing is stronger than necessity.39 (Tripp, 1976:
428)

His belief that a true architect “should be employed by life” echoes influential
viewpoints on ethics and aesthetics, such as Schopenhauer’s opinions that the
“Will-to-life (and creativity) has ontological primacy over the intellect” or that
the function of art should be a meditation on the unity of human nature and an
attem,pt to communicate an existential concern to a certain audience.41
(Pelegrinis, 22009: 1281-1282) Konstantinidis’ conception of true contemporary
architecture as the expression or a desired reality closely related to the notion
of worldview, echoes Alois Riegl’s ideas of “Kunstwollen” and which could be
translated as “will-to-art”.42 (Reichenberger, 2003)

Throughout his career he consistently supported the architect’s leading role in

building, comparing him to an orchestra conductor. The cost of this battle was
very high, as it took place in a period and a particular society characterized by
the fairly downgraded position of the architect and town planner.

Konstantinidis’ architectural work embraced some enduring values of its epoch

and place. It enclosed the essentially constructive, social, functional, iconoclast
and anti-historical spirit of the Modern Movement.43 (Fessas-Emmanouil, 2001:
104-110), By maintaining that buildings must grow out of the earth like trees
and flowers, he shared F.L. Wright’s position that true architecture is
fundamentally geographical, i.e. respectful for the earth and nature.44 (Frank
Lloyd Wright,1994: 26, 28, 36, 38; Levine, Neil (c1996); Konstantinidis, 1981:
277; Fessas-Emmanouil, 1993: 53-54) He also carried on the genuine values of
his country’s architectural tradition, characterized by a synthesis of indoor,
semi-outdoor and open spaces. These values are simplicity in layout, honesty
and discipline in construction and harmonious relationship with nature45.
(Konstantinidis, 1992a: 221) Thus Konstantinidis built in the same spirit –but
not in an immitative manner– his “vessels for life”, with the appropriate
modern technique and materials for each site and with a personal view of the
possibilities of his art and of reality.

Konstantinidis maintained that searching for perfection and genuine truths in

architecture leads to a type or a rule, in the traditional sense of the word, that
does not exclude creativity and variety, contrary to modern standardization,
which leads to an impersonal uniformity. Hence, he conceived a structural and
functional grid, which could yield buildings for several uses, as well as building
types for houses, museums, hotels and other dwellings.46 (Konstantinidis, 1981:
259) To that end the individual building could be constructed either with stone
walls bearing, at given intervals, a flat roof or with columns of a reinforced
concrete frame supporting the slabs that shelter a structure. The load bearing
and infill elements of structure are clearly demonstrated. Konstantinidis’
constructional position and strongly articulated arrangement of space are
softened by a musical sense of form,47 (Konstantinidis, 1981: 265) a brilliant
instinct for siting houses in a landscape, an artistic application of common
materials and a structurally relevant use of the earthy Polygnotean colours -
terracotta red, ochre, black, indigo blue and sky blue- and occasionally of
white.48 (Konstantinidis, 1981: 266, 267)

The first one to realise the value of the Greek master’s architectural philosophy
was the Austrian critic Friedrich Achleitner. In 1965 Achleitner would remark
that Kontantinidis’ new constructions appeared as having always been part of
their particular landscape.49 (Achleitner, 1965 & 1968)

Konstantinidis was not comfortable with building in an urban environment. The

modern apartment and office buildings he designed on the city-block basis
were conceived as independent objects and occasionally clashed with the
neoclassicism or historicism of the adjacent buildings. This was the Achilles heel
of his “true contemporary architecture”. The architect felt more at ease in the
suburban environment where the free-standing-building system is applied. His
innovative apartment building in the high-income suburb of Filothei (1971-
1973), organized around a pleasant atrium, is the only block of flats he ever
built.

The thinker and critic

Important as Konstantinidis was as an architect, he was equally outstanding as
a thinker and a critic. But, unlike the majority of prolific writers on architecture,
he wrote only because he built and only in accordance with what he had built.50
(Konstantinidis, 1987a: 13-16) Especially from the mid 1970s until his suicide
on the 16th of September 1993, when he received practically no commissions,
Konstantinidis devoted himself to what he called his other “architectural
works”: the models of his buildings, his books, articles and exhibitions.51
(Konstantinidis, 1981: 280-286; and 1987a: 327-352) In other words, what
Kostantinidis did when he had no clients corresponds to André Gide’s motto:
“The artist cannot get along without a public; and when the public is absent,
what does he do? He invents it, and turning his back on his age, he looks
toward the future for what the present denies”.52 (Tripp, 1976: 35)

Konstantinidis published all his buildings and projects in his bilingual

monograph (1981),53 but only a part of his brilliant photographs and drawings
much admired for their contemplative and laconic character.54 (Konstantinidis,
1950, 1975, 1983, 1994, 1987a, 1992a) He also expounded his original
thoughts on architecture in many books and articles with considerable
emphasis. A fervent opponent of what he called the fake tradition of Athenian
neoclassicism, Konstantinidis was also a declared adversary of Greek
regionalism, whether romantic or critical. Furthermore he systematically
denounced the pitfalls of International Modernism. His firm opinions on these
matters were published on several occasions, from 1947 until his death.55

Konstantinidis’ real concern about current developments of both local and

world architecture, is also manifest in his late writings. That is the case of his
book against postmodernism, late-modernism and deconstruction, written in
1987 and published in Greek under the provocative title Αμαρτωλοί και
Κλέφτες ή η Απογείωση της Αρχιτεκτονικής (Sinners and Plagiarists; or
Architecture’s lift off). In this book he had the courage to name and severely
criticize not only the postmodern and late-modern stars, but also their
“forerunners” without shying away from the mythical names of Le Corbusier,
Loos, etc.56 Konstantinidis’ unfailing concern for what was going on in local and
international architecture is also evident in his 1992 autobiographical books57.
In these books one realizes his passionate dedication to his art, as well as his
stuborn interpretation of the integrity and role of architects in contemporary
societies. The hardships he experienced as a civil servant of the Low-Income
Housing Department (1955-57) were denounced in his article “That’s the way
we want it” .(Konstantinidis, 1957 & 1987a: 122-132) His indignation for the
censorship exercised by the editor O. Doumanis on his article “Vessels for Life
or the Problem of a Genuine Greek Architecture”, was expressed in his Open
Letter which included the article in its original form. This letter was published
in 1972 and mailed to all the Greek architects.58 (Konstantinidis, 1987a: 246-
272)

Unlike many practicing architects, Konstantinidis was always concerned about

essential and common matters. He firmly believed, as Ezra Pound59
(Konstantinidis, 1992a: 29) and contrary to Mies van der Rohe,60 (Blake, 1963:
112-113) that the whats in architecture are not only complementary but
superior to the hows. He also shared Goethe’s and T. S. Eliot’s opinion that
tradition cannot be inherited; it can only be conquered obtained by great
labor.61 (Tripp, 1976: 809) His confidence in the ageless value of truth is surely
indebted to Goethe’s opinion, expressed in Faust as follows: “The brilliant
passes, like the dew at morn; The true endures, for ages yet unborn”.62 (Tripp,
1976: 654) Konstantinidis’ cultural awareness recalls Schiller’s faith in the
“ageless worth of the genuinely popular”63 (Konstantinidis, 1975: 323) and
Goethe’s belief that “nothing is good for a nation but that which arises from its
own core and its own general wants, without apish imitation of another”.64
(Tripp, 1976: 423)

These were some of the fundamental ideas that influenced Konstantinidis’

approach and inspired his original mottos, such as: his definitions of “True
Architecture as the product of Man, Epoch and Place“65 and as “man’s presence
in nature, originating in Necessity”;66 or his elucidation that “Need is not
synonymous with Habit“;67 (Konstantinidis, 1992a: 100, 109) or his belief that
building a genuinely contemporary house is “like planting a tree”.68
(Konstantinidis, 1992a: 101)

Konstantinidis was an opponent of the commercialised “tradition of the new”.

He believed that “any quest for a new movement, whether avant-garde,
revolutionary, or reforming, is vain and dangerously depleting as long as it
takes place outside a specific land and has no roots in the depths of the human
soul”.69 (Konstantinidis, 1981: 276, 277) He thus consistently rejected a
materialistic architecture based on artificiality and aesthetic formalism –
whether classicist, regionalist, modernist, late-modernist or post-modernist; a
position which often led to conflict with clients, academics and colleagues.
Konstantinidis’ refusal to be carried away by the short-lived brightness of the
new puts him on the same platform with great contemporary minds, such as
Ilya Erenburg who confessed that “there is no progress in art”;70 (Tripp, 1976:
74, 75) or Bertrand Russell who claimed that only change is scientific and
indubitable, whereas progress, being an ethical issue, is a matter of
controversy.71 (Tripp, 1976: 74, 75)

Inspired by Rilke and Lichtenberg, he proclaimed that what we do today in our

way has been done before in some other way; that perfection, if such a thing
exists, has preexisted.72 (Konstantinidis, 1975: 313)

Konstantinidis’ firm opinions on architecture were not easy to be accepted by

the average professional or client; especially in his late years when he declared
that “architects are no tailors to be primarily concerned with changing
fashions”,73 (Eleftherotypia, 19.2.1989) or that “the architects’ effort to be
fashionable is suicidal”.74 (Eleftherotypia, 18.2.1990) Such a bold language
embarrassed of course many architectural critics, historians and academics.

No wonder, therefore, that his work and philosophy have been oft
misunderstood or counterfeited. Thus Konstantinidis was superficially
approached as a “regionalist” and follower of Dimitris Pikionis;75 (Fessas-
Emmanouil, 1993: 50, 59) or as a “brutalist” and disciple of Le Corbusier; or as
an architect indoctrinated by Louis Sullivan’s maxim “form follows function”;76
(Fessas-Emmanouil, 1993: 52, 53, 58) or as an unfair critic of all innovative
Western movents and of all the international idols created by contemporary
architectural marketing.77

The association of Pikionis with Konstantinidis was the work of the students
and admirers of Pikionis, who promoted the theory of “a Neohellenic
architectural school/tradition” founded by the first and continued by the
second and their followers such as Dimitri and Suzana Antonakakis. Alexander
Tzonis, for example, associated Pikionis with Konstantinidis and Dimitri and
Suzana Antonakakis on more than one occasions. His opinion, expressed in the
1980s,65 was then adopted by Kenneth Frampton.66. (Tzonis and Lefaivre, 1984:
7-23 & 1985: 14-25; Frampton, 1985a: 4-5) It is however easy to prove that this
trendy speculation, which accommodates the theory of “critical regionalism”80
(Frampton, 1983), hushes up important facts and counterfeits reality. The only
relation of Pikionis and Konstantinidis is that they both approached the Modern
Movement in a critical manner and felt the need to base their action on
Greece’s indigenous tradition81. However, reaction to imported Modernity had
started long ago, in the first decade of the twentieth century. And it is the
Greek-Macedonian architect Aristotelis Zachos (1971-1939) who clearly stood
out as the first “critical regionalist”, not Dimitri Pikionis.82 (Fessas-Emmanouil,
1987: 101-103, 1993: 52 & 2001: 32-37, 76-9) On the other hand,
Konstantinidis’ opposition to Pikionis’ eclectic and sentimental regionalism has
been firmly declared and published on many occasions from 194783
(Konstantinidis, 1947: 28-31) until his death. “I have nothing in common with
Pikionis”, he said emphatically in 1990, ”I leaned on tradition in order to find
“the causes of the things done”, not to copy its morphology and revive old
forms with new materials”.84 (Elephtherotypia, 18.2.1990)

Konstantinidis’ association with Le Corbusier’s postwar brutalism85 is also

inappropriate. The béton brut, besides being one of the most popular building
materials of the late ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s was of course a characteristic of both
architects’ work. Le Corbusier and his followers used this material in a
sculptural, pictorial, and rhetoric manner (Cohen, 2004:11-14; Le Corbusier.
Architect of the Century, 1987; Architectures du béton. Nouvelles vagues,
nouvelles recherches (2006), with little real concern about the building
structure or system and the environment; the physical as well as the socio-
cultural. On the contrary, Konstantinidis used the beton brut in a constructive,
laconic and humanising way. In his buildings or “vessels for life”, as he used to
call them, the question of type or rule in construction was much more
important. That is why the load-bearing elements (whether stone walls or
concrete columns), supporting the concrete slabs that sheltered Konstantinidis’
buildings were differentiated from infilling elements (external walls and
partitions), both constructively and formally (fig. 56,57). (Konstantinidis, 1987:
p. 90-91, 112-113, 157-164, 229-232; Fessas-Emmanouil, 1993: 52, 53)

Equally inappropriate is the association of Aris Konstantinidis with his pioneer

colleague Adolf Loos (1870-1933).86 (Loos, 31980: 201-202; Architectural
Theory: 104-105; Bock, c.2007) In spite of their common attitude against
ornamentation the two architects were miles apart. Consistency between
theory and practice was not Adolf Loos’ characteristic property. His rejection of
ornamentation was toned down by a predilection for expensive materials,
which characterizes even his most unassuming work of the period 1904-1910.
Furthermore, Loos has occasionally been allured by principles, paradigms and
symbols of the academic tradition which were inconsistent with his
revolutionary statements.87 On the contrary, consistency of acts with
statements, simplicity and constructional honesty were the identifying features
of Konstantinidis’ work. (Fessas-Emmanouil, 1993: 53)
Konstantinidis’ belief that “architecture is the art of space organization”88 and
that “good architecture always starts from good construction” coincides with
Auguste Perret’s earlier statements.89 (Konstantinidis, 1987: 70 & 1965: 180;
Champigneule, 1959: 157) Konstantinidis also shared Perret’s absolute
devotion to his art, his attachment to principles and rules of construction, his
conviction that theory is born in –not before– practice and above all his belief
that architecture encloses both perishable and eternal elements.90 (Abram …[et
al.], c.2000; Konstantinidis, 1987a: 153) For example, fashion, the client’s taste,
building regulations, and functions belong to the ephemeral conditions of
architecture. On the contrary, architecture’s more stable or long-lasting
conditions include the physical environment, the climate, the laws of nature
and statics, the nature of construction and building materials, the universal
relevance of certain values, lines, symbolic forms etc.91 (Konstantinidis, 1987a:
153-155, 163-166,180-183) It is exactly these more or less stable elements that
guided the two architects’ work. The reason for doing so was clearly stated by
Auguste Perret (1874-1954). “A building’s endurance in time” according to
Perret,” depends on its submission to natural and stable conditions; not to
social and ephemeral circumstances”.92 (Champigneule, 1959: 153; Abram …[et
al.], c.2000; Konstantinidis, 1987: 87)

Konstantinidis also shared some basic principles of Frank Lloyd Wright’s (1867-
1959) organic architecture, exemplified in his “prairie houses” of the period
1904-1908 and the Taliesin West complex in Arizona (1938), although he
disagreed with a lot of Wright’s most celebrated buildings. Both architects were
primarily motivated by the spiritual and ethical dimension of architecture.93
(Smith, 1966: 36-38; Pfeiffer, 1994: 36-38; Konstantinidis, 1987a: 113) They
both believed that form is inseparate from function; that it doesn’t follow
function, as Louis Sullivan (1856-1924) postulated.94 (Wright, 1963: 18-20;
Konstantinidis, 1987: 55-57, 144-145) Their common respect for nature
expressed itself emphatically as respect for the earth and as a deeply rooted
love for natural beauty and natural materials.95 (Smith, 1966: 24-28; Pfeiffer,
1994: 24-28; Konstantinidis, 1987a: 113-117, 180-183) However, Wright’s
almost mystical evocation of “Nature”,96 (Pfeiffer, 1994: 26-28) his occasional
extravagance and his attitude with regard to monumental achitecture were not
shared by Konstantinidis. Being a fervent opponent of Western
monumentality, which symbolised nature’s subjugation to man, the Greek
architect postulated that “only the House of God and the grave have a right to
be monumental”.97 (Konstantinidis,1950: 16-21)
Konstantinidis’ architectural philosophy is not discordant with some
fundamental principles of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (1886-1969), such as his
classical maxim “less is more”, originating in ancient Greek thought, namely in
the dictum of Pericles’ funeral oration “Φιλοκαλούμεν μετ’ ευτελείας, και
διαλογιζόμεθα άνευ μαλακίας” [“Our love of what is beautiful does not lead us
to extravagance; our love of the things of the mind does not make us soft”].98
(Konstantinidis, 1987a:196) “I don’t want to be interesting; I want to be good”;
“Architecture is the Will of an epoch translated into space - living, changing,
new”; and “Form is not the aim of our work, but only the result”.99 (Blake,1963:
22,111,117; Conrads, 1977: 67, 140-141) The Greek architect apprehended the
universality of Mies’ open plan and structurally determined architecture.100 He
also shared his unwillingness to submit to the market forces that demanded
novelty for novelty’s sake.101 (Blake, 1963:111, 114; Konstantinidis, 1987a: 195-
196; Conrads, 1977: 140-141) Both architects were very critical about
capricious solutions and about the struggle of their contemporaries to break
through the limitations imposed by technology and logic. However,
Konstantinidis was very critical about Mies’ impractical and impersonal “glass
houses”.102 (Konstantinidis, 1987: 93, 94, 233, 235) He also opposed their cold
elegance as strongly as he had rejected Corbu’s aggressive and artificially
coloured plasticity.103 (Konstantinidis, 1987: 90, 91, 229-232)

Being often criticized for his intolerance and “self-sufficiency”, Konstantinidis

felt himself obliged to answer his critics. He thus named the modern buildings
and writings on architecture that he rated very highly. His list of buildings starts
with John Paxton’s Crystal Palace in London (1851), Munich’s Glaspalast (1853),
Victor Baltard’s Halles Centrales in Paris (1853); the pioneer architecture of the
second half of the 19nth century, based on iron construction, and exemplified
in public and commercial buildings, such as England’s railway stations; the
Galleria Vittorio Emmanuele in Milan (1865); the Bon Marché shop in Paris
(1876), and above all Victor Horta’s Maison du Peuple in Bruxells (1895-99). He
then goes on to name fourteen works that he consideres as outstanding
paradigms of “true contemporary architecture”. This list includes: (a) four
buildings by Auguste Perret (the Apartment-block, 25b, Rue Franklin, Paris,
1903; the Garage, rue de Ponthieu, Paris, 1905; the Palais de Bois, Paris, 1923;
the St. Thérése church, Montmargny, 1925-26; and the Chapelle d’Arceuil,
1927); (b) Frank Lloyd Wright’s “prairie houses” of the period 1904-1908 (e.g.
Cheney House, 1904, Oak Park, Illinois; Martin House, 1904, Buffalo, New York;
Martin House II, 1904, Buffalo, New York; and Robie House, 1908-09, Chicago,
Illinois) and the Taliesin West in Arizona, built in 1937-38; (c) Johannes Duiker’s
Zonnestraal Sanatorium at Hilversum, designed in collaboration with B. Bijvoet,
1926-28 and the Open-air School in the Cliostraat in Amsterdam, 1928-30; (d)
Walter Gropius’ industrialized mass housing settlement at Dessau-Törten,
1926-28; (e) Rudolf Schindler’s private houses in the Los Angeles area, of the
period 1925-1949; (f) Richard Neutra’s Lovell Health House in Los Angeles,
1926-27 and his California private houses of the period 1929-1946; (g) the
Boots Factory at Beeston, Notts., designed by the engineer (Evan) Owen
Williams 1930-32; (h) Egon Eiermann’s German Pavilion at the Brussels World
Fair, 1958 and his German Embassy in Washington, 1958-64; and (I) Eero
Saarinen’s John Deree & Co. Administration Center in Moline, Illinois, 1956-58.
104
(Konstantinidis, 1987: 87, 88)

Konstantinidis’ architectural affiliations are made even clearer by his second list
of twelve buildings or building complexes, most of which are generally
acclaimed as landmarks of Modernism. These architectural works are criticized
either for their capricious inventivess, subjectivity and artificiallity, or for their
unpractical, formalistic and monumental modernity. They are also regarded by
Konstantinidis as belonging to the forerunners of the Postmodern and Late-
Modern “epidemics”. This second list includes: (a) Antonio Gaudi’s Casa Mila in
Barcelona, 1905-10; (b) Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim Museum in New
York, designed in 1943-46 and built in 1956-59; (c) three of Le Corbusier’s most
celebrated buildings, namely the Unité d’ Habitation in Marseille, (1947-52),
the pilgrimage church of Notre-Dame-du-Haut at Ronchamp (1950-54), the
Monastery of Ste Marie-de-la-Tourette at Eveux-sur-l’Arbresle (1957-60) and
the government buildings in Chandigarh (1952-64), the new capital of the
Indian state of Punjab; (d) Jorn Utzon’s Opera House of Sydney (1956-73); (e)
Moshe Safdie’s “Habitat” at Montreal’s Expo ‘67; (f) Oskar Niemeyer’s public
buildings in Brazilia ((1957-79); and (g) three of Mies van der Rohe’s
masterworks, namely the Farnsworth House at Fox River, Illinois (1946-50), the
Crown Hall of the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago (1952-56) and
Berlin’s New National Gallery (1962-68). 105 (Kontantinidis, 1987: 89-94)

Konstantinidis’ affiliations with Western architectural theory are also easy to

trace. A fanatical opponent of the Vitruvian theoretical tradition in the
Renaissance,106 (Kontantinidis, 1987: 21-26, 195-203) he was also very critical of
the symbolic and megalomaniac “architecture parlante”, its neoclassical
parents- Etienne-Louis Boullée (1728-1799), Claude-Nicolas Ledoux (1736-1806)
and Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand (1760-1834)- and its postmodern reinterpreters
- Ricardo Bofill, Mario Botta etc.107 (Konstantinidis, 1987: 67-78, 168-175; 202)
On the contrary, Konstantinidis admired Europe’s medieval and vernacular
tradition,108 (Konstantinidis, 1987: 21) the tradition of the English home,109
(Konstantinidis, 1981a; Muthesius, 1979) appreciated the theoretical
approaches connected with the glass and iron architecture of the Industrial
Revolution and rated very highly the rationalistic views of two non-architect
theorists: J.L. de Cordemoy (1651-1722) and Marc-Antoine Laugier (1713-
1769).110 (Konstantinidis, 1987: 85, 87, 224-226; Fleming - Honour - Pevsner N.,
3
1980: 82) He accepted Cordemoy’s urge for truth and simplicity in architecture
and shared his view that the purpose of a building should be expressed in its
form. He also ardently supported Laugier’s ageless views of architecture “as a
truthful, economic expression of man’s need for shelter, based on the
hypothetical ‘rustic cabin’ of primitive man” as well as his abhorrence for
pilasters, pedestals and all Renaissance and post-Renaissance elements.111
(Konstantinidis, 1987: 85, 87, 224-226; Fleming – Honour - Pevsner N., 31980:
192) Inspired by Sullivan’s maxim “Form follows Fuction” and reacting to the
essentially anti-modern formalism of Philip Johnson as well as to Peter Blake’s
dictum “Form follows [the] Fiasco” [of modern architecture] (Blake, 1977) he
went on to postulate his anti-postmodern chain of aphorisms. He claims that
the postmodern and late-modern or deconstructive bubble substitutes of
Sullivan’s dictum, that could be formulated as “Fiction follows (Modern
Architecture’s) Fiasco”, “Form follows Fiction” and “Form follows Public
Relations”, will inevitably lead to “Fiasco follows Fiction and Public
Relations.”112 (Konstantinidis, 1987: 55, 56,144,145)

Furthermore, Konstantinidis, who believed in the need for a reciprocal

relationship between an architect’s work and his philosophy113 (Konstantinidis,
1981: 5-11) went on to publish a list of his favorite books. The list includes only
15 books from his large personal library, all written by brilliant architects,
namely: (1) Louis Sullivan’s, Kindergarten Chats and Other Writings (Whiteborn,
N.Y. 1947) and The Autobiography of an Idea (Dover Publications, N.Y., 1932);
(2) Frank Lloyd Wright’s, An Autobiography (New York, 1932 and French
translation, Plon, Paris, 1955), The Future of Architecture (Horizon Press, New
York, 1953 and French translation, ed. Gonthier, Paris, 1966) and A Testament
(New York, 1957 and German translation, München, 1966); (3) Adolf Loos’,
Sämtliche Schriften, Band I: Ins Leere Gesprochen (1897-1900) & Trotzdem
(1900-1930) (Verlag Herold, Wien-München, 1962 & French translation, ed.
Champ Libre, Paris, 1979) and Die Potemkinsche Stadt (Verschollene Scriften,
1897-1933) (G. Prachner Verlag, Wien, 1983; (4) Le Corbusier’s Vers une
Architecture, 1920-21 (ed. G. Cres et Cie, Paris, 1923), L’ Art Décoratif d’
Aujourd’hui (ed. G. Crès et Cie, Paris, 14nth. ed.) and Quand les cathédrales
étaient blanches (ed. Plon, Paris, 1937 & ed. Gonthier, Biaritz, 1965); (5) Walter
Gropius’ Scope of Total Architecture (Harper and Bros., New York, 1955) &
Architektur (Wege zur einer optischen Kultur), Fischer, Frankfurt/M-Hamburg,
1956; and (6) Konrad Wachsmann’s Wendepunkt im Bauen (Krauskopf Verlag,
Wiesbaden, 1959 & Rowohlt/RDE 160, München, 1962) and Aspekte
(Krauskopf Verlag, Wiesbaden 1961).114 (Konstantinidis, 1987: 94-96)

Postscript

In conclusion, the most original contribution of Aris Konstantinidis is his all-

encompassing architectural philosophy, which embraced the enduring values
of its epoch and place. This philosophy enclosed the essentially constructive,
social, functional, iconoclast and anti-revivalist spirit of the Modern Movement,
exemplified in the pioneer, early work of A. Perret, R. Schindler, R. Neutra, J.
Duiker and W. Gropius and F.L. Wright. It also carried on the spiritual values of
his country’s age-long architectural tradition, which had survived in local
anonymous architecture.

The Greek master believed that architecture is not only a matter of

construction, aesthetics and individual expression. It is primarily a spiritual,
cultural and socially relevant art.104 (Konstantinidis, 1987a: 113-117, 163-183)
The genuine architectural work is created by simplicity in layout, honesty and
discipline in construction; it is built with the land and is in harmony with nature
and climatic conditions. He maintained that good or bad architecture does not
only rest on the architect’s talent, sensibility and knowledge. It also depends
upon his judgement on the construction methods and ways of life of his
time.105 (Konstantinidis, 1981a: 9.10.1981) Konstantinidis knowingly criticized
the commercialized, alienating and imperialistic “tradition of the new”. Having
grasped at an early age that it is only the modern that becomes old-fashioned,
he went on to maintain that evolution or continuity does not rule out fresh
approaches to fresh situations.106 (Konstantinidis, 1981: 58-269; Fessas-
Emmanouil, 1993: 50)

The anti-monumental architecture and anti-academic philosophy of Aris

Konstantinidis cannot be attributed to a particular generation, school or region.
Placing himself on the level of his age, the Greek architect succeeded to rise
above it. In doing so he followed by instinct Voltaire’s advice.108 (Konstantinidis,
1992: 167; Tripp, 1976: 110) Moreover, using the age-long Greek tradition “as a
guide, not as a jailer”109 (Tripp, 1976: 645) he has been able to produce a
contemporary anonymous architecture which offered a genuine solution to the
problem of integrating the new and the old, modernity and genuine tradition.
This solution of course is not a passe-partout key.

The Greek architect’s approach offered no instrumental assistance to the

professional architect in the context of the modern or postmodern or late-
modern or neo-modern cityscape; and did not accommodate the trendy or
avant-garde theories of his life-time. On the contrary, his buildings and
theoretical texts provide a solid basis for treating timeless issues in
architecture, such as : expressing the spirit of a place; harmonizing buildings
with nature; concerns about building types, rules and freedom; understanding
of refugees and their settlement problems, etc. It is also relevant not only to
the particular region that gave it birth, but also to countries with old and
valuable architectural traditions. Hence Konstantinidis’ approach is worth
discussing, especially now that history, tradition, environmental and
emigration-refugee problems are back in the limelight.