george birsan

The wooden pole, reference of the area in which it ennobles architecture, it is the work of art of the anonymous artisan, keeper of the local tradition.

We consider the column as being the equivalent of the wooden pole in the cult architecture. Also left without an author for many times, it completes architecture starting by reinterpreting the traditional elements and by borrowing the influences from Occidental and Oriental cultures.

The idea of Common Ground which we are analyzing in our presentation is developed on several main levels:

  • The first one, easy to decipher, is the one determined by the historic time and tradition, the evolution from the wooden pole to the column.
  • The second one is the one of the influences caused by Romania’s history and geography in the European context.
  • The third one, much more subtle but interactive, is the connection and the continuity between what should be the adjusted urban public space and the unadjusted one.

A common ground in the European history identified by us, the rustic houses, are particularized in Romania due to materials, construction techniques local needs and through sculptural details specific to each historical area. We choose to present a series of wooden poles (symbolizing the buildings of a city) which should generate the village hearth (the public space). These ones are a replica on a scale 1:1 realized by traditional techniques, painted in white. They will be representatives for the ethnological areas of Romania (Muntenia, Dobrogea, Moldova, Bucovina, Maramures, Transilvania, Banat and Crisana, Oltenia).

Another common ground consists of the popular dowry on which oriental and occidental influences are superposed. These ones are manifesting themselves in different proportions. The influences will be represented by columns on a large scale borrowed during the exposition from their original sites (for example: The Voievodal Palace from Bucharest, The Voievodal Palace from Târgoviste, the Monastery of Văcăreşti – The Palace of Mogosoaia, Dealul Frumos etc).

Connected by the city, the public space in itself will be defined by us through a hierarchy of enclosures. We are using an allegory: the wooden pole_building and, inclusively, the interior of the pavilion_public space.

The wooden poles put into an amorphous table inside the pavilion simulate the relationship between the buildings and the public space, the city. The wooden pole has the property to be semi-mobile, through suspension (pendulum).

By a voluntary or involuntary movement made by users upon the wooden poles, the public space is being modified. We want that the visitor realizes his power to inform himself and to take part in the improvement of the public space.

We represent the chaotic evolution of one area, by agglomerating the elements. The densified surface of this one represents the essential disorganized public area. Through density we create an inaccessible point. The illumination will be minimal.

The citizen, together with the architect, generates and personalizes the public space and they take together a decision for a better functioning of the city. This creates an opportunity for a dialogue and public debate, metaphorically represented by the artisan’s workshop which sculpts the wooden poles during the visiting schedule. Interacting with him may bring new results in a direct relation with the desires and the needs of the user. The light is punctual, artificial.

The result of the collaboration is the organized public space. In this pavilion it exists through the central void plated by the white, sculpted wooden poles, the product of the work of the two partners. An important role is given to the zenithal light which valorizes the space.