Excerpt

Introduction

This book provides an historical framework against which to examine the key architectural challenge in modern Iran – that is, how to design a building that represents Iranian identity and ultimately, how to strike a balance between Iran’s rich pre-modern architectural heritage and the requirements of a modernised society. To this end, I approach the question of the architectural representation of Iranian identity within the context of nationalism and under the influence of the politics of nationalism since the early twentieth century in Iran – two factors that have made Iranian architecture greatly dependent on the revival of historic forms. By giving an historical survey of this discourse, this book shows how, despite many disciplinary and political changes, the architectural representation of national identity in Iran has maintained its intrinsic historicism, and hence its ‘conflictual’ relationship with modernity in the present day. It constructs an historical platform for further critical assessments of this architectural representation, and revisits the neglected importance of the present as a means to express a collective and more inclusive approach to national identity in contemporary architecture.

The rise of nationalism, with its strong dependence on history and archaism on the one hand, and the escalation of the desire for modernisation on the other, overlapped in early twentieth-century Iran. This caused dichotomies and conflicting approaches to architectural design, stemming from these differing attitudes towards the past and the notion of heritage. Nationalist architecture, deeply influenced by the past and the increasing archaeological interest in ancient Persia, displayed an excessive use of visual references to the historic architecture of Iran, while early modernist architecture looked beyond political and cultural boundaries and sought to dissolve these historical ties with traditional architecture. The divergence between these two approaches, and their increasing distance from the principles of traditional and vernacular architecture, has polarised the discipline, and necessitated the pursuit of balance. Since the establishment of the Faculty of Fine Arts at the University of Tehran in the 1940s, and the increase in international connections within the discipline of architecture, many academics and architects have addressed this issue, and each has increased the many-layered nuances in its definition. This makes it even more important to pinpoint the initial question of the representation of the Iranian identity. With such concerns at the core of this book, various aspects of architectural knowledge and historiography, of cross-fertilisation and the influence of international architectural discourses, of the development of architectural education and of the design of key architectural projects are discussed in its four chapters. I argue that the architectural characteristics of nationalist architecture in early twentieth-century Iran, and its conflicting relationship with the forces of modernisation and modernist architecture, have greatly influenced the future of the practice in terms of the representation of national identity. I also argue that this is the result of the fusion of several forces: first, the rise of political interest in the past; second, the expansion of historical knowledge, particularly in the field of archaeology, which has profoundly influenced architectural histories; third, the appropriation of an architectural language, namely Beaux-Arts architecture, that has enabled the direct transmission of archaeological knowledge into the field of design; and finally, an education system that has facilitated the continuation, development and resilience of this approach, beyond sociopolitical upheavals, into the present day.

Architectural Challenges in Modern Iran In 1969, the government of Iran published a promotional report on recent extensive reforms in the country. In this, along with a celebration of Iran’s historical and cultural heritage, and the impressive developments underway especially in the urban and construction sectors, it uncritically acknowledged a division within the discipline of architecture. After condemning the ‘decline’ of the discipline under the Qajar dynasty (roughly 1789 to 1925), the report mentioned two distinct design approaches: one, glorifying the ancient past, was ‘to revive ancient Iranian styles’, while the other was ‘to adopt contemporary Western designs, and to combine them with the traditional’ in order to realise ‘the promise of a new life’. This division in architectural practice implied a strong sense of attachment to a distant and politically appealing past, while acknowledging the necessity of importing modern architectural advancements from the West to further the modernisation of Iran. What is also evident here is the emergence of a division between the immediate past and the actual conditions of the present, and an urge to create a balance between historical values and a forward-looking vision of modernisation. 

The modern history of architecture in Iran is an arena in which the forces of modernity and an historicist understanding of authenticity and identity have challenged each other constantly. Architecture has had this pivotal question on its agenda for the last century: how to adapt to the effects of ever-necessary modernisation while maintaining a sense of cultural affinity and continuity in the built environment that represents Iranian identity. The rise of this architectural debate corresponds with the rise of nationalism in late Qajar- and early Pahlavi-period Iran. The modern basis of what is considered as authentic Iranian architecture is the representation of an official definition of national identity, the details of which have been framed and continuously modified since the establishment of the Pahlavi monarchy as the first modern Iranian nation-state in 1925.