Luiz Cunha, “international but brief” [and pop!]

Carlos Machado e Moura

doi:10.14195/1647-8681_10_3

Abstract

Luiz Cunha (1933-2019) is recognised for his singular and eclectic architecture, which stands out in the Portuguese context, as well as for his production as a highly skilled draughtsman and a passionate painter. His extensive body of work has received a certain attention and research and his production is read as part of a movement for the renovation of religious architecture, as an individual creative expression, or as part of a fantasist trend towards postmodern Portuguese architecture. Lesser attention, however, was devoted to his writings, drawings, unbuilt projects and unbuildable paper architectures. An analysis of that corpus reveals a surprising production especially in the early years of his career; he was an attentive spectator of the international debate and, more importantly, a translator of some of these ideas into Portuguese reality.Based on graphical documentation, writings, and a long personal conversation, this article proposes a rereading of Cunha's activity, focusing on his exploration of pop expression through a) drawing — merging the aesthetics and the mechanics of comics and cartoon into architectural representation, b) buildings — employing a formal techno-pop repertoire and experimenting with complex structures, always with a distinct sense of humour and c) architectural discourse — entering the international debate on megastructures and capsules of the time, while actively promoting Portuguese architecture. Analysed chronologically, this production allows a retracing of the evolution of Cunha’s thinking and reveals a figure who is “international but brief” — in Nuno Portas’ expression — constantly halfway between regional architecture and space-age capsules.

Highlights

Luiz Cunha (1933–2019) is recognised for his singular and eclectic architecture, which stands out in the Portuguese context, as well as his production as a highly skilled draughtsman and a passionate painter
At the beginning of the decade, Cunha’s work was in full swing, operating in different programmes in freestyle, always “starting over, experimenting a new path and sometimes even a new language” even in the same projects (Pimentel, 1972: 9). Many of these buildings featured in the 1972 issue of Arquitectura dedicated to his recent work: the Corbusian Charity Centre of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, 1962–70; the pictorially expressionist Church of Carvalhido, 1966–72; or the brutalist Nevolgilde Parish Centre, 1968–70 — all three in Porto — and some unbuilt projects like: the Church of Pindêlo in Oliveira de Azeméis, 1969–71 (Fig. 10); the technopop Municipal Services of Aveiro, 1971; and the Prumo office building in Avenida da República in Lisbon, 1971
Bento da Porta Aberta in 1987–95, buildings still floated like those of Archigram, though with giant gothic-arched legs — as the entry for the international competition for the Bank of Portugal in Lisbon in 1989 — and urban schemes were still articulated according to the Team 10 repertoire — like his “plan-structure” for Campus II of the University of Porto in 1974–82

Summary

Introduction

Luiz Cunha (1933–2019) is recognised for his singular and eclectic architecture, which stands out in the Portuguese context, as well as his production as a highly skilled draughtsman and a passionate painter. Based on graphical documentation — mostly held in the archives of ISCTE, in Lisbon, and published in magazines, the writings on (and by) Cunha, and a long personal conversation, this article proposes a rereading of Cunha’s activity, focusing on his exploration of pop expression through: a) drawing — merging the aesthetics and the mechanics of comics and cartoon into architectural representation; b) buildings — employing a formal techno-pop repertoire and experimenting with complex structures, always with a distinct sense of humour; and c) architectural discourse — entering the international debate on megastructures and capsules of the time, while actively promoting Portuguese architecture.

Results

Conclusion