48
49
AHO WORKS STUDIES 2012-2013
Architectural Studies
Blasted Building
concrete was disclosed”
7.
He uncovers what
can be described as the essence of the mate-
rial, the river-gravel hidden under the layer of
sludge. But on a more fundamental level, the
technique seems to blur the structural prop-
erties of the elements rather than clarifying
them. The river gravel is shiny, and the walls
can at times, under special light conditions,
be perceived as being made of a shimmering
fabric. The numerous artworks in the lobby
and the main stairway, resembling tapestries,
woodcuts and canvas art typical for the mod-
ernist era, contribute to a “flattening” of the
wall. Viksjø equates his technique with that of
the artist, comparing the sandblasting machine
to a pencil or an engraving needle. The pilotis
of the ground floor lobby are being “engraved”
with a pattern of L-shaped figures. The nearly
equal amount of untreated and treated surfac-
es, and the thinness of the sludge membrane
being exposed by the process, suggest that the
pilotis consist of thin, fragile layers, risking to
crack or being unveiled.
Viksjø is trying to uncover the underlying
essence of a material by the act of blasting.
Strangely enough, the blast of the bomb is
performing the same act on a grander scale:
uncovering the essence of the entire building.
Paradoxically the destruction of the building
helps construct a clearer picture of it.
It is interesting how the blast, which has
removed traces of the activity that once took
place, corresponds to Viksjø´s perception of
the building, as described in his project-text
from 1959. As Ingrid Helsing Almaas points
out
8
, Viksjø describes his building merely as an
efficient office building, possessing no symbol-
ic properties or programmatic specificities. He
doesn´t mention why this building is especially
suited to house the Government, or how it ac-
commodates a specific user. He spends almost
the entire text describing the principles of
structure and materials. One could argue that
the building today has returned to its origins,
being a pure manifestation of space ready to
be re-inhabited by unknown residents. Maybe
this fact could release an unbiased discussion
on the structural and spatial potential of the
building rather than of its symbolic properties.
With the ambiguous qualities of the build-
ing in mind, what principles of preservation
should we employ when restoring the build-
ing? Should we be guided by the principles of
authenticity and re-establish the 1958 version,
should we take into account the technical re-
quirement of today and re-establish the 2011
pre-bomb version, should we commemorate
the incident by preserving the scars left by the
bomb, or should we conserve the “blasted”
building?
Why is
Høyblokken
worth preserving, be-
side for obvious symbolic, architectural and
historical reasons? Maybe the building has
proven worthy solely by resisting the bomb.
And maybe what is worth preserving is what
is being left after the blast? The blast has ex-
