Chapter 2 | Alvar Aalto's Professional Networksthan the opposite, as had been the convention before.^388 In his article in Arkkitehti
(The Finnish Architectural Journal), Aalto defended the significance of the exhibitions
as a way of social education, as prescribed by the CIAM agenda. In his opinion, the
Stockholm Exhibition was the first in which the questions of the minimum apartment
had been consciously tackled. He inferred that the smaller the home, the greater the
number of everyday activities that would be carried out in shared spaces. However,
Aalto saw that this collective aspect had not been adequately addressed in the exhibition.
He also criticised the methodology: “The shortcut of quickly designing a comfortable
home has hindered many, by pushing aside an exact analysis of ‘each object separately’ in
the innumerable situations and details, which now remain completely obscure.” Aalto
stated that it takes a radical touch not to settle for superficial comfort.^389
Giedion had asked Aalto in March 1930 to cover the Frankfurt conference in
the Finnish press.^390 The debate on the minimum apartment eventually reached
Finland when Aalto’s article “Asuntomme probleemina” (The Dwelling as a Design
Problem) was published in Domus magazine,^391 which focused on interiors, industrial
art, fine art and sculpture. It was related to the Minimum Apartment Exhibition that
opened in Kunsthalle Helsinki in late November 1930 and that, as an experiment,
was organised in conjunction with an industrial art exhibition, with Aalto as the main
exhibition architect. The exhibition aimed at shedding light on the question of ration-
alising living conditions. Featured in the exhibition were the four-to-five-member
family homes designed by Alvar Aalto and Aino Marsio-Aalto, Erik Bryggman’s
living room and a bedroom and hotel room arranged by architects P.E. and Märta
Blomstedt.^392 The exhibition also featured the folding iron bed designed by Erik
Bryggman, which had a patent pending.^393
At the beginning of his article, Aalto critically discussed the concept of a room
and defended the concept of the traditional Finnish open-plan kitchen-living room,
tupa, which, before its decline, had been akin to the concept of a room. Unfortunately,
he did not develop this highly interesting juxtaposition – that of tupa and the multi-
purpose living room – any further. Aalto led the reader to the idea of a versatile,
flexible living space: no family with children could live in one or even two rooms, but
living with a similar floor area in a space that was designed for the different activities
of the family members, could instead be possible for any family. Aalto understood the
dwelling to mean a sheltered space where one ate, slept, worked and played. These
needs, which he coined as “biodynamic needs”, were to inform the entire internal
order of the dwelling, instead of formal rules of composition.^394
388 Aalto 1930b, p. 1.
389 Aalto 1930d, pp. 119–120.
390 Giedion’s letter to Aalto dated on March 15, 1930. Signum 10809, correspondence. AAM.
391 Domus was published by Taideteollisuusyhdistys (The Finnish Association of Industrial Arts) between 1930 and 1933.
392 Blomstedt 1930, pp. 190–194.
393 The innovation was called ”Teräspatja” (Steel mattress). The patent had been applied for in 1929. Finnish Patent
No. FI13642 (A), granted on June 19, 1931. Bryggman 1929.
394 Aalto 1930e, pp. 176–189.