90 Artur Zaguła, Miłosz Gortyński
(Stanek, van den Heuvel 2014, 25), but so far it has not been
seriously developed. Only Eeva-Liisa Pelkonen noted in her
article, in the section titled “Open Form – Open Society?”
as follows: Hansen’s opposition between open and closed
recalls Karl Popper’s notion of “open” versus “closed so-
ciety” put forward in The Open Society and Its Enemies
(1945), which contrasts humanism marked by freedom of
thought and action with the lack thereof within abstract and
depersonalized systems; the former called for human en-
gagement rather than passive acceptance of the given situ-
ation (Pelkonen 2014, 145).
Therefore, the analysis of the relationship between the
Open Form and the Open Society and the conclusions
drawn from it can enrich our understanding of both archi-
tecture and social theories. Especially since residential ar-
chitecture, which was mainly practiced by Hansen, is by its
very nature a social activity and at the same time entangled
in politics. Both the historical and interpretive method will
be helpful in this regard, as it allows for the recognition of
material and social reality in a complex context. Especially
since, as Karl Popper wrote: To sum up, there can be no his-
tory of “the past as it actually did happen”; there can only
be historical interpretations, and none of them nal; and
every generation has a right to frame its own. But not only
has it a right to frame its own interpretations, it also has
a kind of obligation to do so; for there is indeed a pressing
need to be answered (Popper 1966, vol. 2, 268). While this
inherently subjective nature of historical interpretation must
be constrained through data triangulation, it also allows for
a broader perspective on the subject of research. For simi-
lar reasons, Gadamer’s hermeneutic method will be useful,
understood as a theory of interpretation of works of culture
and art (Zwoliński 2005, 253; Gadamer 1993). Finally, we
will use a case study, the analysis of which will provide the
data needed to verify the hypotheses.
Open Form and Open Society
First of all, it should be noted that Oskar Hansen most
likely did not know Karl Popper’s theory when he created his
own theory. Popper’s work was not translated into Polish or
published until 1987. The rst Polish edition appeared in the
so-called second circulation and the ocial edition comes
only from 1993. Therefore, when asked whether Hansen’s
intention in implementing the Open Form in the modernist
architecture of Poland were to lead the local population to-
wards an Open Society as envisioned by Popper – democrat-
ic, pluralistic, decentralized, free from the desire for histor-
ical justication and capable of controlling its own political
forces without bloodshed (Popper 1993, 292, 293) – the an-
swer should be negative. Hansen could not have known the
English version of Popper’s text because he did not speak
that language. This was one of the many reasons why he did
not remain in London (Włodarczyk 2009, 43; Ockman 2014,
41), despite being an important member of Team 10. It seems,
therefore, that the similarity between the Open Form and the
Open Society in Polish architecture was an accidental, ironic
brotherhood of thought between two men with opposing but
interdependent views. It was also a convergence of views
of the European intellectual elites of the time, as Hansen
himself recalled in relation to his speech at the CIAM (Con-
grès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne) congress in
Otterlo in 1959: Of course, there was a certain atmosphere,
it had to exist, because an artist does not grow out of stone,
but out of mood (Włodarczyk 2009, 30).
Being aware of the circumstances outlined above, let us
attempt to identify the fundamental ideas and values under-
lying both attitudes:
1. Individual freedom to make decisions within society.
Both Popper and Hansen pay particular attention to this
aspect of both social and material reality – built space. An
Open Society is one in which everyone has the right to make
their own decisions and the opportunity to improve their
situation, for example, through social advancement, both
horizontally and vertically (Baranowski 2009, 72). Popper
clearly emphasizes the contrast with a “closed society”, in
which the community is treated as a single body with one
collective will that directs the actions of all its members,
depriving them of individual freedom. Hansen, in his found-
ing text entitled Forma Otwarta [Open Form], writes: Does
“TO BE OR NOT TO BE” depend on “Hamlet” today?
We are afraid of decisions made for us. We don’t trust each
other. Closed form – the decision is made for me – I am
standing next to the action. It is impossible to nd your-
self here – your SELF. All these are someone’s souvenirs,
someone’s emotions, someone’s estates and houses (Hansen
1959, 5). Therefore, he shares the way of thinking contained
in Popper’s concept. However, this does not mean that the
political views of both protagonists are identical. Hansen,
a liberal Marxist and supporter of a socialist society, agrees
with Popper, an anti-fascist and anti-communist, supporter
of liberal democracy.
2. Counteracting authoritarianism in society and archi-
tecture.
In fact, Popper’s entire book The Open Society and Its
Enemies is directed against authoritarianism. He believed
that the main cause of most forms of authoritarianism and
totalitarianism was a theory he called historicism. He ar-
gued that it was based on erroneous assumptions about
the nature of scientic law and prediction. He considered
Plato’s theory to be the foundation of this type of views,
and Georg Hegel and Karl Marx to be the foundations of
modern historicism based on Plato. The analyzes of their
views in subsequent volumes of the book were intended by
Popper to serve as arguments to oppose the authoritarian
tendencies of the “closed society”. Hansen – although he
believed in the ideas of socialism – opposed authoritarian
tendencies both in social matters and as an architect. His
opposition to socialist realism had a dual character, both
political and aesthetic. On the one hand, he did not agree
with the bureau cratic and corrupting nature of the au-
thoritarian power of the communists, as well as with the
“closed forms” of buildings constructed during this pe-
riod. His attitude towards modernism in architecture and
urban planning was similarly unorthodox. The theory of
Open Form focuses architecture on the user and departs
from the orthodoxy of the modern movement proposed
by Le Corbusier. Open Form can be described as an art
form dened by the user, not the creator (Sprin ger 2022).
The role of the architect should, according to Hansen,
