A carregar...
Publicação
Mobilar o Estado. A Encomenda Pública de Mobiliário e o seu Impacto na Indústria Nacional (1940-1974)
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.14 MB | Adobe PDF | |||
| 7.12 MB | Adobe PDF |
Resumo(s)
A Comissão para a Aquisição de Mobiliário (CAM), estrutura de carácter eventual criada no âmbito da Direcção-Geral dos Edifícios e Monumentos Nacionais (DGEMN), em 1940, foi o primeiro organismo inteiramente dedicado ao estudo e aquisição de mobiliário e equipamento fixo para edifícios públicos. A DGEMN, enquanto serviço da administração central responsável pelo estudo, projeto e construção de edifícios públicos por todo o país, entendeu necessária a concentração numa só estrutura de tudo o que ao mobiliário, decoração e equipamentos fixos dissesse respeito. A CAM, que devia intervir apenas em construções de raiz ou em edifícios profundamente remodelados, surgiu como uma referência para os restantes departamentos e serviços, dentro e fora do organograma da DGEMN, procurando definir e agilizar procedimentos, desenvolvendo ferramentas e recursos que garantissem o “respeito e a disciplina” que devia ser vivido e sentido nos serviços públicos. Não obstante a sua pertinência, intensa e longa atividade (foi extinta apenas em 1980), esta comissão não foi o único agente neste quadro de responsabilidades, mesmo no seio da DGEMN. Outras entidades, como a Delegação das Novas Instalações para Serviço Públicos (DNISP), a Delegação nas Obras de Edifícios de Cadeias, das Guardas Republicana, Fiscal e das Alfândegas (DOECGRFA) e os serviços regionais, tiveram intervenções nos edifícios sob sua administração, definindo os seus interiores e procedendo à aquisição do seu mobiliário e equipamento fixo. Nesse sentido, conhecer o mais aprofundadamente possível cada um destes intervenientes, e algumas das suas obras, será essencial para compreender como o Estado, através da DGEMN, se posicionou neste plano e quais os fatores que conformaram eventuais decisões, definindo a sua prática. A análise destes processos dará a conhecer também novos protagonistas – públicos e privados, individuais e coletivos – com relevância para esta área de estudo, destacando certos autores que permaneceram anónimos e que importa, por isso, valorizar. Por outro lado, a encomenda oficial, pela sua dimensão e escala, terá certamente influenciado a produção industrial de mobiliário, mas os exatos contornos dessa transferência permanecem por clarificar. Nesse sentido, o estudo dos processos de aquisição e fornecimento de mobiliário para edifícios públicos poderá contribuir para um melhor conhecimento sobre este setor da indústria nacional, identificando os principais participantes, registando a capacidade de resposta dos fabricantes adjudicatários, os seus produtos e meios de produção, mas também as suas fragilidades e idiossincrasias. Na impossibilidade de empreender recolhas quantitativas, estes processos dão acesso a uma dimensão qualitativa igualmente enriquecedora e relevante. Conhecer os interiores dos edifícios públicos, os objetos que os compõem, os seus processos de aquisição e os seus protagonistas, é da maior importância para a história do design, das instituições e da indústria de mobiliário, mas também para a salvaguarda e patrimonialização daquela cultura material.
The Commission for the Acquisition of Furniture (CAM), an entity created within the scope of the Directorate-General for National Buildings and Monuments (DGEMN) in 1940, was the first structure entirely dedicated to the study and acquisition of furniture and fixed equipment for public buildings. The DGEMN, as a service of the central administration responsible for the study, design and construction of public buildings throughout the country, considered it necessary to concentrate in a single structure everything related to furniture, decoration and fixed equipment. The Commission, which should only intervene in new constructions or in profoundly remodelled buildings, emerged as a reference for the other departments and services, inside and outside the Directorate-General, seeking to define and streamline procedures, developing tools and resources that guarantee the “respect and discipline” that should be lived and felt in public services. Despite its relevance and intense and long-term activity (it was active until 1980), this Commission was not the only agent in this framework of responsibilities, even within the DGEMN. Other entities, such as the Delegation for New Installations for Public Services (DNISP), the Delegation for the Works of Jail Buildings, the Republican, Fiscal and Customs Guards (DOECGRFA) and the regional services, had interventions in the buildings under their administration, defining its interiors and proceeding with the acquisition of its furniture and fixed equipment. In this sense, knowing as profoundly as possible each of these actors and some of their works will be decisive to understand how the State, through the DGEMN, positioned itself in this plan and what factors shaped eventual decisions, defining its practice. The analysis of these processes will also reveal new protagonists – public and private, individual and collective – with relevance to this area of study, emphasising some authors who remained anonymous and who are therefore crucial to value. On the other hand, due to its size and scale, the commissions by public officials undoubtedly influenced the industrial production of furniture. Still, the exact contours of this transfer remain to be clarified. In this sense, the analysis of the procurement and supply of furniture for public buildings may contribute to a better understanding of this sector of the national industry, identifying the main participants, recording the response capacity of the contracted manufacturers, their products and means of production, but also its weaknesses and shortcomings. In the impossibility of undertaking quantitative data, these processes give access to an equally enriching and relevant qualitative dimension. Knowing the interiors of public buildings, the objects that compose them, their acquisition processes and their protagonists are of the utmost importance for the history of design, the institutions, the furniture industry, but also for the preservation of that material culture.
The Commission for the Acquisition of Furniture (CAM), an entity created within the scope of the Directorate-General for National Buildings and Monuments (DGEMN) in 1940, was the first structure entirely dedicated to the study and acquisition of furniture and fixed equipment for public buildings. The DGEMN, as a service of the central administration responsible for the study, design and construction of public buildings throughout the country, considered it necessary to concentrate in a single structure everything related to furniture, decoration and fixed equipment. The Commission, which should only intervene in new constructions or in profoundly remodelled buildings, emerged as a reference for the other departments and services, inside and outside the Directorate-General, seeking to define and streamline procedures, developing tools and resources that guarantee the “respect and discipline” that should be lived and felt in public services. Despite its relevance and intense and long-term activity (it was active until 1980), this Commission was not the only agent in this framework of responsibilities, even within the DGEMN. Other entities, such as the Delegation for New Installations for Public Services (DNISP), the Delegation for the Works of Jail Buildings, the Republican, Fiscal and Customs Guards (DOECGRFA) and the regional services, had interventions in the buildings under their administration, defining its interiors and proceeding with the acquisition of its furniture and fixed equipment. In this sense, knowing as profoundly as possible each of these actors and some of their works will be decisive to understand how the State, through the DGEMN, positioned itself in this plan and what factors shaped eventual decisions, defining its practice. The analysis of these processes will also reveal new protagonists – public and private, individual and collective – with relevance to this area of study, emphasising some authors who remained anonymous and who are therefore crucial to value. On the other hand, due to its size and scale, the commissions by public officials undoubtedly influenced the industrial production of furniture. Still, the exact contours of this transfer remain to be clarified. In this sense, the analysis of the procurement and supply of furniture for public buildings may contribute to a better understanding of this sector of the national industry, identifying the main participants, recording the response capacity of the contracted manufacturers, their products and means of production, but also its weaknesses and shortcomings. In the impossibility of undertaking quantitative data, these processes give access to an equally enriching and relevant qualitative dimension. Knowing the interiors of public buildings, the objects that compose them, their acquisition processes and their protagonists are of the utmost importance for the history of design, the institutions, the furniture industry, but also for the preservation of that material culture.
Descrição
Volume II para consulta na Biblioteca Mário Sottomayor Cardia
Palavras-chave
História da indústria do mobiliário Encomenda pública Estado Novo Mobiliário Serviços públicos Design Indústria Furniture Public services Industry