The present issue of „Purpose for Europe” shows rather clearly that in our times the reality doesn’t differ from its representation, as Jean Baudrillard says. Since today the expression „Industrial Europe” means something completely different than say 30 years ago.

The  word „industrial”, originally associated with industry, production, today refers to culture. The name „industrial” is used to describe a kind of music or some style of interior design. All that is because, as most theoreticians claim, we live in the post-industrial world, where culture products: films, computer games, etc. generate larger income than the traditionally understood industry.
And that is why today the word „industrial” is just the simulation of the original meaning. Everything described by this name only imitates industrial aesthetics, but in fact is not industrial at all. In the past it described products made to satisfy peoples’ actual needs; today it is rather a nostalgic yearning for industrial appearance. Interestingly, once only few people would consider industrial buildings aesthetically attractive; today though, there is quite a large group of those who value industrial aesthetics a lot. And there is another important aspect of the stimulating character of this word. Nowadays we don’t build industrial structures, we only have say pubs of industrial character; in former industrial buildings there are flats, malls and entertainment centres.   
 
Then let me briefly remind you the history of structures, originally industrial, that have become a kind of reservoirs of aesthetic forms. Generally, this sort of architecture is called „engineering”; some call it the architecture of industrial revolution. Its dynamic development fell on the 19th century, although its beginnings go back to the previous century. It was then that iron was first used in this kind of architecture. An extremely important element in the development of the engineering architecture was the bridge over the River Severn near Coalbrookdale, built by Abraham Darby III between 1777-79. In this architecture new materials were used, such as iron, cast iron, glass and - later - ferroconcrete, and typical architectural decorations were avoided. So a plain, not to say ascetic, style was created for practical purposes.   

And therefore the style was applied in new structures only, (and not in traditional ones), such as railway stations, factories, covered markets, shopping arcades, exhibition pavilions, bridges, viaducts, etc. 19th century architects argued about the new materials and constructions, whether structures in which they were used can be called „architecture”. The promoters of the novelties were called engineers by academy architects who didn’t want to qualify their buildings as „architecture”. According to them architecture should wear a classical, a gothic or a Renaissance costume; a building without traditional decorations, that wasn’t built of materials such as brick or stone, couldn’t be architecture. The results of the argument were serious, because it seems that for the first time in the history of architecture innovative constructional solutions and materials were rejected and pushed out beyond  the interests of architecture.   
  
Being aware of the problem, some architects tried to introduce modern constructions while maintaining traditional styles. Let’s take Henri Labroust and his libraries: St. Genevieve’s Library and the National Library, where he introduced cast-iron constructions while referring to traditional styles. The conviction of the necessity for a style was so strong in the 19th century that even in typically industrial buildings there were attempts to combine the engineering and the architectural parts. That was particularly visible in shopping arcades and stores. Those features can be found in St. Hubert’s Gallery in Brussels, in the arcade Panoramas in Paris or in the department store Le Bon Marche by Gustav Eiffel and Louis-Aguste Boileau.   

However, structures in which modern constructions dominate the architectural style appeared more and more often. Obviously, that is best visible in purely functional structures, such as bridges and viaducts, where the iron construction expressed new aspirations and achievements. One of the most excellent works of that kind is viaduct Gabarit by Gustav Eiffel, with a span of 163 meters and 122 meters high, built between 1880-1884. Those features can also be seen in the exhibition halls built for world exhibitions. Great boom in such structures was initiated by the Crystal Palace built in 1851 in London by Joseph Paxton. He built that huge exhibition pavilion in 6 months, which was possible owning to the prefabrication of the metal parts of the building. Metal elements, made in many workshops, were assembled on the building site, making up a large exhibition area of 62,000 square meters. Another magnificent work of the 19th-century engineering was the Palace of Machines at the World Exhibition in Paris in 1889 with a movable platform from which one could see the latest developments and creations of industry. Many of those buildings have been pulled down, many have fallen into ruin - perhaps that’s why we try so hard to save what has remained. 

Why are we so deeply moved by those buildings? First of all, because of their authenticity, our deep-rooted belief that they were created in a genuine way, because such was the need. Today they are the signs of the vanishing world and as such, reminding us about the bygone epoch,  become not only historic, but also aesthetic objects. May the revitalisation on a large scale, both in Poland and Europe, show how vital the issue raised here still is. Also many projects placed in industrial surrounding and special exhibitions should show that too. A good example is the last exhibition of the Italian Culture Institute in Kraków entitled Vedute di Silesia. It is a photographic description of Silesia in the pos-industrial age – abandoned, empty mines, deteriorating factory buildings, machines that nobody needs. However, as the title of the exhibition shows, it aims to present - not critically but aesthetically – the ruins that can be associated, according to the author’s intentions, with the ancient ruins in the prints by Battista Piranesi. Such nostalgia in Poland is enhanced by the reminiscence of the Polish Peoples’ Republic, whose leading motto was industrialization. Today we know that it is history, a part of our cultural heritage. And that’s why we, as the citizens of Łódź, should accept particular responsibility for the problem.