Postmodern architecture

1000 de La Gauchetière, Montreal, with ornamented and strongly defined top, middle and bottom. Contrast with the modernist Seagram Building and Torre_Picasso	Messeturm in Frankfurt by Helmut Jahn.	Bank of America Center in Houston by by John Burgee and Philip Johnson.
San Antonio Public Library, Texas.	Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels by Rafael Moneo.	Harold Washington Library in Chicago by Hammond, Beeby and Babka.
	The McCormick Tribune Campus Center at Chicago’s IIT Campus by Rem Koolhaas.	The Milwaukee Art Museum by Santiago Calatrava.
Comerica Tower in Detroit by John Burgee and Philip Johnson.	The City Hall in Mississauga, Canada conveys a post-modern architectural style depicting the concept of a “futuristic farm”	Chifley Tower, Sydney, Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates  and Travis Partners, 1988.
Postmodern architecturePostmodern architecture is an international style whose first examples are generally cited as being from the 1950s, and which continues to influence present-day architecture. Postmodernity in architecture is generally thought to be heralded by the return of “wit, ornament and reference” to architecture in response to the formalism of the International Style of modernism. As with many cultural movements, some of postmodernism’s most pronounced and visible ideas can be seen in architecture. The functional and formalized shapes and spaces of the modernist movement are replaced by unapologetically diverse aesthetics: styles collide, form is adopted for its own sake, and new ways of viewing familiar styles and space abound. Classic examples of modern architecture are the Lever House and the Seagram Building in commercial space, and the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright or the Bauhaus movement in private or communal spaces. Transitional examples of postmodern architecture are the Portland Building in Portland, OR and the Sony Building (New York City) (originally AT&T Building) in New York City, which borrows elements and references from the past and reintroduces color and symbolism to architecture. A prime example of inspiration for postmodern architecture lies along the Las Vegas Strip, which was studied by Robert Venturi in his 1977 book Learning from Las Vegas celebrating the strip’s ordinary and common architecture. Venturi opined that “Less is a bore”, inverting Mies Van Der Rohe’s dictum that “Less is more”. Postmodern architecture has also been described as “neo-eclectic”, where reference and ornament have returned to the facade, replacing the aggressively unornamented modern styles. This eclecticism is often combined with the use of non-orthogonal angles and unusual surfaces, most famously in the State Gallery of Stuttgart (New wing of the Staatsgalerie Stuttgart) and the Piazza d’Italia by Charles Willard Moore. Modernist architects regard post-modern buildings as vulgar and cluttered with “gew-gaws”. Postmodern architects often regard modern spaces as soulless and bland. The divergence in opinions comes down to a difference in goals: modernism is rooted in minimal and true use of material as well as absence of ornament, while postmodernism is a rejection of strict rules set by the early modernists and seeks exuberance in the use of building techniques, angles, and stylistic references. Brief discussion New trends became evident in the last quarter of the 20th century. Some architects started to turn away from Modern Functionalism which they viewed as boring, and which most of the public considered unwelcoming and even unpleasant. These architects turned towards the past, quoting past aspects of various buildings and melding them together (even sometimes in an inharmonious manner) became a new means of designing buildings. A detail example of this was that Post Modernism saw the comeback of the classical pillar and other elements of premodern designs, sometimes adapting (but not aping, as was done in the 19th century) classical Greek and Roman examples. In Modernism the pillar (as an design feature) was either replaced by other technological means such as cantilevers, or masked completly by curtain wall façades. The revival of the pillar was not a technological necessity, rather an aesthetic one. Modernist high-rise buildings had become in most instances monolithic, rejecting the concept of a stack of varied design elements for a single vocabulary from ground level to the top, in the most extreme cases even using a constant “footprint” (with no tapering or “wedding cake” design), with the building sometimes even suggesting the possibility of a single metalic extrusion directly from the ground, mostly by eliminating horizontal elements from the visual presentation — this was seen most strictly in the World Trade Center buildings of Minoru Yamasaki. Another return was that of “wit, ornament and reference”, seen in older buildings in terra cotta decorative facades and bronze or stainless steel embelishments of the beaux arts and art deco periods. In post-modern structures this was often achieved by placing very contradictory quotes of long ago building styles alongside each other, and even the incorporation of furniture stylistic references at a huge scale. Surprisingly, the buildings manage to (most of the time) retain a generally pleasing aesthetic. However, as with any new aesthetic it would take some time to be accepted by the general public. Contextualism, a trend in thinking in the later parts of 20th Century, influences the ideologies of the Post Modern movement in general. Contextualism was centred on the belief that all knowledge is “context-sensitive”. This idea was even taken further to say that knowledge cannot be known without considering its context. This influenced Post Modern architecture to be sensitive to context as discussed below. No discussion of Post Modernism Architecture could possibly exclude Robert Venturi. He was surely at the forefront of instantiating this movement. His book, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (published in 1966), was instrumental in Post Modernism and was fiercely critical of the dominant functional Modernism. Post Modernism began in America around the 1960’s/70’s and then it spread to Europe and the rest of the world, to remain right through to the present. The aims of Post Modernism begin with its reaction to Modernism; it tries to address its predecessor’s failures. This list of aims is extended to include communicating ideas with the public often in a then humorous or witty way. Often, the communication is done by quoting extensively from past architectural styles, often many at once. In breaking away with modernism it also strives produce buildings that are sensitive to the context within which they are built. Post Modernism has its origins in the failure of Modern Architecture. The failures of its predecessor were manifold. Its obsession with functionalism and economical building meant that ornaments were done away with and the buildings were cloaked in a stark rational appearance. The buildings failed to meet the human’s need for comfort both for body and for the eye in aesthetic. Most humans enjoy looking at beautifuly decorated buildings. Modernism didn’t account for this and the problem worsened when the already monotonous apartment blocks degenerated into slums. Post Modernism sought to cure this by reintroducing ornaments and decoration for its own sake. Form was no longer to be defined solely by its functional requirements; it could be anything the architect pleased. The move away from away from Modernism’s functionalism is well illustrated by Venturi’s witty adaptation of Mies van der Rohe’s maxim “Less is more”. Venturi instead said “less is a bore”. Along with the rest of the Post Modernists he sought to bring back ornament because of its necessity. He explains this and his criticism of Modernism in his Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture by saying that: Architects can bemoan or try to ignore them (referring to the [ornamentaland decorative] elements in buildings) or even try to abolish them, but they will not go away. Or they will not go away for a long time, because architects do not have the power to replace them (nor do they know what to replace them with). Robert Venturi was possibly the foremost campaigner of the rebellion against Modernism Architecture which became known as Post Modernism. His two books Complexity and Contradiction (1966) and Learning from Las Vegas (1972) (although not actual manifestoes of Post Modern Architecture) do well to express many of the aims embodied in Post Modernism. The latter book he co-authored with Steven Izenour and his wife, Denise Scott Brown. Complexity and Contradiction highlights an aim that ornamental and decorative elements “accommodate existing needs for variety and communication”. Here Venturi stresses the importance of the building communicating a meaning to the public (which necessitates non-functional elements of the building). The Post Modernists in general strive to achieve this communication through their buildings. This communication is not intended to a direct narrating of the meaning. Venturi goes on to explain that it is rather intended to be a communication that could be interpreted in many ways. Each interpretation is more or less true for its moment because work of such quality will have many dimensions and layers of meaning. This pluralism of meaning is intended to mirror the similar nature of that contemporary society. The pluralism in meaning was also echoed in the Post Modern Architects striving for variety in their buildings. Venturi reminisces in one of his essays, A View from the Campidoglio, to that effect when he says that: When [he] was young, a sure way to distinguish great architects was through the consistency and originality of their work…This should no longer be the case. Where the Modern masters’ strength lay in consistency, ours should lie in diversity. Postmodernism with its diversity possesses sensitivity to the building’s context and history, and the client’s requirements. The Postmodernist architects considered the general requirements of the urban buildings and their surroundings during the building’s design. This could be better explained with the aid of an example: Venice Beach House designed by Frank Gehry(figure needed). In the picture a glimpse can be gained of the neighbouring house’s similar bright flat colour. This vernacular sensitivity is evident in some Post-modern buildings. The aims of Postmodernism can mostly be explained through the writings of its champion, Robert Venturi. These include solving the problems of a legacy of Modernism, communicating meanings with ambiguity, and sensitivity for the building’s context. These aims are surprisingly unified for a period of buildings designed by architects who largely never collaborated with each other. The aims do however leave room for various implementations as can be illustrated by the diverse buildings created during the Movement. The characteristics of Postmodernism allow its aim to be expressed in diverse ways. These characteristics include the use of sculptural forms, ornaments, anthropomorphism and materials which perform trompe l’oeil. These physical characteristics are combined with conceptual characteristics of meaning. These characteristics of meaning include pluralism, double coding, irony and paradox, and contextualism. Detail of Abteiberg Museum The sculptural forms, not necessarily organic, were created with much ardour. These can be seen in Hans Hollein’s Abteiberg Museum (1972-1982). The building is made up of several building units, all very different. Each building’s forms are nothing like the conforming rigid ones of Modernism. These forms are sculptural and are somewhat playful. These forms are not reduced to an absolute minimum; they are built and shaped for their own sake. The building units all fit together in a very organic way, which enhances the effect of the forms. Portland Public Service Building After many years of being neglected, ornament returned. This can be seen in Frank Gehry’s house, The Venice Beach house (image needed) built in 1986. The house is littered with small details, that would’ve have been considered excessive and needless in Modernism. These are the ornamental features. The Beach House has an assembly of circular logs which exist mostly for decoration. The logs on top do have a minor purpose of holding up the window covers. However, the mere fact that they could have been replaced with a practically invisible nail, makes their exaggerated existence largely ornamental. For a more prominent ornament, Michael Graves’ Portland Public Service Building (1980), proves wholly adequate. The two obtruding triangular forms are at most largely ornamental features. They exist for aesthetic or their own purpose. The return of ornament was a necessary one. Postmodernism, with its sensitivity the building’s context, did not exclude the anthropomorphic needs of humans from the building. Carlo Scarpa’s Brion Nega Cemetery (1970-72) (fig. 2) exemplifies this. The human requirements of a cemetery is that it posses a solemn nature, yet it must not cause the visitor to become depressed. Scarpa’s cemetery achieves the solemn mood with the dull grey colours of the walls and neatly defined forms, but the bright green grass prevents this being too overwhelming. This sensitivity becomes more obvious when thinking about how a Modern architect would have solved this need. He would have most likely neglected the human element and paved the area with concrete slabs. Post-modern buildings sometimes perform the age old trompe l’oeil. This involves the illusion of forms or depths where none actually exist and has been used by the renaissance painters. The Portland Public Service Building (1980) has pillars represented on the side of the building that to some extent appear to be real, yet they aren’t. The Hood Museum of Art (1981-1983) (image needed) has a typical symmetrical façade which was at the time prevalent throughout Post-Modern Buildings. Robert Venturi’s Vanna Venturi House (1962-64) (image needed) illustrates Postmodernist aim of communicating a meaning and the characteristic of symbolism. This façade is , according to Venturi, a “symbolic picture” of house, looking back to the 18th century . This is partly achieved through the use of symmetry and the arch over the entrance. Piazza d’Italia by Charles Willard Moore, New Orleans. Perhaps the best example of irony in Post-modern buildings is Charles Moore’s Piazza d’Italia (1978). Moore quotes (architecturally) elements of Italian renaissance and Roman Antiquity. However he does so with a twist. The irony comes when it is noted that the pillars are covered with steel. It is also paradoxical in the way he quotes Italian antiquity for away from the original in New Orleans. Double coding meant the buildings convey many meanings simultaneously. The AT&T Building does this very well. The building is a tall skyscraper which brings with it connotations of very modern technology. Yet, the top contradicts this. The top section conveys elements of the antiquity. This double coding is a prevalent trait of Postmodernism. The characteristics of Postmodernism were rather unified given their diverse appearances. The most notable among their characteristics is their playfully extravagant forms and the humour of the meanings the buildings conveyed. Influential Architects Some of the most well-known and influential architects in the postmodern style are: John Burgee Michael Graves is perhaps the most well-known figure in the postmodern movement. Jon Jerde Philip Johnson Ricardo Legorreta Richard Meier Charles Willard Moore Cesar Pelli Antoine Predock Robert A.M. Stern James Stirling Robert Venturi Changes in History Teaching The rise of interest in history that came as a consequence of the general Postmodernist turn had a profound impact on architectural education. History courses became increasingly regularized and insisted upon. With the demand for professors knowledgeable in the history of architecture, one saw the emergence of several Ph.D. programs in schools of architecture, Ph.D. programs that differentiated themselves from art history Ph.D. programs, where architectural historians had previously trained. In the US, MIT and Cornell were the first, created in the mid 1970s, followed by Columbia, Berkeley, and Princeton. Among the founders of new architectural history programs were Bruno Zevi at the Institute for the History of Architecture in Venice, Stanford Anderson and Henry Millon at MIT, Alexander Tzonis at the Architectural Association, Anthony Vidler at Princeton, Manfredo Tafuri at the University of Venice, Kenneth Frampton at Columbia University, and Werner Oechslin and Kurt Forster at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, ETH. The creation of these programs was paralleled by the hiring, in the 1970s, of professionally trained historians by schools of architecture: Margaret Crawford (with a Ph.D. from U.C.L.A) at SCI-Arch; Elisabeth Grossman (Ph.D., Brown University) at Rhode Island School of Design; Christian Otto[2] (Ph.D., Columbia University) at Cornell University; Richard Chafee (Ph.D., Courtauld Institute) at Roger Williams University; and Howard Burns (M.A. Kings College) at Harvard, to name just a few examples. A second generation of scholars then emerged that began to extend these efforts in the direction of what is now called “theory.” One thinks of K. Michael Hays (Ph.D., MIT) at Harvard, Mark Wigley (Ph.D., Auckland University) at Princeton (though he now teaches at Columbia University), and Beatriz Colomina (Ph.D., School of Architecture, Barcelona) at Princeton; Mark Jarzombek (Ph.D. MIT) at Cornell (though he is now at MIT), Jennifer Bloomer (Ph.D., Georgia Tech) at Iowa State and Catherine Ingraham (Ph.D., John Hopkins) now at Pratt Institute. References An example of an attempt at post-modernism (Shanghai), arguably overdone. ^ Mark Jarzombek, “The Disciplinary Dislocations of Architectural History,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 58/3 (September 1999), p. 489. See also other articles in that issue by Eve Blau, Stanford Anderson, Alina Payne, Daniel Bluestone, Jeon-Louis Cohen and others. ^ Cornel University dept. of Architecture website[1] Other References Postmodern Architecture: Restoring Context Princeton University Lecture Postmodern Architecture and Urbanism University of California – Berkeley Lecture Learning from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form. Robert Venturi, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977 ISBN 0-262-22015-6 History of Post-Modern Architecture. Heinrich Klotz, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998. ISBN 0-262-11123-3 Links Kritikos: journal of postmodern cultural sound, text and image About Postmodernism About Michael Graves Gallery of Postmodern Houses Great Buildings Online Ph.D. program in the history and theory of architecture at MIT Ph.D. program in the history and theory of architecture at Princeton *Ph.D. program in the history and theory of architecture at Berkeley
Postmodernity or postmodern architecture is a period whose first examples are generally cited as being from the 1950’s, which runs through the present.Postmodernity in architecture is generally thought to be heralded by the return of “wit, ornament and reference” to architecture in response to the formalism of the International Style of modernism. As with many cultural movements, one of postmodernism’s most pronounced and visible ideas can be seen in architecture. The functional, and formalized, shapes and spaces of the modernist movement are replaced by unapologetically diverse aesthetics; styles collide, form is adopted for its own sake, and new ways of viewing familiar styles and space abound. Brief discussion Classic examples of modern architecture are the Lever House and the Seagram Building in commercial space, and the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright or the Bauhaus movement in private or communal spaces. Transitional examples of postmodern architecture are the Portland Building in Portland, OR and Sony Building (New York City) (originally AT&T Building) in New York City, which borrows elements and references from the past and reintroduces color and symbolism to architecture. A prime example of inspiration for postmodern architecture lies along the Las Vegas Strip which was studied by Robert Venturi in the book Learning from Las Vegas for the strip’s ordinary and common architecture. Postmodern architecture has also been described as “neo-eclectic”, where reference and ornament have returned to the facade, replacing the aggressively unornamented modern styles. This eclecticism is often combined with the use of non-orthogonal angles and unusual surfaces, most famously in the State Gallery Stuttgart (Staatsgalerie Stuttgart) and the Piazza d’Italia by Charles Willard Moore. Modernist architects regard post-modern buildings as vulgar and loaded with “gee-gaws”. Post-modern architects often regard modern spaces as soulless and bland. The divergence in opinions comes down to a difference in goals: Modernism is rooted in minimal and true use of material as well as absence of ornament, while Post-modernism is a rejection of strict rules set by the early modernists and seeks exuberance in the use of building techniques, angles, and stylistic references.
some recent Po-Mo Wellness Center, Switzerland, Mario Botta & Associates, architect Morse U.S. Courthouse, Eugene, Oregon, Morphosis, architects   TEN ROW HOUSES IN RUGINELLO-MILAN Roccatelier Associati Architects THEATRE STUDIO FOR UNIVERSITY Brno, Czech Republic ARCHTEAM Architects REHABILITATION OF SANTA CATERINA MARKET Barcelona, Spain Miralles Tagliabue-EMBT Architects FEDERATION SQUARE Melbourne, Australia LAB Architecture Studio Architects “Shard of Glass Tower,” London, Renzo Piano, architect Simmons Hall, MIT, Stephen Holl, 2003 New York – Queens West Housing Development proposal, 2004 Arquitectonica New York (Queens) Housing Development proposal, 2004, Morphosis New York, 80 South Street Housing, 2004, Santiago Calatrava UAE Tower, Dubai, Adrian Smith (SOM), 2005 Trump Tower, Chicago, Adrian Smith (SOM), 2004 New York World Trade Center Site Transit Station, Santiago Calatrava, 2004   Freedom Tower, New York, Daniel Liebskind and David Childs, 2004   Milwaukee Art Museum, Santiago Calatrava, 2001 Vatican Jubilee Church, Richard Meyer, 2004 Millenium Park Music Pavillion and Pedestrian Bridge, Frank Ghery, 2004     Tenerife Concert Hall, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain Santiago Calatrava, 2004 Walking-City extension to the Ontario College of Art and Design (OCAD), Toronto, Canada Will Alsop, 2004   Seattle Public Library Seattle, Washington Rem Koolhaus, 2004   Soldier Field, Chicago Wood & Zapata, 2004
Images with thanks to http://academics.triton.edu/faculty/fheitzman

Formalist Architecture

Formalism or formalization is the activity or its product which rigorously follows a set/system of rules previously defined and usually known.
Musée du Louvre, Paris, I. M. Pei, 1989	La Pyramide Inversée, Paris, I. M. Pei, 1989	Danteum, Rome, Italy; Giuseppe Terragni 1937
Falk house, Hardwick, VT. Peter Eisenman, 1969	Snyderman House, Michael Graves	Palace of the Assembly, Chandigarh, India; Le Corbusier, 1953-1963
The Bank of China Tower, 1990, by Pritzker Prize-winning architect Ieoh Ming Pei As the name suggests, Formalism emphasizes form. The architect is interested in visual relationships between the building parts and the work as a whole. Shape, often on a monumental scale, is the focus of attention. Lines and rigid geometric shapes predominate in Formalist architecture. It represents a break from pure Functionism, and a renewed interest in monumental qualities and an interest in form for expressive purposes. Eero Saarinen was a major proponent of Formalism. You will find Formalism in many Modernist buildings, especially in Bauhaus and International Style architecture. Architect I.M. Pei has often been praised for the “elegant formalism” of his works.
Following with special thanks to http://www.thearchitectpainter.com/
MOVE + MEANING1   What is formalism?I have been thinking about this question since reading the special issue of ANY (7/8) on Colin Rowe, especially because I think of myself, at least on one level, as a formalist. But clearly there is disagreement and uncertainty today as to what formalism is, and the opinion of its relevance to an advanced architecture tends to be alternately noncommittal or pejorative. Moreover, there is obviously no consensus as to whether Rowe himself is a formalist. Peggy Deamer, who alone mentions the Russian formalists, comes closest to defining formalism in suprapersonal terms. These terms are relevant, though I would argue with some of the finer points of her explanation that seem to imply that strange-making, or defamiliarization, is more a psychological phenomenon than a formal one. As Victor Erlich points out in his classic study Russian Formalism: Theory and Doctrine, the Russian Formalists believed that “before trying to explain anything, one should find out what it is.” And if this has a tautological ring to it, it is also rather nicely consistent with Rowe’s dedication to the idea of the scholar-as-detective, which Paulette Singley recalls in her fascinating article in the same issue. Anyway (as I believe Colin Rowe would say), I appreciate being provoked into re/investigating this question. An important source for the definition of formalism is Rosalind Krauss’s brilliant essay in Houses of Cards, “Death of a Hermeneutic Phantom: Materialization of the Sign in the work of Peter Eisenman.” The essay firmly convinces the reader of five things: (1) 20th-century formalism had its origin in literary theory, specifically Russian formalism; (2) 20th-century formalism was therefore inextricably linked at its point of origin to the avant-garde, namely modernism; (3) 20th-century formalism was the “strategic conversion of transparency into opacity” (the former related to everything that was not art and the latter to everything that was) and relied on a taxonomy of devices for defamiliarizing the artistic object; (4) Rowe, who stressed that architecture is a form of text and concerned himself (with Robert Slutsky) with the issue of false versus a true transparency, is a formalist/modernist; (5) given this and given the fact that Eisenman’s House I and House II are paradigmatic examples of 20th-century formalism in architecture, formalism can’t be all bad. Moreover, Krauss’s identification of the transition from formalism to structuralism in Eisenman’s work—”the dispersal of unities into a field of differences”—is significant, for it introduces the question: Irrespective of what formalism may actually turn out to be, once we do find out what it is, is it still relevant? That is, if “post-formalism” is now in, isn’t formalism out? Can formalism really function today as an operative intellectual construct for an advanced architecture? I think yes. If, as Alan Colquhoun writes, “the problem of architecture is part of a larger problem involving the whole notion of art,” then the potential for meaningful formalist research in architecture is inexhaustible. It addresses the timeless problem of form and content—or, as is suggested by the chess analogy that fascinated both Victor Shklovsky and Ferdinand Saussure, the problem of move and meaning. Her, it is clear that the Russians working during the cultural upheaval of 1910s, whose principal organization was Opojaz (The Society for the Investigation of Literature), reinvented the nature of this relationship. Shklovsky’s attempt to define a non-objective literature in terms of devices and techniques applied to materials (which he initiated the same year, 1915, as Malevich’s revolutionary exhibition of non-objective paintings and publication of his manifesto “Living in a Non-Objective World”) has come down to us as a dilemma of the unity versus the separability of form and content. Is form content?  Do the elements of content have an independent existence, exempt from the adopted laws of aesthetic structure? Is there content—in Mondrian painting, for example—that sustains what might be called the “truth” of the aesthetic object (so as to different it from a forgery), but that is categorically invisible? Though Shklovsky tried to expose the fallacy of the notion of separable content, he was tripped up by the double problem of philosophical and semantic complexities and ultimately failed in his attempt to articulate a cogent, mature position on the issue. He thus made it possible to consider the problem of the unity of form and content under the rubric of formalism in two very different ways. As Erlich write: “Was he implying that all that matters in art is form, or was he simply saying that everything in the work of art is necessarily formed, i.e., organized for an esthetic purpose?” I am currently more interested in the latter proposition—but, to the degree that the architectural equivalent of forgery is avoided; I do not reject the validity of the former. I am also trying to sort out the degree to which my acceptance of this formalist position is really at odds with Meyer Schapiro’s counter-argument against the unity of form and content. In “On Perfection, Coherence, and unity of Form and Content,” Schapiro wrote: “In practice, form and content are separable for the artist who, in advance of the work, possesses a form in the habit of his style that is available to many contents and a conception of a subject or theme rich in meaning and open to varied treatment. In the process of realization these separable components of his project are made to interact, and in the finished work there arise unique qualities, both of form and meaning, as the offspring of this interaction, with many accords but also with qualities distinctive for each.” All architecture seems to be a conscious or unconscious commentary on this larger problem of art. So though it is popular idea that formalism is to poetics as syntax is to meaning (see Mario Gandelsonas in ANY), I am persuaded by the Russians that not only syntax simply one of the devices of art, but that formalism is not situated on one side of the virgule in the form/content, move/meaning dialect. Rather, the dialect is at the very center of formalism’s philosophical construct. I have begun to sort out formalism’s identity and relevance in the following way: as it has a descended from the post-cubist contemplations of the Russian literary avant-garde, formalism is not a sterile aesthetic purism, a narrowly focused, perhaps even formulaic, obsessions with syntax or composition. Nor is it a simplistic “art for art’s sake” doctrine that promotes form over content, or even simply form as content. Instead, it is a far more serious, multivalent, and equivocal proposition. If it centers on three major ideas—devices, conventions and density (opacity)—and if its goal is toward art as strange-making, which involves a formal procedure whereby the object is transferred to a sphere of new perception, then it asks us to consider the possibility of an architecture whose aim, like poetry, is “to make perceptible the texture of the world in all aspects,” as Boris Mikhailovich Eikhenbaum asserted. And if poetry is “a complex transaction involving the semantic and morphological, as well as the phonetic, levels of language,” as mature Russian formalism ultimately concluded, if the aesthetic dimension of art lies not in the absence of meaning but in multiplicity/density of meanings, then this recognition is still important for the contemplation of an advanced, poetic architecture today. Moreover, the degree to which architecture of such multivalent density is realized raises the critical distinction between the visible and the visual. I would argue that the interrelation of the visible (the aesthetic) and the invisible (the poetic) constitutes the visual, and that formalism, therefore, ultimately addresses the problem of vision. As such, it questions what the critical intelligent eye sees. Mondrian and other De Stijl artists understood vision to be first, both optical and plastic (the latter refers to seeing underlying relations or abstraction), and second, the intellectual “seeing” of nonaesthetic ideas. This complex network of visible /invisible interrelationship calls to mind Rosalind Krauss’s image of “the infrastructure of vision.” Thus I would hold that an architecture may be said to be part of a 20th-century formalist enterprise to the degree that (1) the techniques and devices of the visible, as applied to materials (both two-dimensional graphic notations and three-dimensional constructions) comprise a rigorous suprapersonal system; (2) the result is an architectural object that is strange with respect to everyday building (if not also with respect to the current advanced style); (3) this strange-making comprises a dense “infrastructure of vision.” In other words, modern formalism, dialectical in nature because it includes the problem of form/content, move/meaning, is an unfamiliar nexus of the aesthetic/poetic (morphologic/semantic) that operates at a heightened order of difficulty and multivalence and is ruled by the adopted conventions (i.e. the suprapersonal system) of aesthetic structure. Perhaps 20th-century formalism is found somewhere in the visual infrastructure established by four familiar architectural paradigms: Le Corbusier’s Villa de Monzie at Garches, Giuseppe Terragni’s Danteum, Eisenman’s House I [and/or House II], and Michael Grave’s Snyderman House [as well as/better yet: Le Corbusier’s Palace of the Assembly at Chandigarh]. And though we will soon move into the 21st century, we are far from exhausting the lessons of these and similar formalist/modernist models.     1. Villa de Monzie/Stein, Garches, France; Le Corbusier, 1927 [For additional images click here]   2. Danteum, Rome, Italy; Giuseppe Terragni 1937 [For additional images click here]   3. House I, Barenholtz Pavilion, Princeton, NJ; Peter Eisenman, 1967   4. House II, Falk House, Hardwick, Connecticut; Peter Eisenman, 1969   5. Snyderman House, Michael Graves,     6. Palace of the Assembly, Chandigarh, India; Le Corbusier, 1953-1963 [For additional images click here]     QUESTION: Is this an example of 20th-century Move|Meaning-formalism? 7. Casa Mila (La Pedrera), Barcelona, Spain; Antonio Gaudi, 1905-1910 (see Barcelona: TRIALECTIONS: GAUDI, MIES & MEIER)
Special thanks to http://www.thearchitectpainter.com/