 |
 |
 |
| Libeskind’s Imperial War Museum North in Manchester comprises three apparently intersecting curved volumes. | UFA-Palast in Dresden by Coop Himmelb(l)au Dancing House in Prague by Vlado Milunić and Frank Gehry |
Vitra Design Museum by Frank Gehry, Weil am Rhein |
 |
 |
 |
| Vitra fire station, Weil am Rhein, Germany. Zaha Hadid. | Dancing House in Prague by Vlado Milunić and Frank Gehry | MIT’s Stata Center, opened March 16, 2004. |
 |
 |
 |
| Gasometer in Vienna, Coop Himmelb(l)au | Installation art by Peter Eisenman in the courtyard of Castelvecchio Museum in Verona, Italy, Entitled: “Il giardino dei passi perduti,” (“The garden of lost steps”). | Seattle Central Library by Rem Koolhaas and OMA |
| Deconstructivism
Deconstructivism in architecture, also called deconstruction, is a development of postmodern architecture that began in the late 1980s. It is characterized by ideas of fragmentation, an interest in manipulating ideas of a structure’s surface or skin, non-rectilinear shapes which serve to distort and dislocate some of the elements of architecture, such as structure and envelope. The finished visual appearance of buildings that exhibit the many deconstructivist “styles” is characterised by a stimulating unpredictability and a controlled chaos. Important events in the history of the deconstructivist movement include the 1982 Parc de la Villette architectural design competition (especially the entry from Jacques Derrida and Peter Eisenman[1] and Bernard Tschumi’s winning entry), the Museum of Modern Art’s 1988 Deconstructivist Architecture exhibition in New York, organized by Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley, and the 1989 opening of the Wexner Center for the Arts in Columbus, designed by Peter Eisenman. The New York exhibition featured works by Frank Gehry, Daniel Libeskind, Rem Koolhaas, Peter Eisenman, Zaha Hadid, Coop Himmelb(l)au, and Bernard Tschumi. Since the exhibition, many of the architects who were associated with Deconstructivism have distanced themselves from the term. Nonetheless, the term has stuck and has now, in fact, come to embrace a general trend within contemporary architecture. Originally, some of the architects known as Deconstructivists were influenced by the ideas of the French philosopher Jacques Derrida. Eisenman developed a personal relationship with Derrida, but even so his approach to architectural design was developed long before he became a Deconstructivist. For him Deconstructivism should be considered an extension of his interest in radical formalism. Some practitioners of deconstructivism were also influenced by the formal experimentation and geometric imbalances of Russian constructivism. There are additional references in deconstructivism to 20th-century movements: the modernism/postmodernism interplay, expressionism, cubism, minimalism and contemporary art. The attempt in deconstructivism throughout is to move architecture away from what its practitioners see as the constricting ‘rules’ of modernism such as “form follows function,” “purity of form,” and “truth to materials.”
History, context & influences Modernism and postmodernism Deconstructivism in contemporary architecture stands in opposition to the ordered rationality of Modernism. Its relationship with Postmodernism is also decidedly contrary. Though postmodernist and nascent deconstructivist architects published theories alongside each other in the journal Oppositions (published 1973–84), that journal’s contents mark the beginning of a decisive break between the two movements. Deconstruction took a confrontational stance toward much of architecture and architectural history, wanting to disjoin and disassemble architecture.[2] While postmodernism returned to embrace— often slyly or ironically—the historical references that modernism had shunned, deconstructivism rejects the postmodern acceptance of such references. It also rejects the idea of ornament as an after-thought or decoration. These principles have meant that deconstructivism aligns itself somewhat with the sensibilities of modernist anti-historicism. In addition to Oppositions, another text that separated deconstructivism from the fray of modernism and postmodernism was the publication of Robert Venturi’s Complexity and Contradiction in architecture (1966). A defining point for both postmodernism and for deconstructivism, Complexity and Contradiction argues against the purity, clarity and simplicity of modernism. With its publication, functionalism and rationalism, the two main branches of modernism, were overturned as paradigms according to postmodernist and deconstructivist readings, with differing readings. The postmodern reading of Venturi (who was himself a postmodernist) was that ornament and historical allusion added a richness to architecture that modernism had foregone. Some Postmodern architects endeavored to reapply ornaments even to economical and minimal buildings, an effort best illustrated by Venturi’s concept of “the decorated shed.” Rationalism of design was dismissed but the functionalism of the building was still somewhat intact. This is close to the thesis of Venturi’s next major work,[3] that signs and ornament can be applied to a pragmatic architecture, and instill the philosophic complexities of semiology. The deconstructivist reading of Complexity and Contradiction is quite different. The basic building was the subject of problematics and intricacies in deconstructivism, with no detachment for ornament. Rather than separating ornament and function, like postmodernists such as Venturi, the functional aspects of buildings were called into question. Geometry was to deconstructivists what ornament was to postmodernists, the subject of complication, and this complication of geometry was in turn, applied to the functional, structural, and spacial aspects of deconstructivist buildings. One example of deconstructivist complexity is Frank Gehry’s Vitra Design Museum in Weil-am-Rhein, which takes the typical unadorned white cube of modernist art galleries and deconstructs it, using geometries reminiscent of cubism and abstract expressionism. This subverts the functional aspects of modernist simplicity while taking modernism, particularly the international style, of which its white stucco skin is reminiscent, as a starting point. Another example of the deconstructivist reading of Complexity and Contradiction is Peter Eisenman’s Wexner Center for the Arts. The Wexner Center takes the archetypal form of the castle, which it then imbues with complexity in a series of cuts and fragmentations. A three-dimensional grid, runs somewhat arbitrarily through the building. The grid, as a reference to modernism, of which it is an accoutrement, collides with the medieval antiquity of a castle. Some of the grid’s columns intentionally don’t reach the ground, hovering over stairways creating a sense of neurotic unease and contradicting the structural purpose of the column. The Wexner Center deconstructs the archetype of the castle and renders its spaces and structure with conflict and difference. Deconstructivist philosophy The main channel from deconstructivist philosophy to architectural theory was through the philosopher Jacques Derrida’s influence with Peter Eisenman. Eisenman drew some philosophical bases from the literary movement Deconstruction, and collaborated directly with Derrida on projects including an entry for the Parc de la Villette competition, documented in Chora l Works. Both Derrida and Eisenman, as well as Daniel Libeskind[4] were concerned with the “metaphysics of presence,” and this is the main subject of deconstructivist philosophy in architecture theory. The presupposition is that architecture is a language capable of communicating meaning and of receiving treatments by methods of linguistic philosophy. The dialectic of presence and absence, or solid and void occurs in much of Eisenman’s projects, both built and unbuilt. Both Derrida and Eisenman believe that the locus, or place of presence, is architecture, and the same dialectic of presence and absence is found in construction and deconstruction.[6] According to Derrida, readings of texts are best carried out when working with classical narrative structures. Any architectural deconstruction requires the existence of a particular archetypal construction, a strongly-established conventional expectation to play flexibly against.[7] The design of Frank Gehry’s own Santa Monica residence, (from 1978), has been cited as a prototypical deconstructivist building. His starting point was a prototypical suburban house embodied with a typical set of intended social meanings. Gehry altered its massing, spatial envelopes, planes and other expectations in a playful subversion, an act of “de”construction”[8] In addition to Derrida’s concepts of the metaphysics of presence and deconstruction, his notions of trace and erasure, embodied in his philosophy of writing and arche-writing[9] found their way into deconstructivist memorials. Daniel Libeskind envisioned many of his early projects as a form of writing or discourse on writing and often works with a form of concrete poetry. He made architectural sculptures out of books and often coated the models in texts, openly making his architecture refer to writing. The notions of trace and erasure were taken up by Libeskind in essays and in his project for the Jewish Museum Berlin. The museum is conceived as a trace of the erasure of the Holocaust, intended to make its subject legible and poignant. Memorials such as Maya Lin’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial and Peter Eisenman’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe also reflect themes of trace and erasure. Constructivism and Russian Futurism
Another major current in deconstructivist architecture takes inspiration from the Russian Constructivist and Futurist movements of the early twentieth century, both in their graphics and in their visionary architecture, little of which was actually constructed. Artists Naum Gabo, El Lissitzky, Kazimir Malevich, and Alexander Rodchenko, have influenced the graphic sense of geometric forms of deconstructivist architects such as Zaha Hadid and Coop Himmelb(l)au. Both Deconstructivism and Constructivism have been concerned with the tectonics of making an abstract assemblage. Both were concerned with the radical simplicity of geometric forms as the primary artistic content, expressed in graphics, sculpture and architecture. The Constructivist tendency toward purism, though, is absent in Deconstructivism: form is often deformed when construction is deconstructed. Also lessened or absent is the advocacy of socialist and collectivist causes. The primary graphic motifs of constructivism were the rectangular bar and the triangular wedge, others were the more basic geometries of the square and the circle. In his series Prouns, El Lizzitzky assembled collections of geometries at various angles floating free in space. They evoke basic structural units such as bars of steel or sawn lumber loosely attached, piled, or scattered. They were also often drafted and share aspects with technical drawing and engineering drawing. Similar in composition is the deconstructivist series Micromegas by Daniel Libeskind. – Phillip Johnson and Mark Wigley, Deconstructive Architecture, p.34 Contemporary art Two strains of modern art, minimalism and cubism, have had an influence on deconstructivism. Analytical cubism had a sure effect on deconstructivism, as forms and content are dissected and viewed from different perspectives simultaneously. A synchronicity of disjoined space is evident in many of the works of Frank Gehry and Bernard Tschumi. Synthetic cubism, with its application of found art, is not as great an influence on deconstructivism as Analytical cubism, but is still found in the earlier and more vernacular works of Frank Gehry. Deconstructivism also shares with minimalism a disconnection from cultural references. It also often shares with minimalism notions of conceptual art. With its tendency toward deformation and dislocation, there is also an aspect of expressionism and expressionist architecture associated with deconstructivism. At times deconstructivism mirrors varieties of expressionism, neo-expressionism, and abstract expressionism as well. The angular forms of the Ufa Cinema Center by Coop Himmelb(l)au recall the abstract geometries of the numbered paintings of Franz Kline, in their unadorned masses. The UFA Cinema Center also would make a likely setting for the angular figures depicted in urban German street scenes by Ernst Ludwig Kirchner. The work of Wassily Kandinsky also bears similarities to deconstructivist architecture. His movement into abstract expressionism and away from figurative work,[10] is in the same spirit as the deconstructivist rejection of ornament for geometries. Several artists in the 1980s and 1990s contributed work that influenced or took part in deconstructivism. Maya Lin and Rachel Whiteread are two examples. Lin’s 1982 project for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, with its granite slabs severing the ground plane, is one. Its shard-like form and reduction of content to a minimalist text influenced deconstructivism, with its sense of fragmentation and emphasis on reading the monument. Lin also contributed work for Eisenman’s Wexner Center. Rachel Whiteread’s cast architectural spaces are another instance where contemporary art is confluent with architecture. Ghost (1990), an entire living space cast in plaster, solidifying the void, alludes to Derrida’s notion of architectural presence. Gordon Matta-Clark’s Building cuts were deconstructed sections of buildings exhibited in art galleries. 1988 MOMA exhibition Mark Wigley and Phillip Johnson curated the 1988 Museum of Modern Art exhibition Deconstructivist architecture, which crystallized the movement, and brought fame and notoriety to its key practitioners. The architects presented at the exhibition were Peter Eisenman, Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Coop Himmelblau, Rem Koolhaas, Daniel Libeskind, and Bernard Tschumi. Mark Wigley wrote the accompanying essay and tried to show a common thread among the various architects whose work was usually more noted for their differences. – Phillip Johnson and Mark Wigley, Excerpts from Deconstructivist Architecture Computer-aided design Computer aided design is now an essential tool in most aspects of contemporary architecture, but the particular nature of deconstrucivism makes the use of computers especially pertinent. Three-dimensional modelling and animation (virtual and physical) assists in the conception of very complex spaces, while the ability to link computer models to manufacturing jigs (CAM – Computer-aided manufacturing) allows the mass production of subtly different modular elements to be achieved at affordable costs. In retrospect many early deconstructivist works appear to have been conceived with the aid of a computer, but were not; Zaha Hadid’s sketches for instance. Also, Gehry is noted for producing many physical models as well as computer models as part of his design process. Though the computer has made the designing of complex shapes much easier, not everything that looks odd is “deconstructivist.” Critical responses Since the publication of Kenneth Frampton’s Modern Architecture: A Critical History (first edition 1980) there has been a keen consciousness of the role of criticism within architectural theory. Whilst referencing Derrida as a philosophical influence, deconstructivism can also be seen as having as much a basis in critical theory as the other major offshoot of postmodernism, critical regionalism. The two aspects of critical theory, urgency and analysis, are found in deconstructivism. There is a tendency to re-examine and critique other works or precedents in deconstructivism, and also a tendency to set esthetic issues in the foreground. An example of this is the Wexner Center. Critical Theory, however, had at its core a critique of capitalism and its excess, and from that respect many of the works of the Deconstructivists would fail in that regard if only they are made for an elite and are, as objects, highly expensive, despite whatever critique they may claim to impart on the conventions of design. The Wexner Center brings vital architectural topics such as function and precedent to prominence and displays their urgency in architectural discourse, in an analytical and critical way. The difference between criticality in deconstructivism and criticality in critical regionalism, is that critical regionalism reduces the overall level of complexity involved and maintains a clearer analysis while attempting to reconcile modernist architecture with local differences. In effect, this leads to a modernist “vernacular.” Critical regionalism displays a lack of self-criticism and a utopianism of place. Deconstructivism, meanwhile, maintains a level of self-criticism, as well as external criticism and tends towards maintaining a level of complexity. Some architects identified with the movement, notably Frank Gehry, have actively rejected the classification of their work as deconstructivist. Critics of deconstructivism see it as a purely formal exercise with little social significance. Kenneth Frampton finds it “elitist and detached.”[12] Other criticisms are similar to those of deconstructivist philosophy—that since the act of deconstruction is not an empirical process, it can result in whatever an architect wishes, and it thus suffers from a lack of consistency. Today there is a sense that the philosophical underpinnings of the beginning of the movement have been lost, and all that is left is the aesthetic of deconstruction.[13] Other criticisms reject the premise that architecture is a language capable of being the subject of linguistic philosophy, or, if it was a language in the past, critics claim it is no longer. Others question the wisdom and impact on future generations of an architecture that rejects the past and presents no clear values as replacements and which often pursues strategies that are intentionally aggressive to human senses. References |
||
Links |
||
Deconstructivism
2 Dec
Postmodern architecture
1 Dec |
.jpg) |
.jpg) |
| 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. |
 |
.jpg) |
.jpg) |
| 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. |
.jpg) |
.jpg) |
|
| The McCormick Tribune Campus Center at Chicago’s IIT Campus by Rem Koolhaas. | The Milwaukee Art Museum by Santiago Calatrava. | |
.jpg) |
 |
 |
| 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.
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.
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.
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 John Burgee Changes in History Teaching 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
^ 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. Other References Links
|
||
| 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 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
THEATRE STUDIO FOR UNIVERSITY
REHABILITATION OF SANTA CATERINA MARKET
FEDERATION SQUARE
“Shard of Glass Tower,” London, Renzo Piano, architect
Simmons Hall, MIT, Stephen Holl, 2003
New York – Queens West Housing Development proposal, 2004
New York (Queens) Housing Development proposal, 2004, Morphosis
New York, 80 South Street Housing, 2004,
UAE Tower, Dubai, Adrian Smith (SOM), 2005
Trump Tower, Chicago, Adrian Smith (SOM), 2004
New York World Trade Center Site Transit Station,
Freedom Tower, New York,
Milwaukee Art Museum, Santiago Calatrava, 2001
Vatican Jubilee Church, Richard Meyer, 2004
Millenium Park Music Pavillion and Pedestrian Bridge,
Tenerife Concert Hall, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
Walking-City extension to the Ontario College of Art and Design (OCAD),
Seattle Public Library
Soldier Field, Chicago |
||
| Images with thanks to http://academics.triton.edu/faculty/fheitzman | ||
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Archipaedia- archive 