In class this week, we look at a film by Jacques Tati, Playtime. As this is a history of architecture class, i shall attempt to analyze the film through an architect's eye. Although we did not get a chance to see the whole film, the beginning parts of the movie already gave us an overview idea of what Tati was trying to express. The film starts out in the airport. Already, the first shot was a big glass building (1). This building, although seemed futuristic at that time, would soon become an ordinary office-building nowadays. High rise buildings with pure glass facades and metal framing is quite ordinary in Bangkok. As you can see, there is not unique or distinguishing features in this building that could possible set apart with other buildings. While in the airport, we are introduced with a tour group of American ladies arriving in Paris (2). Already, one can see how everyone looks similar and is very conformed. We are then introduced to a character, Barbara, who is part of the tour group but views things differently than the others. Instead of taking noticing attractions, she notices little things that are ordinary or out of place. The tour guide then showed the ladies to a shopping complex-like places where new gadgets are being sold. Here we see that the buildings all look similar, very modernistic (3). We are also introduced to monsieur Hulot at the office building. He is then led to an all-sided glass room with this barcelona chair-like quality (4). What is amusing with this chair, is once seated the chair is foam-like and will take its original shape. Here i can really see that Tati is making fun of the modernist. Then the scenes of the cubical is displayed where everyone has their own little cubical (5). They all look the same and again, shows the idea of conformity within modernism. Ironically, it looks like how cubicles are today in offices. The final scene we saw was the shopping complex (6). In it, Tati really makes fun of modernism by showing a door that slams "in golden silence". I find this very entertaining and Tati really points out the obvious to people. Another amusing footage i find in this film is when Barbara sees posters of places around the world with the same building in it (7). Tati had went over and beyond what is necessary to point out that Modernism is universal and that it should (or shouldn't) be the main attraction of a place.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Furniture for workers? For real?
In this week's lecture, still referring to "From Bauhaus To Our House", we discussed about Mies van der Rohe. He was the avant-garde modernist architect who had visions of high rise buildings erected up with a pure glass facade. This was considered radical at that time. Mies was also responsible for designing the world renown barcelona chair which I find quite ironic. This was one of the architects from Bauhaus who believed in designing for the non bourgeois. Up to this point, a "Knolls" barcelona chair is worth from 150,000 - 200,000 ish Thai Baht! How could the non bourgeois afford this? Anyone who can bear the expense of this chair would definitely be in the bourgeois class. A barcelona chair is expensive and also difficult to mass produce which contradicts his goal of creating for the non bourgeois. Owning a barcelona chair is like you're not buying a 'chair' but buying a piece of history -an icon of modern living.
The barcelona chair was actually designed for the king and queen of Spain who visited the Barcelona Pavillion. From the articles i've read, the barcelona chair is considered quite uncomfortable - not the type of chair one would sit and watch TV for hours with.
Although I disapprove of Mies designing their chair with an aim to mass produce and sell to the non bourgeois class, I do give him credit for his design. The chair, in my opinion, is like a Mac product. The chair is designed to be exactly what it is - its function is displayed. There is no ornament or fancy decorations within the design. Chairs now-a-days is in all sorts of shape and forms with miscellaneous things hanging out of it. Most would not only function as a seating place but also have extra functions such as arm rests, cup holders, or foot rests. In my opinion, I think in today's world, we lack this kind of simplicity. Maybe if we are able to balance Mies' view and what we need to accommodate a chair today, we might come up with a good design concept.