After a compilation of blogs written within the past four months, covering more than 800 years of architecture, it all comes down to the question: "So what have we learnt from these master architects and how can we apply it to our studies?" This manifesto will not only cover analysis of buildings, but will also include analysis of objects and films as well. I believe that learning from architecture does not mean through the form of buildings only, but we can learn from everything around us. I also realize that history comes in a rhizomatic form. According to "A Thousand Plateaus" written by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, they challenge the act of making everything a unity, to something that functions rhizomatically. " Any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be. This is very different from the tree or root, which plots a point, fixes an order" (Deleuze, Guattari 7). Thus, in this manifesto, I shall attempt to analyze architectural history in a rhizomatic manner- connecting the dots together.
What place would be better than to begin with the concept of "starting from zero." After World War I was over, Europeans wanted a new start on things. They talk about "starting from zero" and recreating the world. Walter Gropius, or Silver Prince, founded the Bauhaus School which young architects and artist came to study about "starting from zero."
The Bauhaus was formed having two goals in mind. One being to create for the workers and the other to reject all things bourgeois. But what really defines what is bourgeois and non bourgeois? The word, bourgeois, means of or characteristic of the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes. In my opinion, what Gropius along with the other architects at that time thought was bourgeois was just about anything that was conventional. Basically, anything that had cornices and high pitched-roof. There were no set-in-stone rules that tell you what is bourgeois and non bourgeois. I think that the word 'bourgeois' had been so refined that it had become too vague.
The newly developed movement was at first defined by the latest theory of what was non bourgeois. New materials were introduced, blending in concrete, steel, wood, glass, and stucco. White, beige, gray, and black were their patriotic colors.The theories they manifested when constructed, made the buildings nonfunctional even though their aim was to build everything functional. Ornaments and decorations outside of buildings which does not serve any functions were a no- no.
One of the avant-garde for this movement, which became known as the International Style, was Le Corbusier. He strongly believed that this was the coming of the machine age. He designed and built Villa Savoye which defined the new movement. The Villa Savoye followed Le Corbusier's five points which includes:
1. Use of pilotis to raise the buildings above ground and free the space under the building.
2. Free the plan: Using a frame construction to free the plan from load-bearing walls to flow according to function and aesthetics.
3. Free the facade that can become a void, a large window or a thin membrane.
4. Use of horizontal strip windows that let in the most light.
5. The roof garden: switching from pitched roof to a flat roof and using the space as a garden terrace and bringing the landscape into the house.
A topic that could be raised is if Le Corbusier's designs were functional or not. Although his aim, similar to all the rest of Bauhaus, was to design for the workers; it resulted with the workers complaining because it was too machine-like. The workers tried to make the place more comfortable and cozy. And what did Le Corbusier had to say about this? He says that "they had to be reeducated to comprehend the beauty of 'the Radiant City' of the future" (Wolfe 32). In other words, they were too "intellectually undeveloped" to understand. Why would they want to design for the workers if they didn't ask what the workers wanted? Shouldn't the worker's need be one of the most important factor to take into consideration?
The principle of "expressed structure" was also another newly formed theory. The idea was basically to design so that the inner structure will be expressed on the outside of the building. Schroeder House, design by Gerrit Rietveld, was a clear example of this principle. The building's exterior symbolizes the grid and its geometric progression of its plan.
Another Modernist architect who became world renown was 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 - 200,000ish 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 Pavilion. 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.
However, the beginning of Modernism not only comes in form of building structures. Mass production and mass media was 'booming' as well, and many films were directed portraying the new futuristic world. One of the more well-known films being "Metropolis." This silent film by Fritz Lang conveys an allegory between man and machine. One interesting way to approach this movie is through analyzing it in an architectural perspective. From here on, i will be looking into different scenes and attempting to analyze its space based on mainly my own interpretation and my previous knowledge of architectural history.
Metropolis starts off with images of machine-like structure operating. Engines and steam engines, along with a clock is portrayed repetitively. One of my first reaction to these images reminded me of factories and mass production. From then, it takes us into a subway-like tunnel where we see workers changing shifts. (1) Obviously, the film is representing the industrial age. Workers in the film are organized and walking like they are in jail. They all wear the same outfits, very non bourgeois, have similar haircuts, and are not very happy with what they are doing :( (2) This could be related to the theme of an 'average man' where things would be design for one universal man. For example, one might design a free-size shirt that would fit everyone rather than having design xs, s, m ,l and xl sizes. (3) The next shot shows the worker's house which is still underground. All the houses are the same, having only the necessary windows and doors. No decoration or any type of ornamentation is seen on the building facade at all. (4) While the workers are changing shifts, the shot is redirected to ground level, where a complex called "Club of the Sons" is holding a running race. With this, we see that they are wealthy and educated. The walls in the background shot is massive and unrealistically portrayed. On top are statues of humans in motion which can relate back to Greek statues. Next to the oversize wall is a coliseum-like building where it has influences mainly from Greece Architectural Style. Buildings such as the Parthenon and this complex, for me, represents wealth, order, and power. The two shots of the worker's housing and the complex contrasts dramatically. In my opinion, Lang place the two scenarios together to differentiate between classes. The bourgeois and the non bourgeois.
The next scene cuts of to introduce the main character, Freder in the 'Eternal Garden' (5). His father owned the city and he lives in his own little bubble where he has never worked a day in his life. The garden is very organic, filled with trees and exotic looking plants. Although no buildings were shown, one can see that people who are allowed in are only the wealthy. While Freder is enjoying his party time, he is confronted with an anonymous girl whom he lusts over. She appeared from these two tall doors which contradicts with the garden completely. (6) The mysterious girl is then pulled back into the room and Freder barges in to find her. (7) It horrified him to see the factory that his father has built underground. In the factory, images of scary looking machines and workers distressing is shown (8) (9). Then one worker failed to handle the machine and it exploded. Freder then saw what looked like a gateway to hell. A huge staircase was erected up to a aztec looking opening. (11). The high-rise staircase makes the entrance very intimidating and the two steam engines makes the scene even more dramatic. The terrified Freder then took off to report what he saw to his father, Jon Fredersen. (12) The scene now changes to the outer world, where we see the top part of metropolis. Under all the factories and machines, there lies a 'modern' world on top. High rise buildings is seen everywhere along with mass produced cars and airplanes. (13). And in the middle of the city lies Jon Fredersen's building, the new Tower of Babel (14). Freder then intruded his father's work to inform him of the explosion inside the factory. His father was very calm, strict, and up tight. While he was listening to his son's story, he looked out towards his glass window and from then we see part of Lang's vision of the modern world. (15). After firing his assistant, Jon Fredersen ordered a spy to tail his son. He then also sets off to a small, mysterious looking house in the middle of the city. (16). Inside, Rotwang the scientist was creating a robot. (17) His house was filled with unique designs such as a spiraling staircase and weird looking telescopes (18)
The scene cuts back to Freder, where he traded places with a worker and worked a 10 hour shift. He was in charge of the time and was struggling to keep the machine working properly. (19) After the shift ended, the workers all followed a map deep underground into the catacomb where he meets the mysterious lady he was searching. The underground secretive room appears as a cave. (20) The mysterious woman was dressed in all white, symbolizing purity, while standing on a stage with crosses in the background. It could have been a graveyard.
In summary of the movie, what i found to be themes is the relationship between man and machine. How Rotwang decided to create a robot to be human like and how Jon Fredersen controls his human workers like machines. Also the there is a very strong theme of class between the bourgeois and the non bourgeois as well.
Another well-known Modernistic film is 'Playtime' by Jacques Tati. 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.
To basically sum it up, what Modernism did was to learn and document the previous architectural history. And now that they know its history, then they decided not to use that history in their design. It never really occurred to me that one might want to know history, so that you can choose not to use it. I think that it is very clever of them to realize this point and use history (or not use) as an advantage. And that is exactly what theorist, Robert Venturi, did with his use of history. Venturi also went back and learnt the masters, and also rejected their ideas. I think it is kind of funny how Modernist studies from their predecessor and rejects their ideas; and now that Venturi studies on the Modernist, he also rejects their ideas. But what is fascinating about Venturi is that instead of completely rejecting ideas of his predecessor, he learns from it and tries to improve them in his own way. For example, he realizes that Orthodox Modern architects do not want 'complexities' in their design, Instead of just creating buildings that he views as complex, he redefines his concept of complexity, sorting out that something complex does not mean it has to be complicated. After he defines what complexity is in architecture, he then explains to us what is not complex, such as simplification and the causes of ambiguity. Then he introduces a new element which would be his new proposition - the double-functioning element.
Robert Venturi was a clever man. He was never really scared of complexity, and he was brave enough to question it. Expressionism, on the other hand, was the exact opposite in my opinion. Expressionism deals with "form follows function" literally, resulting in buildings shaped of ducks and fish, whose function was to sell…ducks. I do realize that simplification of things and buildings would make ordinary people who have no experience in architecture would understand. However, I think that there is a thin line between simplification and over-simplifying things. If designs are too literal, people become bored and loses 'the aura'. Then there would be no point of having a designer or an architect if all the buildings look like their literal function. If you leave room for ambiguity in your designs, i find that there are more to interpret and more to understand- this would give more meaning to the building, in my opinion.
Having talked about Robert Venturi in post-modernism and Le Corbusier in modernism, one can see that master architects all strive to use history as a tool. In order to know the future, we should learn from the past and we can choose to adapt, apply, or not use their previous knowledge. Back in the Italian Renaissance, Filippo Brunelleschi use the same techniques of studying from ancient ruins in ancient Roman's architects such as Vitruvius. What i find interesting with Brunelleschi's dome was the fact that it was pushed to be built majestically due to the city's law that you can not built buttresses in Italy. Because of the rule, he was tested to built something that at the time was thought to be impossible. This, however, is the exact opposite of the world of parametric. Presently, we as a new generation have discovered a new type of design- parametric. This 'new world' opens up more possibilities of architects designing with fluid structures and forms. Buildings and concept designs that were previously thought to be impossible (similarity to Brunelleshi's Dome back then) was introduced to new technologies that would make the designs come true. With digital mediums available today, who knows that new building typologies can be created and further explore.
I believe that similar to all the other master architects, we learn from other architects. We learn from history. And we learn to adapt, adopt, and apply. By learning from master architects, we know how they built what the built and why they built the way they did. From that, we can derive that everything, every design has a reason behind it. Either that reason is good or bad is another story. From the 800 years of architectural history we have learnt, I believe that every information fed to us will be helpful in the future when we begin our own designs. With digital tools available for us presently, we may be able to have more variations in design. But this also challenges me to think and observe if these new tools will be useful to us or not. Maybe digital tools would mean a new era of building designs. We should not follow the on going trend, but rather question it- ask how we can design better, changing the world, making the world a better place because of our design.
