MASTER ARCHITECTS ON THE ROLE

Hmm… What have we learn so far in class? well, for one thing, we definitely know that from all the master architects we've studied in class, they've all strive to use history as a tool. In last week's lecture, we went backwards from modernism to early renaissance. The most significant building within this era would be, of course, the Brunelleschi Dome, by Filippo Brunelleschi. So how did Mr. Brunelleschi use history as a tool? After his visit to Rome, he bought back the impression he had on ancient ruins as well as ancient Roman architects' inspiration- Vitruvius' Principle of commodity, firmness, and delight. What was interesting about the dome is that it would not have been built this way if it wasn't for the rule that you can not built buttresses in Italy due to its lack of aesthetic qualities. So he ended up building this incredible dome with his mathematical and physics skills. *applause*

So we're going to talk about another architect who have used history as a tool, Robert Venturi. He's the guy who wrote 'Complexity and Contradictions in Architecture'. So how did he use history as an advantage? He studied architects before him such as Orthodox Modern Architects (Le Corbusier, Bauhaus) and he says they're too focused on starting new. He goes on to saying that these architects ignore complications and are very selective at what problems to solve. In conclusion, they try to hard. So what he did was the exact opposite of them. He knew their intention and their ideas, so he could easily do the exact opposite. Instead of being precise and clear all the time, he aimed for ambiguity. He wanted to have a 'double-functioning' element and the 'both-and' element in his designs.

The next master architect who have used history as a tool is Le Corbusier. What Corbu did was he made up his own manifesto and designed by following this rules. Then he studied Vitruvius' man and made his own man, the human proportion. His definition of beauty lies in symmetry, rhythm, and proportion- similar to ancient architects.

So what can we learn from the lesson taught today? If you want to be a great architect…one must know its history and can choose whether you want to use it, apply it, or do whatever is opposite to it! yay!

Welcome to the world of Parametrics.

Parametrics. A new era for architecture has begun. With the aid of computer technology, we are now able to explore a new world of fluid structure. I furthur explored the Reebox flagship store, designed by Rahim and found out many new and interesting concepts he has introduce.

According to Rahim, the digital parametic design is "simply a pursuit of greater efficiency but also the coaxing of an emerging set of techniques and aesthetics."

What I find interesting with his design is the stairway. If his design were just an ordinary staircase, then it would have completely blocked the view of the first floor. So instead, he designed the stairs in a way that when walking up, you can have a view of the first floor. With these little gaps and opening, it also challenges the threshold. In this design, the threshold is not clearly seen since the roof merges with the walls and flows into the floor. Also the idea of repetition is seen within the design, have many components that are similar in shape but plays with the size of each component. His color scheme of white and blue also gives the store its futuristic look. In conclusion, there is alot to learn about parametrics and still alot to explore within this area. If used wisely, parametrics may help shape how we view a space.

Expressionism

In this week's history class, we went rocket fast through postmodernism. In my opinion, i thought we kind of went too fast but i understand that our classes were cut short. Today, i will be giving my opinion on Expressionism. Firstly, I think that Expressionism is too..debatable. I can't find the exact words to describe the era but i find that its too plain. I understand that they took "form follows function" literally, and made buildings in shapes of ducks and fish, while the inside of the building sells...duck- which is understandable, since ordinary people who have no basics in architecture would completely understand. But in my opinion, i think that it's too literal. There should be more function to a duck building than looking like a duck. Otherwise, if all the buildings look like their literal function, then there would be no point of an architect or a designer. Although, i do admit that these buildings are more photogenic than other buildings, i still think it's a little bit leaning towards the shallow end of solving things.

Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture

In this week's blog, i'm going to discuss about "Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture" by Robert Venturi. We had to read this in class a few weeks back and i made myself a mindmap (again) so i could understand the connections better. Basically, from the text we read, we discussed the difference between complex and complicated. We distinguish that complicated does not mean complex. However, something pure and simple can also be complex. In the text, complex is something that Orthodox Modern architects do not want. In my opinion, they were so focuses on starting new and fresh that they wanted something completely radical so they don't focus their works on complexity. So here it is!

Playtime by Jacques Tati

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.

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.

Villa Savoye's Analysis :D

From last week's history of architecture class, we discussed mainly about Le

Corbusier. Lucky for me, i'm already doing Villa Savoye by Le Corbusier for my

design studio class. So in today's blog, i will be posting my analysis of Villa Savoye,

touching on the key points about:

- circulation

- main axis

- symmetry

- public and private areas

- served and service areas

- solid and void

- geometry

- rhythm

- movement

- material