Julius Shulman vs. Modernism

            Presentation is a big part of finishing every architectural project. How we present the project can reflect the thoughts that we have put in. Some important design elements that are so small, yet important, maybe overlooked if we do not pull it out and exaggerate it in our presentations. In the field of architecture, designers may show their design through diagrams and plan, but in order for the public and normal people to understand, the best way to express is through pictures. One of the most important architectural photographers is Julius Shulman who worked with many architects in portraying finished works into magazines and newspaper. However, Shulman’s photography was unique, as we have seen in the documentary shown in history class. He would carry furniture into the houses that he would photograph and set it up so that it would feel “like someone was actually living there”. By doing this, it seems like he is upsetting the scheme of modernism. Is whatever Shulman doing right or wrong according to the theories and manifesto of modernism?

            To remind of the earlier classes on modernism, modernism architects designs according to their own manifesto made by each compound. They would design buildings and houses in their own way, not caring about any client, and wait for someone to come in and say “I like it, I’m building it”, or something close to this extent. I still remember that some architects would design the whole set of the house including chairs, tables, and even clothing to fit into the house. There would be stories in which clients would hide the architect’s furniture and then display it when the architects come and visit so that the architect won’t get mad. Moreover, everything had to be real and pure. What is concrete must be concrete and load bearing and non-load bearing and etc. What Shulman is doing to these houses is like totally flipping this theory over. By putting furniture into the house just for his photography and taking them back is like taking something very impure into the house. Sometimes, he brings other people into the house to take as models, such as the Case Study 22 house. The girls that were in the picture were not even the owner.

            By doing this, I believe that he is pulling architects away from modernism. He was considering the fact that there is actually living things, or human, living in these houses and buildings and that they have to be emphasized on. It is like showing that architects cannot just design houses to please themselves, but they must also please the people living in the structure and that lifestyle is a big part of design issue. Architects cannot force people to open or close curtains anymore. All in all, I believe this was a big change towards post-modernism which I would really like to learn of more.

Coming into Modernism

            From the last history class we have studied further into the development of modernism and into the works of Le Corbusier. In the lecture, it have been shown the interconnectivity of art and architecture. Even though it seems that art and architecture is a whole different field of study, art is made for visual expression while architecture is for people to live or work in, but the two somehow grow along side by side into Modernism and retrieving its form.

            We have seen beautiful realistic paintings in the past history in the Classic and Renaissance periods, but the trend in Modernism would be to reduce everything to its basic form like what Picasso and other Cubist had in mind. In my opinion, cubist may have its affects into the designs of architecture in its conceptual thinking of reducing, but the art pieces that really affected architecture would be the paintings from the De Stijl movement. Cubism may have reduced its form, but if we were to use those forms into the building, it would be mere impossible. On the other hand, if we considered the paintings by the De Stijl movement, we can see the form and grids that are very similar to building structures of the Modernism age, or working house aesthetics.

            Even though coming from different countries, we could still see how the De Stijl have affected even the most important architect of the world, Le Corbusier. In Unite d’ Habitation, we could see the resemblence of the painting by the De Stijl movement in the façade, both in color and in form. It was a matter of proportion, symmetry, and the hierarchy of shapes, size, and it format. Coming to Le Corbusier, we could see that his later buildings still kept its shape and form of these grid line cubes where he showed it in his masterpiece, Villa Savoye. The pilotis were in grid form, and the main structure of the house was somewhat a rectangle.

            Maybe these form had the best interconnectivity between art and architecture. Since architecture had a wider scope in which they had to create functions for space, but in studying history, our analysis may connect the fields of study together.