Using History

"Why study history?" is a worldwide asked question. Many say that history is the past that we do not need to cover since it is just events that already happened written in a book. But, to be capable of understanding this, we must first explore the true definition of history. History, according to the dictionary, means “the knowledge, study, or record of past events” and “pattern of events determining the future” (dictionary.com)
We use history, not only to understand our past, but also to DETERMINE the future. For example, if we look at the overall picture of history through a timeline, it can be seen that history repeats itself over time. What is the difference between post-modernism and renaissance? One may say that it is totally different in which the Renaissance is ornamented and Post-modernism plays with simple forms or whatsoever, but if we look conceptually, both of it is mimicking, or playing with a concept established in an earlier date. Renaissance is using Classicism, while Post-modernism is playing with Modernism. We may be centuries away from when Burnellisky started his manifesto, but we are now creating manifestos similar to the ones that were established hundreds of years ago. Going further, what is the difference between Modernism and Classicism. In ancient Rome, there were not much technology. Human beings were the greatest invention at that time. Humans could create pyramids, cathedrals, or whatever they could think of at that time. Again, Humans were the greatest invention. Therefore, why not create architectural forms abstracted from the human form if they were the strongest at that time? That was the Roman's thoughts, which I would say, is pretty much similar to Modernism. After centuries past, humans created factories, robots, and machinery. Nowadays, what we think is the strongest invention is not humans anymore, but robots. They are stronger, can carry more, and can produce more. Why not crate architectural forms abstracted from machines?

Nothing starts absolutely from zero. New forms may be created, but the conceptual thinking has already happened years ago only in a different format. By knowing history, we can use this concept to apply it to what we face in today's society

Difficult is More .. More is too Much

In the past few lectures, we have come a long way from “Less is more”. We’ve quickly been through “Less is not more”, “Less is a bore”, and now, as I see it, we are entering an age of “More is more”, or architectural Expressionism. If Expressionism speaks, we are in a whole new language of “function follows form”, which for me is a very difficult language to grab hold of. With only one switch of wordings, I believe a whole new limitation of design is changed. When it was still “form follows function”, we have a definite limitation, or in other words, the design is created to serve a purpose. However, if “function follows form”, then the purpose is pretty much faded. How do we start the design? What is the design meant for? With the purpose fading and with the design base on form, the limitations of shapes or representation of the exterior can go beyond imagination. I believe many Post-Modernism architects, who believes in “Less is a bore”, is starting to question Expressionism as well. Both of the two manifestos are bored with the similar looking Modernism buildings, but Expressionist architects are taking it further, or maybe too far. I believe if we were to simplify Rem Koolhaas’s wordings on bigness, it would be something like “More is too much”.

I believe this approach to architectural form is pretty much telling a story of the social life and the technological advances we have accomplished. To be capable of playing with form in buildings, there must be ways keep the forms up and strong. In today’s engineering field, we have come up with many advances, which we did not have in Modernism period. This is one of the reason why today’s architects are more confident in playing with different forms. Another analysis I have from this change in era is that the society’s thinking is changing. After years and years of seeing rectangular and pure shape buildings, we are getting very bored visually. We are not happy with just enough anymore. We need something beyond the function. Something that we look at it, oohs and aahs will be heard. With this, different companies are trying to make their building look so complicated in form so that it seems like they are having a new technological advances. “Difficult is more”

            

Analyzing the Attendance Check

Just being cautious here in case I become the victim of the random blog check. In one semester, there are around 13 or 14 weeks of class. We are just through midterm week which makes us in around 8th or 9th week. From my analysis, if a student have been studious and hard-working throughout the past 9 weeks, but missed only one class, or the class on Monday March 21, in which I really have to go do business out of town and cannot attend class, he should be given another chance and not get cut 5%. Since it would be the first class he did not attend and if he hits the jackpot as the victim of the random check, it would be dreadful to see 5% go missing. This blog also acts as an apology in case I get checked and is not in class, but I will be ready to talk about post-modernism next class for sure. Hope no one get to read this

THank you

The Black The White The Grey

In the previous class of History to Architecture, we have started to explore the colors of architecture, not in the sense of ornamentation or decorating, but the color of style in post-modernism architecture. We have seen how the changes were slowly made and style were pulled away from modernism, which could be linked back to the previous posts on how Jacques Tati were explaining how the form of the international style was confusing itself with everything else that was being building according to the manifestos. With the lectures combined with readings from Complexity and Contradictions in Architecture by Robert Venturi, another big viewpoint have been opened in my understanding of architecture.

"Both-and" over "Either-or"
"Grey over Black and White"
"Less is not more" but "Less is a bore"
"Function follows From" rather than "Form follow Function"

These simple, yet strong phrases from the book is changing the phase of design. When looking at these words put side by side, it seems like post-modernist architects are a lot more optimistic than the ones have once conquered the world of design. These post-modernists are not limiting themselves to anything specific, but it seems like they are opening the eyes of people to something that was always existing, but unnoticed, which is "space and time". I would say this seems like enlightenment from a long meditation where you start to notice your breathing even though you do it all the time. (maybe a too direct analysis), but for this era, post-modernism IS the new and more practical way of looking at design. Robert Venturi, Peter Eisenmen and other new wave of architects are setting up a new writing or script for this new era. What I like most about this upcoming style is the fact that the manifesto states something like how architecture should not be created upon a limit to a certain boundary, but should have a process to it so that it creates its own way of writing according to, again, "space and time". Not a direct quotes but a phrase to this sort. This makes me better understand the history of architecture to this day of how architecture is a form of writing. The abstraction of nature in Egypt, abstraction of human form in Rome, abstraction of machine in Modernism, and now the abstraction of process in Post-Modernism. This also makes me understand the hard-work that we have to put through in studio class to make all these diagramatic analysis. This is all to create a new form of writing. A new form of character. In this new style, if function follows form, then the remake of Playtime would be people dressed up as Lady Gaga walking around post-modernist buildings.

Playtime - Jacques Tati

By watching the film by Jacques Tati, Playtime, we can see how people around the late modernism period are responding the international style at that time. At the time period where the film was created, modernism was playing a big role in the society and the egos and confident of the architects were almost at its top form. These architects were becoming like perfectionist where everything have to be done the way they wished when it comes to using the buildings as if the people were one of the controlled characters in "The Sims". We can analyze this behavior by watching many of the scenes in the movie. For example, in the opening scene, we start off with an airport. The exterior is non-ornamented, pure glass facades and metal framing, a direct translation of the modernism manifesto. Inside the airport, there were several groups of people displaying different behaviors, but explaining the same meaning. A couple was sitting at the waiting area and the wife would keep asking and ordering her husband, a cleaning person is always trying to find something to clean, and there was a group of nun walking around. These are different personifications of perfectionism which was the main theme of architecture at that time. Then, the director seems to try to point out how modernism is affecting our lives, or the lives of people at that time. He does this by displaying an adventure of one character. This particular character wonders off in the big city and into many modernist buildings. In these adventure, the character always confuses himself with other people since they dress up similarly, walks similarly, and does thing similarly. By doing this, the director seems to be saying that by having modernist set up manifestos on how form should follow function, form is starting to become one aesthetics. He is saying that there is no uniqueness or individual characters within the buildings. I believed that this topic was clearly pointed out in the movie. By watching and analyzing this movie, I understand architecture as writing or as symbol of history further. Architecture does not only become a habitat for human, but it is a writing, a story, a film, and a viewpoint for society to dwell upon.

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.