Manifesto

Gothic architecture were built to connect people to God and to Religion, they were built to teach people through their real experience. Renaissance architecture were kind of opposite to Gothic architecture where they were built to celebrate the unlimited potential of human ability, they were built to show the greatness of human creation in arts, sculpture and architecture. The Baroque is to challenge the new possibility and the rules of the Renaissance. The Classical architecture and the Neo-classical were built to display the greatness of the empire. The Modern were built to be minimal, to built for mass production to satisfy the needs of the society, and to create neutral in the society. The postmodern architectures were built to challenge the rules of the modern architecture and to challenge the ability of the technology, and to create a new kind of space. What are all of these movements have in common? The architectures in each movement were built to reflect the style and the NEED of the society. Each architecture is built to satisfy the need of the people; therefore the architecture in the future would also do the same. They would reflect the characteristics of situation and the time that the society are having. Each movement is to built architectures that surpass the architecture of the previous movements, where they are improving in one way or the other by learning from the limitation and the weakness of the past. The modern architectures are trying to get lid of the unnecessary parts or ornamentation of the architecture in the past, to make their architecture more suitable to the life style of the industrial period society. The postmodern architectures are trying to surpass the unpleasant and unpractical spaces and forms of the modern architecture by ignoring the rules of the modern architecture. The later experimentations in the postmodern period were the experimentation about the new possibilities of the spaces, forms and function to test the limits of the technology in architecture. This experimentation would be to explore the possibilities of the architecture and how far it could go in term of construction and forms. All of these movements were on the road that would bring the architects to the design of the ‘Perfect Architecture’. From the past we studied different ways in trying to convey the sacred experience in architecture, we see how efficient architecture are, and now we challenges the form in architecture, all of this are the lessons that would bring us closer to what perfect really is, and are the lessons about building up spaces. For the next movement there would be the new challenges of new things, and this new thing would be the need of the people in the future, and this would raise new possibilities in architecture. To me, I think the perfect architecture should be Truthful to it purpose, which is to be a pleasing space for people. The more truthful it is, the more perfect it is. The architecture should not be perceived as architecture but as a space. It is not just a building but a space and how this built space effect the larger space of the context; this would be a more truthful approach to architecture.

Pre modern architecture

from different examples of the pre modern architecture like the baroque architecture, i think that the quality of the architecture is on the paintings and the sculpture inside the building. TRYING TO BE DIFFERENT like in the case of Michel Angelo is trying to make a different sculpture, trying different ways to be different in expressing the story from the bibles in the paintings, trying to be different would be more experimentation in the ornamentation of the architecture than in the actual architecture.

Pre modern VS Modern

Pre modern architecture like Baroque or Renaissance and Modern architecture, there are many different and they emphasize on something really different from each other, in fact they are kind of opposite. The pre modern architecture would emphasize on the experience of that the person would get when they are inside the architecture. But the modern architecture would emphasize on the inner quality in the architecture itself. For the pre modern architecture the sophisticated ideas are bring out to the people clearly through the architecture, but for the modern architecture it is the other way around, the a person would get the hidden messages only when they have a close look into the building, into the detail of the building.

Architecture Movements

From the studies of different movement in architecture it is very interesting to see that

every new movement would come from trying to be different from the movement which is one step ahead, like for the post modernism it would be trying to be different from the modernism.

However this doesn't happen to the movement which were far ahead of the movement. Copying from something far ahead of the time, or really old is something NEW but copying something which is not really old is OLD!!

Junk space

In this class the thing that caught my attention the most is Rem’s definition for the junk space. According to him the Junk space is

“the body double of space, a territory of impaired vision, limited expectation, reduced earnestness. Junk space is a Bermuda triangle of concepts, a petri dish abandoned: it cancels distinctions, undermines resolve, confuses intention with realization. It replaces hierarchy with accumulation, composition with addition”

( http://www.scribd.com/doc/29833010/Junk-Space-Rem-Koolhaas)

I actually agreed with him that these types of the space which is not specific is not a very good space. It is just like the empty space, which is not a designed space. However these spaces might not be a good designed spaced but it would be a good financial space. We can’t say that these spaces does not give good experience to the people, it actually does, it provides more convenience to the people. As these types of space grown according to the need of the people and the convenience of the people, therefore it would benefit the people!! It would also be a more flexible use of the space and use the limited amount of the space in more efficient way. So these junk spaces might be a useful one where as the designed space might be a junk space instead!! The designed space, which is a well-designed environment for a very specific event, might not be very useful for the people who it is meant for. The space might be giving a good set of experience to the people, but if it not very convenience for the people and doesn’t not benefit the owner very well then, is it a good space? There would be also a lot of space wasted when designing space for a very specific event or to give specific experience, therefore it would make a lot more space a waste, therefore the designed space would be the one which destroyed the usage and the important of the other spaces.

Postmodernism 2

In this class we learn more about the postmodernism. We learn about ‘duck building’ case, where the form of the building is made to look like a duck that follows the function of the building that sells things related to the duck. These buildings even though it looks funny and looks like a joke but we can’t ignore it as it clearly demonstrates form follow function. The form follows function in this building has been expressed more clearly than any building the modernist has done!! So it is really interesting to see this case study. In this class we also looked at Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid and Jean Nouve. After we looked at these architect and the ideas behind their buildings, I started to get some idea about the thinking behind the teaching in our design studio. Zaha’s building where capturing the pulse of the city and translated into the architecture, is very much like the site analysis that we are doing before we start in designing something. Also we also learn the reason behind the very extreme shapes and forms of Frank Gehry buildings. He was saying that the forms of the building would also perform as a function to the building. I actually agreed with this, the building which has a wonderful forms, would stunned the people right from the outside and would create the better impression to the people from the moment that they sees the building. This would be a really great thing, and would benefit the people a lot. However I’m not really sure about to what extend the architect should push the form to, because many of these forms did not work as a good usage space for the person inside, especially in Frank Gehry building where the forms outside is just decorative. In term of the financial aspect I’m not really sure for the owner of the project to do something right that, because the space inside the building would be reduced, and the cost of building would be higher. I also agreed with Jean Nouvel, where he saying that the modernists could not express themselves that well. The building that would express the purity of the geometrical forms and the construction details would be making sense in the view of the architects, but this would not be much appreciable by the normal people. So the wonderful forms those are much more than nothing would probably be more attractive than the purity in the forms in the eye of the normal people. So if it for me to choose between the modernist and the postmodernist, now I would probably choose the late postmodernist, like Zaha’s where there are clear reason and logic behind the forms. This would give the building more sophisticated quality and at the same time have the visual aesthetics. But I would go against the early postmodernist where they are doing thing just to tell that they are not modernist and has add up unnecessary structure which come out of unclear logic. However I think that It would be possible and would even be better to integrate the honesty of the modernist with the extreme forms of the postmodernists, I think that would be really interesting.

Post modernism

In this class we learn about the post modernism. The principles of post modernism is very large, it would include almost everything. To me I think that this is a very good move, this would not limit the architecture into only one category, and would allow the architect to have more experimentation and increase the possibilities of the new styles. However the principles of the postmodernism is very opposite to modernism. Making things more than necessary, function follows form, using non-primary colors, etc, to me this way of attacking the modernist, by doing everything opposite to modernist is kind of similar to what the American modernist does when going against neo- classism. This event in the history speaks about the development of the two styles, and would give us some idea about some reason that might be behind the other movement as well. The post modernism would do everything to tell that their architecture is not modern but post modern, doing non flat roof structure, putting non load bearing structure, make the building unsymmetrical, using colors other that the primary colors etc. by looking through these examples would give us more idea about what postmodern architecture is. I also like the idea behind the postmodernism that saying an architecture or an art work could be interpret in many ways, there would be no right or wrong in looking at an architecture, this would give different experience and more variety in seeing something which depends on the interpretation of different person. We also see some architecture from Peter Eisenman, to me his architecture prove to be the new invention in architecture. His architecture is very different from the other architectures that we have seen before in the class. He uses very extreme forms, which came from a very sophisticated logic develop from the site, and give the function to the forms. This shows a very big jump in the architecture!! In conclusion I really like the postmodernism in the term that they did not have the very limited style in architecture and would allow people to explore more and differently. However I still appreciate the modernist where they have clearly chosen their side, and have a clear definition for their styles.

Fifth Class

In this class we learn more about American modernism. We learn about American behavior of “Anti- neo classism”, I think this reason is also an important reason in making modernism to become very popular in America. To me it is like to show that the Americans are different from the Nazi, and to show that what Nazi is doing is not right. But we also learn about the conflicts between the American people behavior and the modernism architecture in America. Many things in American life style is opposite to what modern architecture is. To me I think this is a very interesting point, “less is more” “God is in the detail” “almost nothing”, these modernist principles are actually opposite to what American people really are. Everything else except the architecture are luxurious, more than needed. The thinking of the design of the cars are not at all following the principles of the modern architecture. It is also interesting that the design of other things are happening at the same time as the time of the arguments of the architects about modern architecture. We also learn about Louis I Kahn and his architecture that got inspirations from the ruins. This is somehow going back to the classism, yet Louis I Kahn also one of the main modernist. I think its kind of like a cycle, Le Corbusier trying to move to the extreme part of the theory, but at the same time referring back to the proportions that were in the past, and Louis Kahn also referring to the ruins to create his buildings. Going back and takes some characteristics of the classism which is far away from the modernism and make transform them to became a modern architecture.

In the last session of the class we watch a film called “Play time” in the movie it is about a person who enters a city for the first time, where he realized different things and learning different culture and behavior of the people living in the town. The people living in the town are very much the people that work like machine. The society is truly the modern society, where every thing seems to be machine like. And the protagonist in the movie is the person who completely new to this kind of environment. To me this film and the name of the film is like mocking the idea of the ideal modern society during that time. The name playtime would come from the fact that the modern society showed in the movie is so funny just like the play ground for the person who goes inside it. I think this kind of reflects how people or the filmmaker thinks about the idea of the modernism. To me modernism would be theoretically very successful but not very successful in the practical term.

Fourth Class

In this class we learn more about De Stilj. The thing that I like about De Stilj is that it has it very own style. Each planes of the composition that are found in the De Stilj style architecture could be differentiated by the use of different colors. It also very much similar to the De Stilj style paintings, this could make the person who sees the architecture recognized immediately that it is ‘De Stilj’. To me De Stilj is very much following the same principles as the modern architectures. It consists of only pure geometrical forms and pure color, the primary colors. This shows that they are very straightforward and honest like what the modernist trying to show. We also learn about Mies Van de Rohe, what I like about Mies is that he plays with planes. After seeing his architecture I realized that even though the planes are very simple but with good arrangement it can really made a very interesting forms and structure. Also I like the way that we can see the truth in Mies architecture, there are no pretending, all the truth about the construction are shown, there are nothing hiding behind!! With close look at Mies building we can see all the details about the construction, we can see which all are the structure that carrying the loads and which doesn’t, also how different parts of the buildings are joined together, and what is the material that were used in the building. In the last session of the class we see the examples of the architecture in the Holliwood side of America. In the film there is one part that an advertising film of a house were film. We can see that in the recording film, it trying to capture the image of the life style of the people living inside the house. It more about creating an ideal lifestyle for the people!! This is very much different from the modernism that takes place in the other side of America which we have seen earlier, which doesn’t focus much about the lifestyle of the people living inside, but more on theoretical way, by trying to show the truth.

Third Assignment

In this lecture we learn more things about Le Corbusier and modernism. We see the connection between the architecture and the art that Le Corbusier had brought out. We see that in Villa Savoy, Le Corbusier has made the plan to look like a painting. I found this very interesting. It shows a new experimentation of integrating the art and architecture together. This would improve the quality of the architecture both in term of the visual appearance and the inner quality, through giving the quality of an art into architecture. Also we learn about five principles of architecture that Le Corbusier has proposed. Many of these principles could still be applied in today’s world, and there are also many modern architecture that still use some of these principles. The five principles are

1 Free standing support pillar

2 Free floor plan independent from support

3 vertical façade that free from support

4 Long horizontal sliding windows

5 Roof Garden

The example of the use of these principles can be seen clearly in Villa Savoy(1). We also see the further development of Le Corbusier architecture styles, the building is not just a box any more it contains more complicated forms. He uses the five principles of architecture. Also we can see a clearer division between the class and individuality inside the building, it is not about just “Averageman” anymore, we can see this in the building “Brazilian Pavilion” (2). The façade has more complicated forms, these forms are created by following the inside space of the building. This shows that inside the building there are different forms, different plans and program, which expressed the individuality, and division between the classes, and moving slightly away from machine age and mass production. To me I think this shifting would make a better improvement, it makes the building to be more practical. Also the invention of the concept of sharing of the facilities inside the apartment, proposed the new way of improving the facilities and living in the modern age. This introduces the theme of ‘Sharing” into the society. Its not any more that everyone has everything equally, but it is about sharing and joining together. Even though some of these developments would be contradicts to Le Corbusier initial proposal, but I think it is a development toward something more practical and a better view of future, so I think this development is very positive to the quality of Le Corbusier buildings.

(1)

(2)

Metropolis

After watching the movie, it would give us (the people who live in today date), to have some idea about how the people in the past would think about the future. We can see their expectations about the future; these expectations in some way are similar to the world that we are living today and also different in some way. In the movie the city of metropolis, has a lot of skyscrapers and each of them were very tall, the creator of the movie would expect the city to expand vertically, which is similar to what it is today. The buildings in the city were made of only pure geometrical shapes, and each of them looks like a box. The urban planning of the city would be what the modern architects would expect to it be. This is a lot of different from today’s building, today we have a lot of buildings that is in different shapes other than only geometrical shapes. Also the materials that were used to build the buildings in the movie are a lot different from what we have today. Today the building were made of variety of materials, and many of the building were made of steel and glass. This maybe because of the limitation of the technology in the past, that would limit the perspective about the future of the people. Also in the movie, we can see that there is a clear division between the two societal classes. The upper societal class people are living on the ground and on the skyscraper, where as the people on the lower societal class have to live under the ground. The type or the style of the building in the movie would also reflect the type of the people who lives inside it. For example, the upper class people, the building would be a tall building and would shows the power and greatness, where as the type of the building where the workers are living in would be dull looking and machine like. In term of the life style, the upper class people were lively and enjoying the life, where as the people in the worker class has to work really hard and become like a machine. This is different from today’s world, where we have the real machine to work for us and there is no need for the people to become like a machine. In the movie the place that the workers are living has the very similar concept to the concept of the worker house that Le Corbusier invented. From this movie we can see that the modernism and the way that the modernist thinks in those days has a lot of influence to the people in those times, that why their expectations about the future in many ways seems to follows what the modernists expect the future to be.

arch history first assignment

After reading the book ‘From Bauhaus to our house’ there are things that I agreed with and disagreed with

- I do agreed with the concept of the modern architecture, where “form follows function”, this would make the building more useful than a luxury.

- The use of only small range of material that can be easily found, like steel concrete, glass is also a good idea. This would cut down the fancy and unnecessary cost.

- The use of only the white and grey colors for the buildings, this would make things simple, and this would improve the overall view of the city.

- Making the buildings out of the simple forms, would make the building to be more easy to be reproduced, it would cut out the unnecessary parts and this would make the building to be more suit to the normal people of the American society. This cut down the luxury and makes the building for the functions.

- Also the way that Mies Van de Rohe revealing the interior structure that were hidden inside the construction outside to decorate the building, this would give more interaction of the people to the surrounding, and it is a good way raising awareness of the architecture to the society.

- I also agreed with moving the architecture into a more conceptual way rather than just the form or craftsmanship. This would make the buildings more sophisticated, raise the quality of the architecture.

But there are also things that I do not agreed with

- the worker house, by making it dull, factory like, machine like, theoretically would make things look better, more in order and machinelike, but this doesn’t improve the experience or the quality of life of the workers.

- Making everything under the same theme make things repetition and in order, would make the world more boring. If a person move and see all the same kind of building all over the place, theoretically the whole city would be in order and beautiful, but in reality the experience that a person would get would not be very pleasing.

- To me I think architecture is something to do with human experience, therefore if a building doesn’t improve or create the any positive affect to the people then the building would be meaningless.