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.