MANIFESTO

Why and how history affects architectures? Is it necessary to learn from the past in order to understand architectures in the present? Does history really assist architects to create new architectural movements? These questions have been in my mind and I keep asking myself whether history is important or not. From classes since the beginning of term, I have learnt continuously and starting to understand why architectures and history links together as one. People always ask questions on whether what is best for them, or argue on what is right and what is wrong, and I think this is the key and core on how architectures grow over centuries.

My intention and objective for this report is to show my perception on how I see and understand different movements of architecture. From my point of view, the movements are like trend of fashion, come and go. When one reaches it peaks, there will always be a substitute, or new development to replace the existed. In addition, no matter how awesome or perfect the new design is, there will be a group of people who reject it, dislike and deny, which somewhat reflect the imperfect of life. Fortunately, it creates questions, arguments on whether what is “best” for one and all, and there won’t be. These issues will allow the design to grow, and develop for the sake of all satisfactions as we seek for new things to happen and invent. Things change for a reason, it might due the changes in people perceptions and how they see things, or the new innovations that invented, or the renovation of what’s that already existed, but with the objection to make it better in a way. Why we need new designs for automobile? Why transportations have to be various, if one already works well? Why don’t we just stick to things that already existed and live happily without the hard effort on trying to invent or renovate things? The explanation would be that we, human, know that we are capable of something greater and our satisfactions are infinite. We will always need and want new things in life as it is challenging. Imagine what if Thomas Edison did not invent light bulbs, how much tougher life in the present would be. New innovations make life simpler and interesting, people will always curious of what will be the next “new thing,” The factor refers well to architectural movements. What if Early Renaissance is the only movement existed for architecture? What if postmodern doesn’t exist, and architecture only compose of simple geometric form? The variation and design will be very restricted and there won’t be any unique looking buildings in the present. The movements generate ideas for new generation architects, so that they will have more choices and ideas to work with. They help to open people mind on how things do not need to be simple, as life is not. Nothing is perfect; people have different views and perspectives on how they see things. In addition, there will always be a new movement, with new set of rules as long as people keep asking questions, and they will. I tend not to think of the report as a history paper, but a self-reflection on how I see and understand the development of each particular movement, and how they link and vary from each other. 

The Age of Enlightenment...

The age of enlightenment reacts against Baroque, as it says everything needs to have a reason or theory behind it. In which Baroque is the opposite, it majorly about craftsmanship, ornament and design with no consideration of functions or reasons. A great example of architects who is in for the age of enlightenment is Robert Adam.

He is a Scottish architect (3th July 1728-3^rd March 1792) who traveled in Grand Tour to Serbia in 1754-58. A trip to Europe for an investigation to see the origin on how things, such as the architectures actually were to prove the reasons of their existence. But most of the things are destroyed so it is simply about nature. First there are artists who go there and paint 100acres of land to natural painting, constructing their own nature. However, painting is no longer enough. So there are integrations of sculpture, making duplicates of what that already existed there. In my opinion, the age of enlightenment and modern is very similar, but modern is more pure and true as the age of enlightenment consist of not only simple geometrical forms, but also curve form as well.

BAROQUE...BERNINI...and contradictions

From what I understand, Renaissance is Modern and Baroque, which come after, is post modern. Renaissance architecture/ buildings have rigid structures. The buildings are filled with geometric shapes and symmetry where proportions are based on module (human scale). Everything is very strict and precise.. just like modernism that wants everything to be PERFECT (white boxes…  START FROM ZERO idea can be related to Renaissance word 'REBIRTH').

The word baroque is originally considered an insult. The 17th century architecture critics used it. It’s related to the idea of ambiguity and contradiction that links to Robert Venturi's complexity and contradiction…" BOTH AND" architecture… full of mystery and emotions. So because Baroque architecture is full of Ambiguity and I think they are Postmodern. What they did was they do the total OPPOSITE of the Renaissance architects… this led the Baroque architects to go beyond what exists by being EXPRESSIVE and PLAYFUL with their decorations. A great example of Baroque architects would be Bernini.

Bernini is well educated and is heavily influenced by Michelangelo. He put emphasis on emotional expressions, playing with dramatic light where painting, sculpture and architecture blends into one. One of his great pieces is Santa Maria della Vittona, 1645. It’s the one with sculpture of an angel about to stab an arrow to St. Terresa. The sculptures are caught in an expressive emotion, where St. Terresa is caught in ecstasy as well as the light channel that Bernini designed, allows sunlight to pass through and shines on the head of St. Terresa. He basically made an extremely dramatic use of light (STAGE/THEATRE like.)

Michelangelo and St. Peters....

Michelangelo Buonaroltti was born in 1475 and died in 1584. What is great about his architectures are that he was the founder of High Renaissance and inject the force and power of his paintings and sculpture into architecture designs. St. Peters is his masterpiece of his early years.  

Michelangelo work is very strong in term of shadows and it contains similar force. In the plan of St. Peters shows the rotation of 45degree square on top of the square. The front of the design is not relevant it sizes and breaks the symmetry in a lot of ways. He tends to break out renaissance where other architects tend to maintain proportion. Michelangelo is very expressive whether in sculpture, painting, or architecture. He restricts himself to the nude in painting to express the ideal human form, which has a great impact on the future generations. The scale of St. Peter is almost the same as the Bramante’s Pantheon. but he made a lot more round. In his design, sacred cut, which is a circle create by two square placing on top of each other.

The design of St. Peter has major influenced on church architecture in Western Christendom. 

Flippo Brunelleschi.....

Flippo Brunelleschi is the very first Italian renaissance architect. He was born in Florence in 1377 and died in 1446 and the very place. His work is contemporaries and very strong in term of the style, which still carry on even in the 20^th century.

What I love about his architectures is the patterning of light and dark. The contradiction between the two factors somehow interacts very well. In my opinion, I think his work projects humanism and is concluded in classic architecture. Humanism develops during the 14^th century and is about emphasizing scientific studies, and the core of humanism is started in Florence, where Brunelleschi was born.  He is the first architect to bring mathematical projection and interpret Gothic and Romanesque styles, and brings them together to create his own rules of symmetry and proportioning.

Among his great work and architecture, I love the dome of the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore (The Duomo), which is one of his major works. I like how the construction is very symmetrical and consist of super details both interiorly and exteriorly. It is a cathedral church design of Arnolfo Di Cambio but engineered by Brunelleschi. It is the largest brick dome ever constructed and is a symbol of the city, symbolizing the lily. 

Expressionism, Frank Gehry....and me

Expressionism from what I understand, is the type of (post-) modernism that somewhat breaks the rule of “form follow function.” As modernism the form seems to be very restrict with simple form of geometric combine with the usage of honest materials. But for Frank Gehry is completely different, as he seems to think of architecture in a different perspective.  He thinks modernism is too perfect, and life is not about that, so he designs his building with different style, expressing the forms to be so flow and unique.

One of a great example of his work is the Gugenheim Hermitage Museum. it is said to be the combination of his own house and the fish thingy he designed, it is the skin that make u feel dazzle and extremely expressive. The form of the construction is very unique in a way that no geometries actually can be defined.  Although the forms are so flow and extremely expressed, the plan is not. It is beautifully ordered and is quite symmetrical and that is the aesthetic of expressionism.

Frank Gehry said architecture is like frozen music. It expresses of the symphony and the flow of music, which is clearly expressive. This work is successful and form does not follow function, in a way that most Modernist is not work. It makes people want to access the building whether the spaces inside are great or not. 

Rem Koolhaas and CCTV...and my observation

Rem Koolhas is a Dutch architect who’s his architectures based majorly on function and program. What I like about his architectures is that he has a unique way on how to define spaces, with the expressive forms of most of his work. Although the forms are very expressive, his major consideration is about the construction’s function and program and he divides the spaces very wisely. A great example among his well-known architectures is the China Central Television (CCTV.)

The construction is located in Beijing, China. On my structure project, I have a chance to work with the building, which make me realize how complicated the building is. In my opinion, the form somehow looks infinite, never ending due to the flawless shape. From what I understand, it consists of no column at all, just the structures that all around the façade that support the building weight. The building is connecting to each other, and it provides precise routes for the circulation. To my mind, the shape of it looks somewhat simple, like extracting from a square cube, but it is very beautiful in a way how Rem Koolhas renovate the idea and make the architecture looks very expressive.