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.

Modernism vs Postmodernism....

In my opinion, modernism and postmodernism is somewhat very similar to each other. Modernism can be said as contemporaneous simple form of geometrics. In which, postmodernism is very alike, but with a little more decoration.

I think modernism and postmodernism somehow does not find each other attractive, and does not blend well. Postmodernism thinks that modernism is not practical, people cannot leave comfortably in them, and they are somewhat all the same! But I personally do not think that is true. Le Corbusier is the father of modernism and I have seen many of his architectures, it looks lively and interesting to me. The spaces seem to be comfortable to live in and very well orientated. Although there are not much of details in the work, but I prefer less is more and certainly less is not a bore.

Postmodernism is a development of modernism (obviously…). But it is a hybrid style, contradicting modernism in everything mixing with lot of stuff together. From what I understand, it is modernism, with more details maybe not in the work, but the concern of the furniture and decoration to make the place looks much comfortable and better to live in.

Thoughts on "Playtime" by Jacques Tati

The linkage between the film and Louis Kahn would be the fact that they are very similar in term of the designs. Kahn always start every of his design from a cube and let it goes from there. And the architectures in the film are somewhat repetition (take the office’s cubes for instance). In Kahn’s designs, they consist of International style that is about simple geometric forms, form characterized by a series of volumes and honestly used of materials and the constructions in the film are somewhat comparable.

The movie basically projects the life of Modernism and the people.  To me, it is rather boring (the Modern’s life, not the movie!) as things are so systematic and everyone seems to have their daily routines. For instance, the shot when people are working at the cubical offices that orientate in an extreme systematical way. It looks very boring to me, as everything is so perfect.

But I don’t mean to say that Tati want to project that the modern world is flawless and beautiful as the impersonal spaces he has shown in the movie doesn’t interact with the space in term of communication. It is designed to discourage individual thought and expression. As far as I am concerned, people cannot interact much because of the spaces themselves, so they have to end up changing it by their presence.

The film has been designed for people who has been given specific jobs, whether it is an officer, maid, or people in the apartment. I think it doesn’t look like a livable place at all as the satisfaction would be zero due to its unlikely dull environment. However, other people impose their own consciousnesses on it and mould it in order to make their environment livable.

  

The caption of the new era...

A movie is about a photographer who takes a lot of architects’ caption in Los Angeles. What is interesting about it is that there is a girl who finds his picture somewhat “a start of American dream.” The photographer takes the photo without the noticed of what the photo will become, the life of the new age architecture.            

The caption that is really elegant is the Pierre Koenig’s Stahl house, Case Study House 22. It sets high in the hills of Los Angeles, one of the most iconic houses of the modern era due to both its radical design and its extremely beautiful view. It is said to be one of the most photographed house in the world. Julius Shulman is who to take the claim of taking the awesome caption in May 9, 1960.

Art & Architecture magazines’ editors for the objection of promoting modernism promote the caption. The caption takes place after the World War II that America wins, and it is the time of starting the new era, the contemporary architectures. Pierre Koenig, one of the architect says "Industry has not learned the difference between what is beautiful in its simplicity and what is ugly although equally simple...." and I think it is very touching.

Opinions on Le Corbusier and my favorite building..

Le Corbusier is one of my most favorite architects of all time. He is known for the father of Modernism. The building that catches my eyes most and is very interesting is the Villa Savoye.  The building has been accepted as the standout modern design. The house is on the large field surrounded with mature trees. He wants to leave the site as untouched as possible.

I think the reason why the building is located in the middle of the field is because Corbusier wants to preserve the environment. And I think that links to the reason why the exterior of the building is white, to blend well with the green grass and blue sky to make the building standout. The orientation of the columns is located as a grid, to open the down floor space clear and flow.

Inside the building, there is a ramp and I think it is there to create somewhat a movement as he says “A staircase separates one floor from another but ramp links it together.”

In my opinion, it does not look much like a house. It looks like an office to me, but it is extremely beautiful.  What I like about the construction is the axis, proportion, simplicity and it’s minimalistic.

Opinion on "Metropolis"

At first I don’t get the movie, it is so art and abstract in a way that I have no clues what it is about. First there are prisoners going down below the surface of the Earth then it is something about people playing like a role in places. I think the intersection between the two scenes is too much.

I think it is about the lowers and upper class people, as the lower class coming up to the rich society and get rejected. But the guy, Freder is the name, seems to in love with her at first sight and goes to search for the girl in the working city.

When he sees the city, he looks surprise like he never seen something like it before. Then it cuts to the scene where the employees get captured by somewhat ancient-look alike. Freder then flees back to the grand city where everything looks perfect to see his father and ask for helps. But his father doesn’t appreciate and seems careless about those working people. It shows clear relationship between rich and poor people that they do not get along.

Father of Freder, Joh Frederson fired his assistant, and if he doesn’t belong in the upper class world, he needs to go work in the depth at the machine city. I think the movie shows clear differences between upper and lower class people and how they live different life. At first the movie is so confusing, but after watching it for a while, it is quite interesting and fun, as I want to know what will happen next.

Freder wants to help those working class people badly and ask one of the employees to trade the life with him. Freder then work at the machine and the employee’s acts as the upper class person.

Then it cuts to the scene of Rotwang, the inventor of a unique house.  His house is a lab and he creates Joh Frederson’s wife model for some reasons. I think Rotwang in love with Frederson’s wife, but she chooses to live with Frederson, not Rotwang. Although she dies, she will always be with him even Frederson seems to forget about her already.

After the conversation about the woman, Frederson hands Rotwang a building plan that Freder seems to have it too to Rotwang. It is the plan of 2000years old cattacond of down below Metropolitan, which I don’t know what it means. It is Freder who finds the thing and it looks like a church, with the girl he in love with. Then his father and Rotwang follow to the place too. I think what that connect the two classes is religious. It unites them together.

Opinions on the reading: From Bauhaus To Our House

The reading mentions about Bauhaus to live and study and learn from. As far as I am concerned, Bauhaus is the work with no details on furnitures according to Walter Gropius. he says somewhat like a quote, “starting from zero” that I do not quite yet understand. Bauhaus originates in Germany, in the time that they lose in World War II and most countries reject them. People do not appreciate the style because it is too simple and people at the period are not open-minded. They want to have something grand and beautiful rather than simple minimal style such like Bauhaus. 

In my opinion, Bauhaus is “non-bourgeois.” Bourgeois are those high-class group of people that can afford expensive houses and furnitures, and they would not want their houses to look simple. So Bauhaus says to be the style for working-class people, as it needs no detailed in work and rather affordable. The style is very minimal and simple.

I personally like Bauhaus because I think the style is very similar to my chosen building for Design project, “Norman Fisher House” by Louis I. Kahn. Kahn says he starts most of his work from a box of square and see how it goes from there, and it is very minimalistic. Kahn uses international style that involves simple geometry: cube, squares and I think it links well with Bauhaus in term of minimalism.