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.