Venturi, Complexity, Contradiction and Eroticism

This journal entry is about the relationship between Venturi’s postmodern ideas of decoration and utility. The idea of the postmodern is something that is very ordinary which opposite to that modernism is. As time passed by people started to think that modernism is boring. People eager to have decoration on the building more than plain factory like building. Postmodern architecture is meant to be for ordinary client. It doesn’t mean to be luxurious like modern architecture. We have heard about the quote that form follows function by Louis Sullivan, which defines what modernism is about. The inversion of the quote defines what post-modern architecture is.  It means that the function of the building follows that form. People would recognize the function of the building by seeing its form. 

For example, the building with duck form, it is totally opposite to what modernism is. But if we look at it as a postmodernist we would be able to guess that the building has to do something with duck. And it does do something with duck. The function of the building is a shop for selling duck’s egg. 

Another example of building that implies the idea of postmodernism is the Hershey store in Time Square. The building becomes recognizable to the others that it is a store selling Hershey chocolate. So the building façade itself becomes as a sign of the building which Venturi suggest the idea of double function in one object.

It is the idea of building becomes a sign for its function, which means that graphic quality becomes something that is very important to architecture. By having integration of graphic quality into architecture, it allows architecture to be deceptive to the viewer and it attracts people to architecture. Therefore, I think it links to the idea of erotic architecture. Since erotic architecture is the idea of surprising and attracting, it is a reason why I think that Venturi’s ideas of postmodern architecture links to the idea of eroticism in architecture. 

Are they really modernist?

As we have rules to follow or at least we have guild lines to guild line, some of us follow it. Some other doesn’t follow it. You know, there are a lot of people who breaks the law and there are a lot of people who follow it. Same as the architects, there are a lot of architects who strict with the way they design or strict with the style. Modern architecture has its own rules and its characteristic. As I wrote earlier in this blog, modernism expresses the unity and equality of people in society. So the context of places, money and fashion don’t have that much different. And one more thing of being modern is not to stick to the past or not stick to the history. This is what probably people in modern era try to express by building their own style by not building it up on the history or classical though. Eventually, some architects decided not to follow the characteristic of modernism and success as modern architects.

Louis Kahn

He was an architect who was trained to be a neo classical architect not to be a modernist. As soon as he graduated, his style became unwanted and rejected by other people. So he had to change how he design and make it become modern. This makes him get his first commission so late in his life. His first commission is Yale Art Gallery at Yale University. Another building is the National Assembly Building. As it is the assembly building, Kahn borrowed this shape from Islamic architecture to symbolize the unity and being importance and sacred. And the whole building is made out of pure geometry which was used in Islamic architecture and Roman architecture. More importantly, his works showed the connection to the surrounded buildings, which are the neo gothic buildings. This shows that he didn’t want to neglect the past or as a designer didn’t have to invented the whole new idea but it can be done by borrowing what is great in the past and adapt it to the period we live in. So Kahn proves to us why we have to learn history.

Yale Art Gallery

Yale Art Gallery: section

National Assembly Building

Alvar Aalto 

Alvar Aalto is a Finish architect whose works are experiments of the way to use local material. He is very localize with material. He try to bring the identity of being nordic out to architecture. However, being localized and identify are not ways of modern architecture. Modern architect neglect context of place and location. But for him, place is so important. But his work is successful as modern architecture. 

So the way these two architects design are not following the way modern architecture is. To follow the style doesn't mean that they will be a great architect. But they being themselves and have their own intention makes them a great architect. 

Playtime

This journal entry is about the movie “Playtime” (1967) which is directed by Jacques Tati. The film was made in 1967, which is the modern era. In the film context implies a lot of idea of being modernist, which can be linked to the modern architecture. The age of Modern is the age of unity and equality because during the WWII when the Jewish weren’t treated the same as other people. So people got so much of bad memories about the unfair treated that many of the victims of the war got. The idea of equality is brought up to pay those bad memories of.

The film took place in Paris where everyone dresses the same with the simple colors and pattern where they lost their identity and other people get confuse and get everyone mixes up. It is the same as the city plan which French architect, Le Corbusier, once proposed to the city of Paris, the capital city of France where he want it have lots of same design of buildings.  Imagine, if you live in a big city where every block looks the same, will you get lost in the city? I will because every place lacks of its own identity. When each place has no identity, the context of places becomes worthless. In the film there is one part that shows the posters promoting many countries. In those posters, they all look the same accept the flag of each country.  So location doesn’t matter anymore because it is all the same. Everything in this film suggests the equality of everyone. Nothing is different. But, Is that really a great thing being unity? Is the uniform we wear everyday is a great thing?