Modern Architecture: an Exploration of the Intimate Relationships - Research Paper Example

Throughout most of history, man’s social and private activities have been conducted within a specifically designated physical space. These designations might have been as simple as a tracing of rocks or as complex as a steel skyscraper, but it is undeniable that buildings have historically functioned as a means of ordering our activities. During the past century and a half, though, mankind has collectively begun to redefine our conceptions of buildings by recognizing the importance they have in ordering our lives and shaping our thoughts. Under current ideas of space, social areas defined by architecture are recognized as a means of expressing or repressing social harmony, interaction and innovation. To better understand the modern relationship between architecture and the environment, it is helpful to examine the theories as well as actual practice expressed by architects as Le Corbusier. The underlying philosophy of modern architecture is an exploration of the intimate relationships that develop between constructed spaces and the occupants of that space. In other words, modern architecture is all about finding and legitimizing the real connections that occur between human emotions and physical spaces as the places reserved for community interaction are identified (Massey 2000, p.49). Scholars briefly define modernity as “a condition of living imposed upon individuals by the socioeconomic process of modernisation” (Heynen 1999, p.4). Thus, modernity is a conceptual framework of individual expression and, at the same time, it is a reflection of society as a whole. This indicates that it is made up of intellectual movements and ideas as well as changes introduced by the development of new materials or processes of modernization. According to Heynen, modernity is the “dialectical relationship ... which modernism consciously or unconsciously, directly or indirectly, positively or negatively reflects the effects of capitalist development” (Heynen 1999: 4). What all this means is that modernism is a complex collection of ideas that are linked together at various points and shifted or affected by social understandings that contribute to our understanding of the spaces that surround us. One way of illustrating this idea of the modern within architecture is available by analyzing the former World Trade Center of New York City as compared to other New York structures. Marshall Berman described the physical structure of the towers as “isolated” because they were hard to reach and difficult to use. According to Berman, the towers “gave off hostility” or drove people away in a way that was not shared by similar structures such as the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings. Each of these other structures is instead considered to be a part of the total system surrounding them. “Their [the Port Authority who designed the towers] idea of safety involved repelling the people. The slab shape of the Towers and their isolation grew out of an aesthetic voiced best by Le Corbusier, who said that in order to have modern planning we have to ‘kill the streets.’ For him the street epitomized disorder and chaos” (Berman, 2002). By comparison, the Port Authority was also the entity behind the design of the Battery Park City Complex. This complex was given a more welcoming aspect because of its inclusion of parks, museums, restaurants and other amenities intended to encourage visitors to stay and enjoy. Even though he agrees that the city should be the ultimate melting pot of diversity, Berman indicates it is also “an endless series of completely sterile and empty gigantic spaces all over the world” (Berman, 2002). As people function within this environment, the contradictions of modernity become ingrained into their internal impressions to a point where they are no longer fully recognized. The main architects of the modernist movement were Frank Lloyd Wright, Gropius, Le Corbusier and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. The designs they created are generally characterized by logic, clarity of structure and fluid use of space and form. Le Corbusier developed a practice of utilizing the colors inherent in materials such as bottles, pitchers and glasses in his designs, pioneering early expressions of sustainable development without sacrificing aesthetic appeal. At the same time, Bauhaus designers were employing straight lines and inventive use of alternate materials in other forms of household items, reinforcing this approach (Barr 1954, p. 220). Architects working during this confused era, torn by war and eager rebuilding, found themselves in a unique position in which they were able to radically change the accepted forms of business establishments and home-making culture. Through their efforts, they reorganized many of the core social spaces of our lives through the structures they created. The most common theme discovered in the widely different approaches of modern architecture is a sense of harmony developed between the space and those using it. This necessitated using geometric layouts of structures placed in harmony with varying zones of other types of land use within the immediate vicinity. As is pointed out by Gold (1998), the interiors of these structures were closely linked with the lifestyle of the owners as a depiction of their every day activity. To understand the complicated relationships between people and buildings, Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret proposed three layers of basic needs that a building should address (Weber 2008). The first level of need refers to the pure physical need for sheltered space. “That there is something definable as a modernist architectural space, no one living in the age of Le Corbusier can doubt. That space can be, and is in Corbusier’s architecture, the very substance of architecture, and that this is a new and revolutionary idea in architectural history, is also no longer open to question” (Millard, p. 448). Realizing people were increasingly finding themselves trapped within the urban environment, Le Corbusier wanted to incorporate natural elements of life that were missing from the built environment. These included the need for sun, space and growing vegetation. These needs, he said, should be considered as part of the foundational logic for construction. The second level of need that Corbusier identified referred to a psychosomatic comfort level. In this, he was essentially discussing the need to incorporate a sense of air flow through the structure. This could be achieved by including ventilation shafts, allowing sonic ventilation by providing adjustable openings so users can create or close off air systems and installing shutters near glass walls or windows so they can also be shut off or opened as desired. His focus on the air systems emphasized the degree to which this little considered detail contributes to the meaning of the constructed space. Lack of air flow causes us to feel trapped within the space regardless of how large while free air flow makes us feel free regardless of the smallness of the space. Foucault observes “how we are housed helps to determine who we are and may be, and one can thus examine through what means, conceptual and physical, and in response to what problems, we have come, so to speak, to inscribe ourselves in architectural stone” (cited in Rajchman, 1990, p. 33). Le Corbusier’s third layer of comfort considered the effects of culture which determined the specific types of activities conducted within the dwelling-space. Just as there are specific basic services required for the proper functioning of a city, so were there specific service areas required for the proper functioning of a dwelling place. Individual dwellings, regardless of how spacious or ornate, needed to include functional elements that reflect individual culture and style (Choay 1960) while still leaving the space flexible enough for change. “Modernity stands for the attitude toward life that is associated with a continuous process of evolution and transformation, with an orientation toward a future that will be different from the past and from the present. The experience modernity provokes responses in the form of cultural tendencies and artistic movements” (Heynen, 1999, p. 10). Thus, there is a complex give and take of individual activities that are shaped by society and space and adapted by the same at all levels at all times. Modernist design recognized that there is an inescapable relationship between man and nature. According to Le Corbusier, the outer landscape was as important to architecture design and logic as its dwellers. The elements of a building such as windows, roofs and terraces should be conducted within the framework of the landscape while also opening up space that could be changed and adapted by man. It can be concluded that modernism is more of an ideology rather than a specific approach to design. It was a revolution that changed the characteristic landscape of architectural thought and interior design approaches as it recognized the intrinsic relationship between man’s thought and his physical spaces. It transcended and transformed the concepts of the past into something ready to adapt for the future. Many of the structures and interior design elements developed under these theories, these works were developed with the ideal of removing some of the ills of industrialisation to recognize their affect on men’s psyches. Le Corbusier in particular was a master planner who believed he could revolutionise the urban industrial landscape by developing plans that harmonized with the surrounding landscape. His vision was to integrate new designs which blend in with the old landscape, but to create new dimensions for people and improve living conditions for all. References Barr, Jr. A. (1954) Masters of Modern Art. Simon and Schuster: New York pp. 214. Berman, Marshall. (2002). “Big Apple Redux: An Interview with Marshall Berman.” Choay, F. (1960) Le Corbusier. G. Braziller: New York. pp. 18. Gold, J. R. (April 21, 1998) The experience of modernism: Modern architects and the future city. Taylor & Francis; 1 edition. Heynen, H. (1999) Architecture and Modernity: A Critique. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts/ London, England. Massey, D. (2000) "Space-time and the politics of location" in Architecturally Speaking: Practices of Art, Architecture, and the Everyday by Alan Read ed. Routledge: London. Millard, Charles W. (Autumn 1967). “Modernist Architectural Spaces.” The Hudson Review. Vol. 20, N. 3, pp. 448-453. Rajchman, John. (1990). “What’s New in Architecture.” Philosophy and Architecture. Andrew Benjamin (Ed.). London: Academy Editions, pp. 33-37. Weber, F. (2008) Le Corbusier: A Life. Alfred A. Knopf. Read More