The Values of Minimalism Applied in Architectural Design - Essay Example

Running Architectural Transformation Architectural Transformation: From ical Structure/Or ntation to Postmodern (Minimalist) Architectural Design Name Name of the University Name of Professor Date Submitted Table of Contents I. Problem Statement and Review of Related Literature................................... 4 II. Theoretical Framework................................................................................. 10 III. Research Methods Statement....................................................................... 14 IV. Expected Outcome....................................................................................... 15 V. Appendices..................................................................................................... 16 VI. Bibliography.................................................................................................. 22 Modernism in architecture, as readers of books on postmodernism are aware of, expired in 1972 when an unattractive and up till now completely unimportant housing property was destroyed in St. Louis. When the demolition team activated the detonator they squashed not merely the Pruitt-Igoe housing but as well as, based on postmodernist description, the concluding pretensions to influence of a modernism that was denounced as rationally penniless and unproductive. The grand restructuring optimisms of the 1920s, of Walter Gropius, Le Corbusier, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, had been stranded on the movement of social pragmatism (Hvattum, 2004). In the course of actions, the hopes of an architecture that might promote the public good of humanity were interpreted as elitist and minimalist, with an old-fashioned touch of Calvinist belief and frugality. After the filth had receded and the crooked steelwork had been put away, the site was settled for the antidote newbie postmodernism, which provided pluralism in replacement of uniformity, and bliss, happiness and intelligence in place of the washed out white walls of a succeeding reformation. While they paraded their way on to the vacant building location, the champions of postmodernism carried with them a shortened history that lessened the genuine complexity and ingenuity of modernism. The revolution in architectural design that had prevailed in the century was represented as the triumph of the square or the box, the flexible case as universal packaging, or as an embodiment of a Protestant Reformation placing confidence in the liberating features of industrialisation and democracy (p. 107). In criticizing modernism as minimalist, ordinary and dull, the supporters of postmodernism cited a history that was itself similarly minimalist and ordinary. To an extent they had been called upon to accomplish this by the advocates of architectural modernism, both architectures and historians. However, modernism as both a historical strength and as an artistic programme is extremely affluent and complicated to permit such release. The conciseness of the postmodernist intermission heightens people’s sense of historical disposition and appeals for a more rigorous investigation into the character of architectural modernism (Doxiadis, 1963). I. Problem Statement and Review of Related Literature This paper will attempt to examine the architectural transition from the modern movement to the 1960’s movement through looking at the various aspects embedded in architectural design as a process such as values, principles social issues, cultural influence and artistic issues. Moreover, the similarities and differences of architects from the modern movement and the 1960’s will be likewise explored. The modern movement is quite essential to analyse if one aims to understand the fleeting style and methods of postmodern or minimalist architecture. The concept of postmodernism is quite annoying, and that includes postmodern, postmodernist, postmodernist, and anything else that resembles it. In the flood of journals and books that have applied the concept since the latter part of the 1950s, postmodernism has been related at various levels of conceptual structuring to a broad array of objects and observable facts in what people use to refer to as reality. Postmodernism, afterwards, is numerous things follows simultaneously (Bertens, 1995). Postmodernism refers, first and foremost, to a complexity of anti-modernistic techniques which surfaced in the 1950s and gained impetus throughout the 1960s. Nevertheless, because it was applied for completely opposed strategies in various artistic disciplines, as such in architecture, the concept was profoundly difficult almost from the very beginning (ibid, 3). There was an increasing politicization of the 1970 and 1980’s postmodernist activism. Majority of artists are well-aware of a number of versions of the Foucaldian association between discourse and power, and this frequently assumes the form of an consciousness of the means in which the meanings of the symbolic underpinnings of artistic works suited or not within the traditions formulated to advance them. This resulted to an evaluation of the reliance of art on “the museum-gallery complex” (Butler, 2002, 92). The idea is that the museum, as a form of worldly sanctuary, legitimizes the work of art through the discussion of pseudo-clergy of curators and their critic analysts. Yet it is the manner in which they choose the group of artists, and create the catalogues, that actually counts, and their eagerness in this phase to permit the adversary of critique within a main intellectual protection of academic assumption (ibid, 93). The nature of knowledge is unable to survive unaffected within this setting of far-reaching transformation. It can suit into the new outlets, and become functional, merely if learning is converted into bulks of information. Individuals can foresee that anything in the composed set of knowledge that is not convertible in this manner will be discarded and that the path of new research will be ordered by the potentiality of its eventual outcome being interpreted into the postmodern medium (Lyotard, 1984). Transition is an aspect not merely of human architecture but of every feature of life. It is worthless to anticipate that humanity will be done with the incessant changes in the world soon, and people should therefore adapt themselves to the thought that they are experiencing an epoch of transition and that the origin of the predicament will be with humanity for multitudes of decades or generations to arrive. The condition may even worsen. Certainly, people can effortlessly envision that in most cases, in majority of nations, circumstances will as a matter of fact become gradually worse. People can hence realistically express the mounting problems as a deluge, a deluge which is approaching swiftly that it intimidates architecture and architects equally. It will be fascinating to observe how the ordinary person, the person in the street, confronts this deluge. He definitely feels the necessity for the services of architecture, yet also senses the worsening problems, which he cannot understand or recognise. He is miserable if he has no home, incapable to access one in his city. He endures within his society, which is mislaying its home-like features, just as he endures within the modern city since he cannot even articulate his perspectives on the deficiency of available houses and buildings, since he is unable to express in specific terms. He is even unable to elevate his voice to exclaim the absolute hopelessness of the cities he inhabits. The increasing problems menace to overwhelm him. And then what is the role of the architect, the specialist, the master in architecture? He does articulate, even though people must admit that he articulates it extremely seldom. Yet even if his voice is raised it does not possess the influence and the power to rouse citizens, much less to resolve their difficulties and guide them to prevent the deluge. Hence, the approaching tide will overpower humanity, for people will one day find out that they have turned out to be the slaves of their environment, forced to adjust themselves to the recent conditions of residing in a city which is itself expiring under the influence of the machine. Primarily, before the rise of the machines and the increase in the responsibilities of the architect, it is important to take into account the process of simplification. This had persisted in the twentieth century, and it reached its height in the thirties. Architecture which is absolutely stripped of ornament should have fine proportion if it is to provide aesthetic satisfaction, and if it is to be meaningful and interesting it is pleasing that is should have a clear-cut feature. Ornament, nevertheless, has important aesthetic and significant purposes if properly used, and until there is another one to replace it which functions more will be gone astray than gained (Jones, 1961). Applied in overindulgence, used devoid of appropriate association to the essential form of the building, employed in a forceful and flashy manner, ornament may be unpleasing, offensive, and the contrary of beauty; yet used properly ornament functions to highlight the form and style of a building, it provides richness through collapsing a monotonous surface, it provides as accent and stress, it aids to provide effective illumination and shade, and it frequently informs people something about the function of the building it decorates (p. 47). One significant justification for the removal of ornament and the stripping away of form attribute of historical structures was the aspiration to dispose of these styles and to create a new beginning towards a living architecture of modern life. The most successful means of accomplishing this is to make a total break, as did the advocates of the new architecture, and work out problems through rational thinking about function and structure rather than through conforming to conventional techniques of design. However, in transitional architecture this is come upon through gradual stages. When the stage of full stylistic reversal is attained, prior to something encouraging replaces the position of the previous, it is architecturally ripe for the time being a traditional method (Collins, 1962). It is better to protect quite a few traditional style of feature than have such full reversal. A building of the form showed by the Art Gallery in the Gotaplatzen (appendix A), located in Gothenburg, and is exceptionally minimalistic and simple, with a nearly absolute lack of ornament. This art gallery is a preservation of the Gothenburg Exhibition of 1923 which is designed by A.L. Romdahl, it inhabits an innermost position in the Gotaplatzen and is surrounded by two more current edifices, the City Theatre (appendix B) which is designed by Carl Bergsten and finished in 1934 and the City Concert Hall (appendix C) which is designed by Nils Eina Eriksson and finished in 1934, whereas the celebrated ‘Poseidon’ fountain (appendix D) designed by Carl Milles is in the interior (Jones, 1961). The outline of the Art Gallery inspired the measurements and design of the two subsequent buildings and it will be observed that while it is minimal, with plain wall surfaces, the two maintain resemblance with classical architecture through the chain of classical columns situated in front of the lengthy, expansive window spanning the entire length of the facade. In this model, transition from classical to modern architecture is much clearly illustrated (p. 50). The uniformity of an extremely numerous unadorned, straight down and rectangular window openings all similar and equally placed on a plain wall, with about the alike space between them both horizontally and vertically which is likewise uniform to their width and height, is also oftentimes seen in public housing blocks all over Europe constructed during this time. Opportunely there are quite a few also with unique feature, a number of which, by de Klerk, Kramer and others have been managed, while some, particularly several models by Gropius. To provide further fascination and feature is not a concern of cost, but of design (Hvattum, 2004). It is frequently merely as inexpensive to design an apartment building block with facades of an attractive feature, with outlines appealingly highlighted, as to design a minimalistic featureless facade. An architecture which almost resembles complete minimalism is the big residence house of Engelshof (appendix E) located in Vienna and which is designed by Rudolf Perco. In this, the entire idea is based on traditional proportion and the rectangular windows are all of identical size with roughly identical space between them similar to their width and height. The uniformity is calmed somewhat by quite a few downturns, and moderate horizontal stress at the top and to link the windows, as well as by corner veranda handling, yet the entire effect is representative of the barrack-resembling uniformity which very often is located in expansive public housing blocks (p. 112). It will be discovered that several architects, concerned to remove stylistic ornament, but aspiring to provide a fascinating and pleasing effect to their heights, engagements to do so somewhat through depressions and the rapport of masses, or through an array of sizes and contours of the windows, occasionally, obviously, by both. Windows properly placed and finely evened on a wall may give a very attractive feeling, yet it is commonly the outcome of pleasant and understated measurement and strong imaginative sentiment, as it has to be accomplished together with the satisfactory illumination of the building (Hamlin, 1940). It should be kept in mind as well that an architect is dealing with the classical upright window; he is unable, or does not aspire to depart from that tradition, even though modern architecture would guide him to do otherwise. Some exceptional models of this handling of windows with regard to wall surface can be provided. One sees it in the incredibly simple outer walls of the Stockholm City Library (appendix F) which was designed by Gunnar Asplund and constructed in the latter part of the 1920s (Whittick, 1953): “In the two upper stories of the square block the long and short vertical windows are carefully spaced on the wall with good effect, while the tall windows of the central drum above the Lending Library are also well spaced (p. 14).” The downbeat process of removing classical styles and ornament was frequently attended with the more encouraging process of probing for themes for expression. The most apparent themes are made known in the increasing inclination to articulate structure and to highlight the common outline of the building. They are plain and simple interest, yet they do emerge from modern circumstances and are obviously a small move towards a dynamic architecture. In designs that draw from Classical and Renaissance architecture such articulation is commonly bonded to traditional proportioned planning, classically uniformed windows, and other features of identical nature (Doxiadis, 1963). A quite few edifices of a simplified traditional facade designed at the late twentieth century were started with an intimate attention to function and convenience at the beginning. The process appears to be as described in several literatures. The architect examines the purpose of the construction and the site, and decides on the design appropriately, but thereby influence of classical techniques, of classical proportion and balance is a practice of the mind. His education and training identifies this. Whether the finest design develops as an outcome of this training is at all times an issue. Afterwards, having determined the design, the entire building is visualized in minimalistic classical terms (p. 63). II. Theoretical Framework Minimalism, a type of abstract art, particularly manifested in sculpture and architecture, characterized by exceptional simplicity of form and an intentional lack of expressive substance; it surfaced as a trend in the latter part of the 1950s and thrived specifically in the sixties and the seventies (Meyer, 2005). Few observers would discover anything extraordinary about the well-known use of structure and ornament in architectural designs, which bear a resemblance to the actual statements of numerous modern documents on architecture. These two concepts appear to portray easily merely what is visible to the naked eye; structure or ornament seems to represent the very characteristic of much constructed reality. People do not in common concern, or even sense that it is essential to question, what structure and ornament truly mean, or to question why they too normally emerge as an oppositional complement. Nor do people often critically ponder on the historical roots of the complement or investigate the repercussions of that roots (Benedikt, 2002). Without such significant analysis, people fail to understand how persistent and persuasive a determination of architecture the structure/ornament complement is, and that is identifies in decisive manners much of how people reflect and write regarding the features of architecture and its history, and even significantly how people build. To motivate such investigation is the primary objective of this research, which is aimed at not to resolve concerns addressing particular historical periods but rather to unearth and closely examine specific theories and hindrances that permeate and determine structure/ornament, and thus to put to important questioning the seemingly visible feature of much contemporary and modern architectural discourse (p. 213). Architectural transition from classical to modern to postmodern nowadays often pursues to interpret buildings as entities influenced by a representative of their social meaning and historical milieu. The purpose of a building is therefore interpreted as significantly symbolical and often as dynamically engaged in defining the social dimension of which it belongs. It would be both unremarkable and praiseworthy to settle on that the paramount means to understand the realities of, for example, a fifteenth century church in Florence, Italy is to identify the rivalling economic, political, spiritual and social/cultural influences that brought it into being and to understand it as a physical manifestation of the increasing affluence and position of the mercantile group throughout the century (Sankovitch, 1998). This combination of context and flexible symbolism has been ushered in primarily as a response against the formalism that commonly directed architectural discussions from the latter part of the nineteenth century through the 1960s and that came simultaneously with modernism and its cynicism of history. Since the inclusion of social history around the seventies, formalism and the inherent history of architecture have been if not rebuffed as discriminatory or, more gently, considered as having released their compulsory yet restricted undertaking so that people can now advance to a more vibrant recognition of architecture in its absolute multidisciplinary intricacy. In the attempts to ground architectural structure in its historical milieu, structure itself has turned out to be definite and the processes of formal study frequently tend to be considered as given (p. 686). The great original motivation for the architecture of the postmodern period has arrived, as it will keep on coming, from the avant-garde advances in human technology. And yet the perplexing range of novel forms is possibly less unusual that they initially appear. Skyscrapers and public housing have their preliminary model in the pueblo cliff abode; the ideas of the gazebo are applied in cable suspension bridges and roofs; architect Frank Lloyd Wright integrated the prototype earth-hugging house and expansive eaves in his primitive lowland houses. What establishes the novel forms distinctively humanity’s own are the materials such as metals, alloys and synthetics in which they are built upon, and the ingenious means in which people consume the spaces within these edifices (Jones, 1961). Basing on the structural ingenuity of the architects and the creative imagination of the modern artist, the earliest major design of a new architecture had been formulated by the 1920s. It was by no means the final product, even though the facade of flat-roofed cubes standing on stilts, made transparent by a massive space of glass and frugally furnished with metal furnishings attracted the public imagination. Modern is a model in steady development, as has been demonstrated by the constantly developing structures designed by the three pioneering figures of this period, namely, Le Corbusier and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (p. 83). Modern art’s characteristic symptoms of multiple delusions of discrimination and influence are complicated by a terrible case of egoism that in its own turn separated in two destinations. With one eye raised on itself as modern, contemporary art has raised the other in the conflicting path, toward itself as history, the transitory product of a long progress (Britt, Simultaneous to these primary providers of form were reckless in new means, a dynamic second generation emerged, at points challenging the pioneers, at instance explaining and improving their ideas. Nowadays, modern architecture has turned out to be a global phenomenon, acquiring agreement through the approval of a general discipline. However, it is far from stagnant. Previously a novel dimension of shell structures is surfacing to replace it together with the forms already developed, making space enclosed spaces which may eventually facilitate man to inhabit in a stable environment wherever on earth (Jones, 1961). Architecture has therefore become the paramount exploration of humanity. To allocate its enthusiasm there is no replacement for the genuine knowledge and adventure of the form itself. Contributions cannot be unreceptive. The move towards Le Corbusier’s Chapel located at Ronchamp, on foot, along a zigzag mountain trail, is as much a fragment of the adventure of the church as the murky, cavern-like centre that lays ahead the spectator at the apex (Schneekloth, 1998). The absolute secrecy and pleasure of Frank Lloyd Wright’s creations can be experienced merely through going across the distances themselves, whether through the striking chain of rooms, inside Taliesin or high above the spiral of the Guggenheim Museum. The traditional tranquillity and godliness of Mies van der Rohe’s buildings compel an order that simultaneously boosts nature through its definitely stated separation between what is human and what is nature; yet the absolute enjoyment of Mies’s accomplishments necessitates people’s involvement with the forms themselves (p. 1). In this period of transition, the powerful countries have proved to be the grand design headquarters. Partially this is true due to people’s rich technology and environment of freedom; partially since the problems of a greatly developed culture have surfaced in these countries first. The traffic-infested cities of developed nations are currently becoming a global phenomenon; the skyscraper, which initially developed in response to urban congestion, now defines the centre of almost all of the big cities across the globe (Doxiadis, 1963). Already gifted with a lively native customs and traditions of architecture and building, the industrialized nations’ scene has also been tremendously cultivated by a phenomenal arrival of talents from other countries. Yet all throughout the world the duty of making decisive forms symbolic of this period is shared by individuals from the second generation, several of them students of the first form pioneers, now reaching their own prime decades (p. 90). The ultimate verdict which the prospective years will transmit to the next generation will be founded on the cities already evolved. Already their constituents are surfacing in the new metropolis such as the remarkable Brasilia in addition to such grand organised complexes as public housing plans, massive industrial parks, educational facilities and shopping centres. The emerging city may perhaps develop into an unorganized metropolis that spans the entire coastal and hinterland areas. And it can be outrageous unless the harmony is located between men, the great variable of architecture as an art, and at the same time as a technology, the immense force to architecture as the scientific process of building; as Richard Neutra has claimed, “Survival depends on design and so does man’s sanity” (Jones, 1961, 85). III. Research Methods Statement This study will be purely a qualitative research analysis which will delve on the transition of architectural design from classical conception of structure and ornamentation to that of the modern and nowadays the postmodern framework. Specifically, the minimalist movement which influenced several forms of artistic creations including architecture will be examined through the lens of existing remarkable architectural edifices in developed countries, primarily the United States and European nations. Furthermore, the qualitative analysis will be helpful in understanding architectural transition since through in-depth probing on secondary data/information from available literatures, architecture’s greatest anticipations will be revealed such as the vitality to be discovered in the succeeding generations, the brilliance and dynamism of men who are intensifying, humanizing and improving the ideas and knowledge of the great pioneers with exceedingly imaginative solutions of their own. IV. Expected Outcomes This research primarily aims to contribute knowledge on the subject matter of architectural transition and its fundamental effects to the society which it is occurring. Moreover, this knowledge hopefully would not be considered as purely technical or scientific but as well as economically, politically, socially and culturally oriented. Appendix A Art Gallery in Gothenburg Designed by A.L. Romdahl Appendix B City Theatre in Gothenburg Designed by Carl Bergsten Appendix C City Concert Hall in Gothenburg Designed by Nils Eina Eriksson Appendix D Poseidon Statue in Gothenburg Designed by Carl Milles Appendix E Residence House of Engelshof in Vienna Designed by Rudolf Perco Appendix F Stockholm City Library Designed by Gunnar Asplund Bibliography Benedikt, M. (2002). Thinking toward Architecture. Mosaic , 213+. Bertens, H. (1995). The Idea of the Postmodern. London: Routledge. Britt, D. (2007). Modern Art: Impressionism to Post-Modernism. Thames & Hudson. Butler, C. (2002). Postmodernism. New York: Oxford University Press. Collins, C. C. (1962). The Architecture Fantasy: Utopian Building and Planning in Modern Times. New York: Frederick A. Praeger. Doxiadis, C. A. (1963). Architecture in Transition. New York: Oxford University Press. Hamlin, T. (1940). Architecture through the Ages. New York: G.P. Putnams Sons. Hvattum, M. (2004). Tracing Modernity: Manifestations of the Modern in Architecture. New York: Routledge. Joedicke, J. (1959). A History of Modern Architecture. New York: Frederick A. Praeger. Jones, C. (1961). Architecture Today and Tomorrow. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lyotard, J. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. University of Minnesota Press. Meyer, J. (2005). Minimalism. Phaidon Press Ltd. Sankovitch, A.-M. (1998). Structure/Ornament and the Modern Figuration of Architecture. The Art Bulletin , 686+. Schneekloth, L. H. (1998). Unredeemably Utopian: Architecture and Making/unmaking the World. Utopian Studies , 1+. Whittick, A. L. (1953). European Architecture in the Twentieth Century. London: Crosby Lockwood & Son. Read More