Theoretical Art of Design - Essay Example

Full and Number Architectural Theory: The Theoretical Art of Design Thinking, discussing and writing about architecture is an intrinsic part of the study of the subject and the delving into of its various concepts, forms and opinions. Whether in lecture, dialogue or from the practical experience of applying various theories to projects for competition, theory demands a consideration of the various schools. Over time theory has gained and increased in richness and accessibility with the advent of better and more eclectic ways of communication while styles and movements have often come and gone. How theory relates to the intellectual context in thinking about architecture and the final built work is intrinsic to the understanding of how ideas reoccur, and even old theories have relevance today. Despite its past and present history, the aesthetic beauty and practical usefulness of theory remains a positive and necessary influence on the subject, and the discourse created by it an important element in the future growth and evolution of architecture itself. A good theoretical starting point is undoubtedly Lucas Koolhass and his theory of The Generic City—an idea significantly [and we might assume coldly] modern in its tendency to accept the twentieth century axiom of form follows function--‘generic’ as in having no particularly distinctive quality or application. In essence, nothing in terms of urban architecture should be written in theoretical or historical stone. Koolhass, the Dutch architect, architectural theorist and urbanist suggests that in approaching urban design we “stop looking for glue to hold cities together” [in the old thinking, town squares etc] and simply allow the place to develop as natural needs apply, where the only judgments are “taste” and “aesthetics” (Grönlund, The Generic City par 4). Removing the sociological component, The Generic City then is one that does not rely on history for its identity and disputes old notions of “endless repetitions of the same structural module...more varied boredom, [and] redundancy...” (Grönlund, The Generic City par 2). But Koohaas does not leave the architect completely without options. He is simply providing a realistic backdrop that allows the professional to judge and create his work from a modern more clinical standpoint. In a1991 lecture at Rice University, Koolhaas, in pointing out “the constant movement that occurs between documenting and critiquing the phenomena to trying to interpret what they mean to architecture...” explains how his approach to writing and theorizing “work in tandem with an architectural object...evolving rather than... [as a] fixed entity” ( Rem Koolhaas par 1). Architects Peter Eisenmann and Leon Krier represent two opposing views in architecture--the modern versus the classical—a debate which seems destined to go on forever as the two most visible and ideologically contentious flashpoints in theoretical architectural discussion. This dualism dates explicitly to a face-off between the two architects during a meeting at Princeton University in 1977. It continues to resonate within architectural theory today. Ironically, it is a debate that can be heard even among non-professionals in the general populace who, for whatever cultural reasons, prefer one over the other—modernists decrying the ‘old fashioned’ throwbacks reflected in neo-classical buildings; and classicalists denouncing the cold unaesthetic look of new buildings lacking what they see as grace, detail and respect for tried architectural concepts of another age. Listening to the two men face off over this theoretical topic one can see the wide range of opinion facing architects today. As Eisenmann asserts the limits of classicisim:"There are only perfect ideas in the classical ideology. However today, where the elements of cosmology are no longer the same, we cannot return to a classical system"(Katarxis Moment...quote 1). Leon Krier, the classical theorist, responds: " Our goal as artists and architects consists in understanding that universal system and that universal order which allow us to produce artistical artifacts...represents the fundamental system which allows us to create objects of timeless beauty "(Katarxis Moment...quote 2). Perhaps the answer or ultimate theoretical conundrum lies in a problem of architecture as art, or as an expression of human need and function. As Silenus theorizes, “the elimination of the human element from considered form” versus Scotts view that the “meticulous observance of ‘pure styles’[as] a mark of failing energy in imagination”(Kimball par 1-2). The debate leads naturally to a discussion of modernity versus post-modernity, which has as much to do with current theory as the challenge of haphazard development suggested by Koolhaas’s Generic City has to Eisenmann’s and Krier’s debate over form versus function. Here clear definitions are in order. First, modernist architecture popularized in the early twentieth century by architects including Le Corbusier emphasized function, with its goal to provide for specific needs rather than any attempt to incorporate or imitate nature. But these “Dreams of an architecture that might improve the general lot of humanity were exposed as elitist and reductivist” (Hvattum et al 42) by the post-modernist movement. Post-modernist architecture while evolving futuristic styles from the modernist movement also contradicts it many ways. Combining new ideas with traditional forms, postmodernist buildings delight the viewer while performing the function they were designed to satisfy. Yet while the design evolution from modernism is clear, post-modernists insist “Architectural modernism...died in 1972 when an... utterly insignificant housing estate [ala Le Corbusier] was blown up in St Louis” (Hvattum et al 42), giving way to the postmodernist penchant for pluralism in place of monotony, and joy, delight and wit in place of the purged white walls of a second reformation” (Hvattum et al 42). It was a theoretical war between what was good for humanity versus what was rational in terms of forwarding the goals of a capitalist industrialized society more to the thinking of Koolhaas and ‘let it [the city] grow as it will.’ Yet other theories afoot challenge the notion of ‘either or’ [modernism or post-modernism] and suggests a more smooth and unrestrictive evolutionary design path. Tester writes that “The thesis which emerges out of this premise is that post-modernity cannot really be understood as a fully fledged condition in its own right” (Tester 151). He further suggests that while post-modernism offers a critique of modernity as too humanistic, it is also reliant on it and indeed shares characteristics except those that acquiesce to institutions, arrangements and relationships, which under modernism were elevated to natural or nature status. (Tester 151) Finally, it is important to note the evolutionary process that came about through what is called the International Style as the basis of the Modern movement, and Regional Styles that incorporate history and architectural nostalgia of eras past. A word about International Style as an erroneous and often destructive ‘one size fits all’ concept’ is appropriate. “The International Style of the second and third quarters of this [twentieth] century most boldly proclaimed its independence from the unique requirements of place. City centers all over the world bear witness to the naivety of this perception (farmer et al 73) and its tendency at time to destroy the local architectural of more historical areas. Public protest to giant malls as solutions to the public’s need to shop ala Koolhaas have torn the lives out of small businesses and the charm and convenience of shopping locally, often turning small city centers into deserted areas. In the U.K. the construction of council housing developments throughout Britain have brought protests from historical conservationists that not enough money is being put into renovating old buildings with more traditional British character. Such is the debate between International architectural ideas and regional planning that takes into account local and historical character, or, as Farmer asserts, “Response to Place” (Farmer 73). However, the rise of the International Style has not been all negative and has provided architects, theoretically at least, throughout the world with options. “What has become known as the International Style provided a new language for architecture. The Villa Savoye by Le Corbusier, of 1929-31, follows the formal organization of the Thai house, but its construction and appearance exemplify the new architecture of our century” (Farmer 74). Styles featured at the 1826 Exposition of Decorate Arts of Paris presented the United States with Art Deco and subsequent designs for some of the most famous and architecturally beautiful buildings in the country—including the Empire State Building in New York with its famous art deco crown. The Modernist International Style, not to be confused that mentioned above, held tightly to the idea of architecture as a social responsibility and Utopian ideas of Constructivism. While a seemingly positive approach, however, the school’s idea of free use of unrestricted space often led to a lack of aesthetic as evidenced in the Soviet Union and its satellites. The group promoting the ideas were exclusive. “Only architects who were sure to have similar views were ever invited to the congresses of the Modernist International, replete with slogans about the housing for working people” (Farmer 188). In conclusion, throughout the expression of what appear conflicting theories one major benefit for the industry has occurred. Ideas being just those, as is true also with theories, a blending of ideas and theories has bought architecture to new heights of both creativity and social benefit. Today, with styles appearing every day in designs as eclectic as the ideas of those who build them, it can be said we have produced and will continue to produce both functional and aesthetically pleasing works to satisfy the observer, the user, and their creator. Work Cited Farmer, Ben and Louw, Hentie. Companion to Contemporary Architectural Thought. London: Routledge, 1993. Grönlund, Bo. Urban Winds, “Rem Koolhaas, Generic City.” PhD thesis 1997, altered June, 1999. Accessed December 2, 2010 on: Hvattum, Mari and Hermansen, Christian. Tracing Modernity: Manifestations of the Modern in Architecture and the City, 2004. “Katarxis Moment: Peter Eisenman and Leon Krier, on dishwashing...” Posted June 20, 2009 on Elseplace for all Architects. Accessed December 3, 2010 on: Kimball, Roger. “Architecture & Ideology.” The New Criterion, December 2002. Posted on Accessed December 2, 2010. “Rem Koolhaas and the OMA: A Self Referential Practice.” Posted on Clinical Observation, Sunday, February 7, 2010. Accessed December 2, 2010 on: Tester, Keith. The Life and Times of Post-Modernity. New York: Routledge, 1993. Read More