Response to “Tom Wolfe, From Bauhaus to Our House”
The text “From Bauhaus to Our House” by Tom Wolfe was almost
like a rundown on the history of “modern architecture” in Europe and how it had
influenced the architecture of the United States and ultimately, “our
architecture” today (in terms of the Architecture in nowadays Thailand, It is
quite evidential that the post-modern architecture that flourished in the U.S
had played a big part in influencing the design.)
It was not so interesting in the start of the text where the
writer dragged us back to the end of the First World War and introduced us to
Gropius, who we later remembered more vividly by the term, The Silver Prince as
one of the (if not “the”) pioneers of what we called “modern architecture” with
its simple forms, flat roof and honest materials. As we progressed along with
the text, we progressively hopped through time, making a stop at each
(architecturally) significant moment, which to be honest, besides from Le
Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe , other names mentioned seem to quietly
disappear as we moved on to the next chapter. Wolfe didn’t leave such a good
impression of modernism with the readers, (at least that is how I feel). Sure
he did mentioned how revolutionary it was and how it was so simple, so pure, so
“non-bourgeois” (as he would often use this word) but he also shown how at
times, how nonfunctional it was (“It was difficult to imagine where such a
building might be considered functional.”ch.1). Also he would tells stories of
how the architects would ignored their clients opinions and at times, would
throw away the things that the clients acquired if they were “out of the
scheme”. Thus, modernism didn’t make quite an impression, although it’ll always
be admired for its simplicity and purity. Beside form the pioneers; Gropius, Le
Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe, others architects of the “compound” appeared
to just be following the tight restriction, they were trapped in the very
“glass box” they’ve created, and thus, despite the beauty of the concept of
“less is more”, modernism became boring and eventually bourgeois itself.
The text became a lot more interesting when these Europeans
masters entered the United States, it was thrilling to read how the
“international style” has confronted the American style of Frank Lloyd Wright.
More interesting was the way that Wright reacts to this movement and how he
struggled. The new era in the U.S was so interesting to read as it also sparks
conflicts amongst architects that eventually they splits into the White, the
Gray and even the Rats (rationalism). It was quite exciting to see this
“battle” and the end result, that eventually one of the White architects would
design something that would had been one of the Grey’s design. Thus it shows
how eventually the style will change, keep restricting to “the glass-box” and
nothing will be learn, there’s more than one way to do things.
To conclude, this text offers a fair review of the history
of modern architecture, especially when it entered the United States. It also
informed us about the reality (at least it informed me) that besides from the
geniuses; Gropius, Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe, many of the so called
“modernists” were just restricting themselves within the glass-box and hence,
their names were quickly forgotten and over shadowed by those that dared to do
something different. Modernism is
not “bad architecture” but it was already well defined by the “white gods”,
rather than trying to be restricted within that box to try to be on the same unreachable
level as these masters, why not try to explore the unexplored, find more ways to
achieve the same result with different methods. As it is said, there is more
than one way to get the job done.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น