Postmodernism – The decorated shed of Robert Venturi

After a considerable amount of time dedicated to the period of the modernists, we moved further and entered the postmodern era, the period where most of us could relate to, It is the period that shaped our concept and value, it’s the breakthrough from the conformity of the glass boxes and values the uniqueness, individuality rather than uniformity of the modern period. During the peak of the modern period, people seek for order and uniformity since all was lost during the war and there’s the need to “starting from zero” and rewrite a new history.  Postmodernism opposed this idea by looking back at the past and used them as the inspirations, the shapes and forms all which is embedded into our generation’s head, thus, when we think of a house, Mies’ glass boxes didn’t make the first image in our mind, instead, most of us with think of a rectangular houses with pinch roofs, thanks to the birth of post modernism.

To understand the concept of postmodernism, it would be crucial to mention Venturi’s theory of the “decorated shed” as counterpart of the duck house, the duck house is a house that is obvious of its purpose, it sells duck eggs, however the decorated shed represent an architecture of ambiguity, without a sign (hence, decoration), the identity of the building remains ambiguousม, Thus, the purpose, function of the shed is determined by the decoration such as the sign. This concept became a significant point in understanding postmodern architecture, as opposing to the purity and clarity of the previous era of modernism. Postmodernism avoided clarity and the “either-or” concept of modern architecture, postmodern prefers “both-and”, which overall, makes the postmodern building very broad and somewhat generic in concept. While the modernists would choose either black or white, the postmodernists would go for “black and white…or sometimes grey”, they values the ambiguity, complexity and contradiction in architecture.  Furthermore, Venturi also commented some of the modernists’ famous work to be quite complex and contradiction in its manner, basically saying that actually, these buildings fall into his categories of postmodernism, such example would be Le Corbusier’s masterpiece, the Villa Savoye, where he said, despite the plain and simplistic exterior, the plan of the interior present complexity and this is a contradiction to modern architecture overall.

Personally, I’ve found Venturi’s theory to be not as strong as Le Corbusier, not that I prefer modernism more than postmodernism but his way of getting his point across in his manisfesto is harder to understand and interpret. Saying that, I do understand his decorated shed theory and how postmodernism is all about the ambiguity in opposition to the clarity and transparency of modernism, to put it simply, I think Venturi’s architecture failed to make an impression in my head, thus I might not understand his intention fully, as I recognized Venturi’s point more strongly when he used the Villa Savoye as an example. Another reason why I might feel that Venturi’s point is weaker than most of the modernists’ might be because that we’re as a generation, so used to the idea of postmodernism already, it seems quite ordinary to the point of mundane to us, thus I felt that Venturi didn’t surprise me, or create that “realizing moment” that Le Corbusier did in “Towards new Architecture”.

Beside that, I felt quite strange when I think that an architecture that embodied Venturi’s postmodern concept of the decorated shed is the shop houses here in Bangkok, think about it, like a shed, a shop house is utterly generic and mundane in the exterior, yet the function and its purpose of it is defined by the decoration such as signage and facades similar to the decorated shed. However, the interior of shop houses and be quite different from each other, each shop house could be adjusted to be unique in its own way, thus in the interior it represents the complexity and contradiction to the exterior. Hence, this idea can also be applied to erotic architecture since I defined erotic as being mysterious and ambiguous, it draws us in and urge us to explore and investigate, which during this process, interaction and even intimacy could occur. Similarly the shop house and postmodern architectures might looks quite mundane, but the interior could represent a different story, personally, I’m always fascinated each time I got to go inside and “explore” beyond the “shop area” of a shop house. Each floors can be quite exciting and I’m in a way, always find something quite surprising during this experience. Thus, that’s why I felt that a shop house embodied this idea of a decorated shed and represent complexity and contradiction. This idea also embodies erotic architecture, the unclear and ambiguity of the architecture teases us, lures us in to explore, and while doing so, captivated us with its tightness, compact and unique quality which had become the identity of its own.

Onward From Modernism

Modernism hss been one of the main object of discuss for the past few weeks, how non-bourgeois, how (supposedly) functional, how it represent a modern era for new future. However, humans are still human, we are still fascinated with warmth and at times overridden with emotions, we don’t want to be a machine and thus, it is expressed through the obsession of bright colored automobiles which are parked close against the grey, white modern buildings. I am not against modern building; a good building is a good building whatever the style (or the lack of one). Yet I do question it, of when this conformity will be break, when will someone or something new will emerge and will be strong enough to compete with the great modernism power or at its best, stand along with modernism with no shame.

Then came along architects like Saarinen, who dares to break through the straight lines and play with curves successfully, what is particularly interesting is that these curves are not random, they are a part of the concept, they do have a purpose, they’re not for ornamentation. Then there’re also Louis Kahn, whose architecture used the past as inspiration not abandoned it, I’ve found his concept to be inspiring as a person who is also fascinated with history. I like how his building does not only occupy people nor that it’s a machine, for example, the National Assembly Building in Dhaka, Bangladesh, which fully reflected on the Bangladesh identity, I feel that a good building should does that, it needs to care, about the context, about the occupants. Another one of my favorite, Alvar Aalto, I liked how he purposely captured the Finnish spirit in his work, how he uses local material in the order to goves out a cultural ambience which build a connection between his architecture and occupants. Thus these elements does have meanings, they do exhibits a sort of function like the ripple ceiling in the Viipuri Library, which were there for acoustic but also became a dominant aesthetical features and ultimately, the identity of the architecture as well.

Yes, I’ll admit that I do prefer this new style that the international style as I feel that it requires more creativity, more exploration and the outcome is much wider in terms of concepts and of course, the aesthetics. I’ve mention before that besides from the “white gods”, those that claimed themselves modernist were basically conforming, copying from the book, I think that architecture is about inventing, always creating a better way, learn from the old to improve the new. I admired these people to dare break the restriction of the modern architecture, dare to invites curves back into architecture, to me, that shows the ability of a great architect; the ability to always think of the future without abandoning the past.

The one and only...Le Corbusier

Response to Le Corbusier’s “Towards a New Architecture” and “Playtime” by Jacques Tati

To every (well, most of) architectural students or architects, living in the world of Le Corbusier would be like a trip to Narnia (whether you like it or not). We’ve heard so much about him, his creation and his legacy. His works stand today, still looking as “modern” as he intended to. Thus, proving that the concept of never be “out of style” in his modern buildings true. Whether do you agree with his theory or not, you have to give the man some credits, remembering that he had achieved all of what seems today as “normal” in the first half of the 20^th century and most of the buildings nowadays inevitably had some of his influences more or less. According to his manisfesto, “a house is the machine for living” in the sense that should have been governed by calculations and “standards”. Le Corbusier was fascinated with the idea of “mass production” (remembering that this was in the early 20^th century), factories fascinated him with their simple forms and pure functions as with automobiles which were mass produced and designed to fit a certain standard. To achieve the utmost perfection, there must be a certain standards which derives from various calculations and experiments, Le Corbusier believes that all humans have a certain standards and are physically the same, he went further to the point of “objectifying” his name from “Charles-Edouard Jeanneret” to Le Corbusier, “Le” means “the”.

Why do his buildings are all so minimal, blunt?  It is because he believed in the true pure primary forms, which he believed that “they can be clearly appreciated”. Gothic buildings, are not true architecture, “the styles are a lie”. Nevertheless, architectures from the past that he did admire were the pyramids, Pont du Gard and also the Parthenon all of which he stated, to have been derived from some standards and precise calculations. Thus, it almost all of his buildings, the simple pure geometrical forms became the most recognizable feature of his architecture as eventually what we recognize in most modern building nowadays. 

        

So what would it be like to live in Le Corbusier city? Besides from moving to a little town in Northern India called “Chandigargh” where his “Radiant city” had been made into reality, a film by Jacques Tati, “Playtime” offer you quite a good idea of what would it be like if his creation and principles were made into reality. The film displays the struggle of an out-of-town man hoping to meet up with a man in Le Corbusier’s version of Paris. Here, the director’s point of view towards Corbusier was clear, that it would be a blunt, grey, boring society where everything, everywhere and everyone would sort of look the same. The modern standards and mass-produced society would erases identity to the point that we only recognize it’s Paris by the old French lady selling flowers at the street corner. I personally admired Le Corbusier who came up with all of these things that today, seems ordinary. We have to admit that without some of his theory, the world would be different today. However I think that the radiant city is a bit too far, hence, I agree to Tati’s viewpoint presented on the film. At first glance, it looks aesthetically pleasing with everything in order, nice modern high rises and the glass and steel structure but as we watched the film, I started to feel the coldness, lack of warmth in the society, in the environment. It leads to the point of becoming a bit haunting, when Hawaii, New York and London would practically look the same and we couldn’t distinguish the nationalities of people without hearing them speak various languages. I do appreciate Le Corbusier for his contribution to today’s architecture, his theory was inspiring and I do appreciate and admire his creation of the human’s standard, however, his creations should only be kept in a decent scale. As shown in Playtime, the “Radiant City” lacks warmth and identity; to the point that it was so honest that in return I felt that it decreases some of my imaginative thoughts. We do value our freedom of choice so why should we set against our individuality and become some sort a mass-produced product. 

Mies van der Rohe - the true modernist...or is he?

Fransworth House, steel and glass construction, as perfect and flawless and it could be...

Mie’s Seagram Building, New York, looks  as modern as it can be...

Mies van der Rohe, to us architects (or to-be-architects), is the name that cannot be forgotten. To those not so familiar with the topic, he is more recognized for his famous saying, “Less is more”…and indeed, that is what he strived for, minimalistic, simplest, the “least as possible” forms. Mies was unarguably one of the masters of modernism; he has such character and charisma that someone as “bourgeois” as Adolf Hitler asked him to design the Nazi building for him.

Mies was one of the modernists, those that prefer the glass box, the simplest of forms and the use of honest materials. Like many architects of his time that worshipped the “international style”, Mies had written a rule amongst his followers, basically to be as far away from the ornamented, decorative architectural elements that remind him of the bourgeois as much as possible.

To understand this fully, these architects avoids the ornaments of the previous style because their ideal design was the house for the “working class”, where everything supposed to be functional, representing the true purpose of the materials. The idea of the “worker” house is that it would be pure, simple and functional, intentionally made for the workers, and above all of the things, non-bourgeois.

However, this idea of making the “worker house” for the workers is quite ironic, when Mies fled Germany to create a new era in the U.S. he did bring over his famous style, and many of his “modernist” buildings are well known and are still the landmarks until today. Still, his intention was the same; functional, houses for the working class but Mies had somehow got over boarded and forgot his true intention as he design more and more buildings. To explain this, Mies had became more and more well known that most of his clients are the wealthy people instead, in the other word, it was the bourgeois themselves who were living’s in Mies’ non-bourgeois buildings. Mies was famous for his small details and his preciseness, to the point that in the order to achieve that ultimate minimalist effect, it would actually takes more time and money to make his creation looks absolutely flawless. For example, his famous “Fransworth House”, needed extra money and labor to construct his flawless, steel floated foundation; the pieces and bolts needed to be cut and grinded to perfection, resulting in a more expensive piece, that only, the bourgeois were able to afford. Another one of his famous building, the Seagram building in New York also exemplify similar contradictory, first he uses bronze-tinge glass, to suit the liquor company, yet it’s a kind of “decoration”, but Mies got away with this saying, “bronze is a natural material”. Also, his well known use of “I beams” on the side of his buildings was a sort of “decoration” as well, since all of the steel beams inside needed to be cast in concrete to prevent fire, Mies felt the need that his structure needed to express the “true materials” thus, he stuck the I beams on the exterior of his building as for it to scream, “hey, look at me, I’m here inside the concrete”.

The bronze glazed glass and stuck on I beams...? isn’t they, sort of  decorations?

The beams seem to have been “glue” together, a result of hours  of labour, cutting the bolt and grinned them  into perfection.

But, wait, isn’t decoration, the utmost “bourgeois” things that Mies wants to avoid? The answer is yes, but you see, in the order to keep his building as perfect, flawless and utterly “Mies van der Rohe’s style” as much as possible, Mies had broken his own rules, he was being bourgeois while trying to make his buildings appeared non-bourgeois. My assumption is that, Mies was a great architect, however, he did get caught in his own style so much that, he was not willing to change. When his style itself, became only affordable to the bourgeois and the buildings themselves were becoming bourgeois, he did not want to admit this… In a way, Mies himself had redefined the definition of “bourgeois”, nowadays, when we think of the rich, upper-middle class, we do not only see them living in the classical, grand, ornamented mansion but also the modern, minimalistic, steel and glass boxes too.