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.
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.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น