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 20th 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 20th 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.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น