2011年9月29日 星期四

The Modern Residence. Weissenfhofsiedlung exhibition 1927

Towards the end of the Art Nouveau movement, designers and architects were still trying to define “style”. A particular designer, Adolf Loos, was able to come up with a new style that was intriguing and long lasting. Loos' dissatisfaction towards ornamentation caused him to create an architecture that involved less labor on the ornaments, and was more economical.

When Van de Velde wanted to “eliminate the distinction between the craftsman and the artist, Loos saw the split between them as irreversible”[1]. Loos saw differences between them. Loos' way of ornamenting an architecture was not by molding images or forms onto the materials, but by using just the materials. He embraced the natural beauty of the materials, and thought that if it was to be manufactured into an ornamented piece of art, then it would be a waste. According to his essay, Ornament of Crime, manufactured ornaments was a waste and took too much labor. This essay was aiming to despise Art Nouveau, Jugensdtil, and Werkbund movements.

One of his project, Loohaus, was aim to illustrate how using less manufactured ornaments on the surface of materials could still be beautiful. His design was influenced by Picasso's art work and Cubism. Loos took the geometries within Picasso's work and incorporated it into his architecture. When looking at the Loohaus, one could see that 1.) he used materials to express its natural beauty, and 2.) he added mirrors on the wall to abstract and replicate the geometry forms to create the feel of Picasso's art work.

Rolph Loos: “Loohaus”

Pablo Picasso: “Cubism”

For his private house, he incorporated the Cubism style into the spaces. His design style was unique and different from all other architects back then. Instead of drawing “plans, facades, or sections...the ground floor, first floor does not exist.... There are only interconnected continual spaces, rooms, halls, terraces...” [2]. He did not like to work with flat planes. He favored the idea of creating hierarchy interior spaces of heights for functionality. His project, Villa Muller, would be one of the best example for his favorite way of designing. The spaces within Villa Muller were all different, but were connected. Although Villa Buller's interior spaces seemed to all connect, Loos was still able to separate the public and private spaces.


Rolph Loos: “Villa Muller”

Diagram of Enclosure

At the Weissenfhofsiedlung Exhibition of 1927, a member of the Werkbund, Peter Behren, designed his house, House 31, using terraces and hierarchy of spaces. This design was similar to Loos' Scheu House. Both of the designers used terraces; however, the usage of the terraces were different. For Behren, he was studying how ventilation could benefit the user's health. His believed that “In order to make some impact on tuberculosis, it is apparent that every dwelling, even in a multistory building, needs to have a sizable space open to the sky.” [3]. Loos' Scheu House, on the other hand, did not open up to the sky, the structure was enclosed because he wanted to protect the user, and to create an obvious separation of public exterior and private interior spaces.


Diagram showing how the layers were stacked, and how Behren planned out the location for his terraces.

The exterior facade for House 31 was very similar to the facade of Loos' Scheu House. Both designers did not use overly ornamented materials; instead, they allowed the material to express its natural beauty. Also, the form of the structure were very cubic-like, and seemed as if the spaces were compact.


Peter Behren: “House 31”


Rolph Loos: “Scheu House”


 
Another member of the Werkbund, Victor Bourgeois, designed the House 10 at the Weissenfhofsiedlung Exhibition of 1927. The floor plan that he had developed was similar to that of Loos' floor plan for Scheu House. There were three main spaces within the house.

Programtic Diagram

Adolf Loos: “Scheu House Floor Plan”
Website: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjq65SzVlbjTsKVQ3eHI0dhIo5GiGgdPww5UFkUYwl17UeS9RDJM0VY93jJ9Oe0D8JHreHRoH7s_Lc7aHj8HieQoeF43wwRDoQ-wOG-2jOKLR775rSlHPXSW0Omn7h1dtNrYTmmF3E7fviM/s1600/scheu.jpg

For Bourgeois, the three spaces were divided for programatic purposes. The blue area highlighted the area of transitional spaces: the hallway, main vertical transition, and the entrances to the house. The pink area highlighted spaces that were semi-public areas, which included spaces that protected the users from the climate. The orange area highlighted spaces that were private, and those included bedroom and bathroom.

For Loos, the three spaces were divided for defining the load-bearing walls. Which also defined the hierarchy of spaces to create visual interest and functionality. The Kitchen and bathroom area seemed to be the less important area, so the space was compact. The Dining room and the transitional space seemed a bit more important, so the space was bigger than the first space. As for the least compact space, those spaces were more important, and it included the upper level of the house.

Although the three designers had different aspect on what the modern architecture style should be, they all had a few similarities in their design that they borrowed from the precedences of previous movements and designers. The use of new technology was very common; as a result, this brought them to a competition on who was the best at developing modern architecture out of them, and the result came out as infinite possibilities.



[1] Colquhoun, Alan. Modern Architecture. Pub 2002. Oxford University Press. p 74-80
[2] ARCH 329. "Adolf Loos". Powerpoint.
[3] Kirsch, Karen. The Weissenhofsiedlung.  Rizzoli International Publications Inc. Published 1989. p 178.
Posted by at 1 則留言:

2011年9月15日 星期四

Art Nouveau

After the period of Viollet-le-Duc, Ruskin, and Semper, another set of architects/designers came into the picture. Those three men were Horta, Guimard, and Van der Velde. They had unique ways of fabricating the style for the Art Nouveau period. Each of them had their own influences on how they think, write, design, and contribute to the Art Nouveau to come up with the more modern architecture.

Victor Horta was a follower of Viollet-le-Duc's constructional rationalism. While he was in school, he try to further develop the neoclassical style. Besides being influenced by Viollet-le-Duc, he was most influenced by Poelaert and his work “Palais de Justice” in Brussels”. Also, he liked the Egyptian style, along with the Italian Mannerism. Because of all the influences, his designs were eclectic.


Victor Horta: "Hotel Tassel"


When he designed his architecture, Hotel Tassel, for example, he exposed the steel structure proudly, and added ornaments to the facades and interior of the house using the style of the French and English decorative arts. For the interior, he used the plant-like form pattern to make the interior look “natural”, and shaped the iron to create the similar pattern as the flooring and the wall. Because he was so inspired by the “crowding, over scaling, and superimposition”[1] of details, he tends to focus a lot on the ornamentality of the structure. He believed that a house should not just reflect life but also portrait the person or the owner. So to incorporate his belief in architecture, instead of using simple form to design the floor plan, he layered his floor plans so that it interpenetrate with other spaces. This allowed the spaces to interact and connect. Also, it helped create zones of transition.

Hector Guimard was also influenced by Viollet-le-Duc's Gothic Rationalism; however, he was not so fascinated by the Middle Ages that Viollet-le-Duc been through. He was influenced by the British Arts and Crafts movement, so he liked to work with modern technology and materials. From the influences, he was able to model brick surfaces and iron details so that they blend and seem as one. His strong designing technique was to create a large space within a narrow spaced city by using the unique form of oval and diagonal axes. This also led him to create curvilinear and plastic forms using metal.



Hector Guimard: "Paris Metro"


For one of his project, Paris Metro, the form came from his inspiration of natural forms. He incorporated this style into the design by molding the iron and created the curvilinear form to the entrance to bring liveliness into the entrance.

Henry Van der Velde was a socialist that “hoped that industrial mass production of his objects might make visual quality available to the broad masses.”[2] To him, designing chairs or houses, the ornaments are the must need because it completes the form, the structure, and it is symbolic. He was influenced by the English Arts and Crafts Society and Morris. Van der Velde took Morris' philosophy of defining art as the expression in work. Also, he was inspired by the Impressionists, the social realist imagery of Millet, and the paintings of Gauguin. Because of his influences, he designed things with strong meanings.



 Hector Guimard: "Chair"

When he designed his house, he also designed the furniture within the house. His project Chair, for example, was one of his best work. With just one chair, he was able to incorporate strong meaning into it. He used curves to flow with the way that human would sit. The curves and the diagonals help balance out the dynamic in a structure. Also, he was able to make the parts flow together smoothly.

Although the three designers all had different influences; however, they all had one thing in common. They transformed their design significantly from the beginning of them learning and actually doing work. Their forms were usually tightly constrained by the influence of Viollet-le-Duc's



[1] Willis, Alfred. “Mannerism, Nature and Abstraction: The Early Architectural Designs of Victor Horta.”
[2] Curtis, William J.R. “Modern Architecture Since 1900.” 3rd. New York: Phaidon Press Inc, 1982, 1987, 1996. Print.
Posted by at 1 則留言:

2011年9月5日 星期一

Reflections on Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-le-Duc

During the late 19th Century, many things were starting to change. Industrial Revolution was starting to emerge, modernizing everything from people to technology to architecture. There were three gentlemen, Gottfried Semper, John Ruskin, and Eugene Viollet-le-Duc, trying to figure out the best way to define “new style” for architecture. Each of them had different theories, outlook, and approaches on trying to create and restore architecture in their own modernized way.


So what exactly is modernism? According to Dictionary.com 1, modernism is “a 20th-century architectural style characterized by undecorated rectilinear forms and the use of glass, steel, and reinforced concrete.” Semper and Viollet-le-Duc would agree with this definition; however, Ruskin would despise this definition.


Although he follows the same Gothic architecture movement as Viollet-le-Duc; however, he has completely different view on it. Architecture, to Ruskin, was something that needed to be natural without using glass, steel, and reinforced concrete. He seemed to despise new architecture so much that he would say, “We want no new style of architecture... It does not matter one marble splinter whether we have an old or new architecture... The forms of architecture already known are good enough for us, and far better than any of us... A man who has the gift, will take up any style that is going... and will work in that, and be great in that...”2. Which means, he would rather mimic the architecture invented before his time period than trying to come up with something new. He strongly believed that looking backwards to history was more natural than trying to come up with unacceptable inventions like using the new materials and abstracting, or destroying as Ruskin may define it, the old architectural forms. His reasoning was due to mostly religion. He also despised machines and the thought of restoring historical buildings. His idea of architecture was something sculptural and artistic, so he thought that if machines were used, then the architecture period that he favored would die out. Also, if the buildings were to be restored or even touched, then it would be destroyed, and it should be preserved.


For Semper, he believed that the spaces and forms were to follow the idea of sociopolitical context. This idea was the result of his involvement with the 1849 revolution. He was more into Greek architecture than Gothic architecture. Which later allowed him to discover the four elements of architecture: hearth, substructure, roof, and enclosure.3 Hearth being the main area or central element. Substructure, or platform, being the part of the structure that will hold the hearth up from the ground. Roof being the piece that protects the fire from the rain. Also Enclosure being the part that would keep the wind and cold out. With these elements of process, he later discovered an equation to use the four elements. These elements were the precedent ideas for the curtain walls, which was his invention for modern architecture. With the elements as his base, he was able to transform them into something more intelligent and was able to use these transformations to restore his Opera House.






Semper, “Opera House”


Being so much more active as a Gothic architect follower than Ruskin, Viollet-le-Duc did many things completely different than Ruskin and Semper. Viollet-le-Duc would rather use technology and new materials to create something that he called architecture. One of his project at a market place, he exposed iron proudly and so boldly that he gets criticized; however, he does not mind any of the criticism because that was his theory and idea of modern Gothic architecture. He believed that using new material was being natural. He studied the structure from looking at autonomy structure of organisms like human and animals.




Viollet-le-Duc. A market place. (Pevsner)


For Viollet-le-Duc, when restoring historical buildings, he quoted that, “To restore a building is not just to preserve it, to repair it, and to remodel it, it is to re-instate it in a complete state such as it may never have been in at any given moment.” (Pevsner). So when he restored the Carcassonne, he made it so different from its original using different slanted cones, texiles, and colors.


 

Viollet-le-Duc. Carcassonne


The three gentlemen, Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-le-Duc, all had complete different mindset on what modern architecture would and should be. Ruskin was more on the keep the historical side, Semper was more about using his four elements, and Viollet-le-Duc was all about using the new technology and materials to experiment. Those differences were the result of today's modern architecture.







1http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/modernism
2Pevsner, Nikolaus. “Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc: Englishness and Frenchness in the Appreciation of Gothic Architecture.” Thames and Hudson London.
3Semper & Ruskin Powerpoint from Class Lecture August 30.


Posted by at 1 則留言:

Welcome~

Dear Readers,

I, Emily Yu, is currenly a 3rd year Architecture student at Ball State University, and I want to thank you all for visiting and reading my ARCH 329 blogs.

Here I will posts up discussions on the readings about history of architecture. The time line will start from the late 19th century to the present. During these periods, there were many things that has happened for the architects to create architecture that exists now. More details will be blogged.

Hope in the future, you all will enjoy reading my blog entries. Comments on my blog entries are highly appreciated!


Thank you all!
Posted by at 沒有留言:
訂閱： 文章 (Atom)