Comments on: Architecture and Modernism

By: Fabian

Fabian — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:02:27 +0000

Modernism in architecture is full of contradiction. Many statements could be considered appropriated or correct, but as a large scale movement many cases will show us that most of the arguments are justifications for ideas more related to aesthetics and personal desire than product of a true rational thinking. They can appear as convincing as the arguments of a good lawyer, but in many cases modernist architects fail in their pretension of using science as argument and act in the less scientific way. Data and facts are gathered as convenience to justify their theories, instead of building their theories upon the facts, as result we can see beautiful buildings, some of them very good but in many cases they actually don’t have a use, while function was supposed to be their main cause. Huge projects embracing modern ideals are demolished or vacant, and when we review most of modern literature, we may see a desire of imposing forms over others, a legacy of geometry and shapes based on personal viewpoints, which is the less scientific way of developing ideas, instead of observing the reality. Even Le Corbusier can be a genius designing some of its houses, but especially when it comes to urban scales the pseudo scientific methods of modernist architects fail in their attempts to extend to real complexity what they built up in a more reduced scale where it still was possible to use raise hypotheses without the needed analytical background necessary in science. The rigor needed to raise a scientific theory in terms of analysis and data collection cannot be skipped in order to raise ideals which at the end are just driven by personal convictions and at the end still depend on aesthetic or subjective base pretending to be objective.

By: JEHANNE ZEIDAN

JEHANNE ZEIDAN — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:47:31 +0000

I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE INTENTIONS OF LE CORBUSIER AND TILL WHAT LIMIT HE SUCCEDED TO APPLY THESE INTENTIONS IN HIS WORK AND LIKE I SEE VILLA SAVOY IS THE PERFECT “EXPERIMENTAL” EXAMPLE REVEALING HIS VISION TO DEAL WITH A NEW SPACE.THE PERIOD OF 20′S WAS DEFINE BY THE PROSPERITY OF WILLING NEW FORMS OF LIVING BY ARCHITECTS LIKE LE CORBUSIER.AND IF WE HAD THE CHANCE TO VISIT ONE OF HIS REALISATIONS LIKE LA VILLA SAVOY ,JUST BEFORE ENTERING WILL FEEL THAT THIS “OBJECT” LAYING ON THIS GREEN SURFACE EXIST FOR A REASON,FOR REVEALING THE NEED TO EXPRESS AN IDEA A NEW CONCEPT BEFORE ASKING THE QUESTION WHO WILL LIVE IN THIS ARCHITECTURE A QUESTION WILL APPEAR TO US SO EVIDENT HOW CAN SOMEONE DEAL WITH A SPACE LIKE THIS.THERE IS MORE THAN JUST LIVING IN IT THERE SHOULD BE A WILL OF INTERACTION WITH EVERY ELEMENT BEING PART OF ALL.THERE IS A CONCIOUS OF THE “SPACE”.A CONCIOUS OF BEING HER ON THE TERRACE ,LIKE OUTSIDE,INSIDE FACING THE HORIZONTAL VIEW,…
ITS A SPACE THAT PUSH US TO OBSERVE IT TO OBSERVE THE PERSPECTIVE THROUGHT IT.TO BE ACTIVE IN CONTACT WITH THE SPACE CONFIGURED BY LE CORBSIER.THE ARCHITECTURE OF LE CORBUSIER HATE PASSIVITY,THERE ONLY ACTIVITY ,A TENSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SEROUNDING.AND ITS FROM THIS ISSUE THAT THE IDEA OF THE HOUSE IS LIKE THE MACHINE IMERGED.THERE IS ENERGY ALWAYS IN MOVEMENT,THERE IS ALWAYS INTERACTION,FROM THE VISION ,THE SENSES IN CONTACT WITH EVERY STEP WE MAKE DURING EVOLUTION IN THE VILLA SAVOY.
SO THE ARCHITECTURE DEAL WITH THE HUMAN LIKE A PART OFF A HALL SYSTEM THAT IS THE LIVING CONCEPT.FROM THIS MOMENT THE EGOCENTRIC HUMAN IS REPLACED BY THE DYNAMIC INTERACTIVE ONE.

By: Richard Gringeri

Richard Gringeri — Tue, 27 May 2008 14:33:07 +0000

Buildings do appear to recommend ways of living, which as such are rightly debatable. But if I choose to live in de Lampedusa’s Sicilian Baroque palazzo, do I thereby embrace a life of decadence and desuetude evoked in his “The Leopard”? By the same token, does living in Le Corbu’s country home above mean that I embrace industry, frugality and sobriety?
Couldn’t the space just as readily shelter a life of idleness, wastefulness and self-indulgence? There is no question that form dictates function to some extent, but is it always or necessarily so? The author raises this question without resolving it.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sun, 27 May 2007 23:27:25 +0000

This generation’s dandy’s oversimplified and unverifiable generalizations simmered in a teapot as a digestif for the likes of the readership of Architectural Digest.