Because the damned shop was closed...

Weekly Response #3

Quotes I liked:
The wall is where architecture “takes place.”
“Familiar things seen in an unfamiliar context become perceptually new as well as old.”
“…It is asserted that the modern movement above all was interested in utility and efficiency.” 
“Loss of place.”
“Everything in the world is a product of the formula function times economy.”

“Functionalism.”  Art or science.  Why either/or?  Venturi takes a “both/and” stance when it comes to architecture, and yet the controversy surrounding “functionalism” seems to be staunchly black and white.  Why can’t a building be functional AND beautiful?  Louis Sullivan seemed to think it was possible.  But his definition of functionalism also limits the use of decoration on a building.  Essentially, functional architecture would just consist of giant box-buildings.  And sometimes, that’s okay!  Warehouses don’t need to masquerade as Craftsman-style homes (SLO Costco, I’m looking at you).  Their function is to provide a simple shelter on a large scale, without all of the frippery that comes with the idea of “architecture as art.”  Moreover, the idea of beauty is totally subjective.  Mies van der Rohe and Gropius sought to address the artistic side of architecture, yet designed buildings that look very boxy, which were then found to be “aesthetically satisfying.”  How can this style of architecture, which looks to be devoid of anything but rational expression, convey the “emotional content of the period?” 
I suppose in terms of art, I’ve always leaned more towards Raphael, rather than Mondrian.  So it follows that I am more pleased with ornamented architecture than with most designs that came out of the “modern” movement.  Conversely, I am also a fan of Calatrava’s designs.  For the most part, his buildings are balanced between functional minimalism and gracefully organic lines.

“The [modern] movement simply recognized that it is an illusion to believe that real improvements may be obtained through rationalistic planning.”  This opinion seems almost absurd.  Of course problems can be solved by rationalism!  The whole idea of “architecture as a science” is based on that idea.  The movement also stresses that “improvements have to grow out of life itself, that is, from a deepened sense of being in the world.”  And yet out of this movement come the buildings of le Corbusier, Gropius, and Mies van der Rohe—buildings that symbolize the separation of man from the world.  Out of “observation, emotion, and fantasy,” only the first is objective.  The latter two have more relevance in the whimsical designs of Gothic or Moorish architecture (or most religious building types between the 14th-16th centuries).  But again, the whole concept is subjective, a zeitgeist in taste.  The texture and detail of Gothic architecture and classical paintings from the 1500s is up against the geometric compositions of “modern” architecture and art from the early-mid 1900s.

“In general, the ‘open plan’ should make room for ‘modern life.’”  Emphasize the structure, and let the space get sorted out.  This is where I feel the movement wants to start to come together.  Louis Kahn said that this was the way for a building to know “what it wants to be.”  But this kind of honesty in architecture seems to contradict the fact that the Modernists frowned on rational planning.  In terms of functionality, what could be more so than an open floor plan, adaptable to the complex and contradictory needs of man?  I do agree that the movement resulted in a “loss of place.”  The challenge, then, is to find an architectural style that is contextual as well as expressive.  Here’s a hint: there’s more than one right answer!