So what is a “junkspace”? It is simply an architecture that ignores all the surroundings and its context and stand tall on their own, creating a totally new context within itself. Yes, a new era for architecture has begun. With all the computer technology today, we are now able to explore a totally new concept of architecture that comes up every once in a while. Architectural design has been stretched beyond its earlier limitations and a new forms and functions are continuously introduced.
This week’s lecture takes us fast through the postmodernism era and explore expressionists’ architectures. So the question is that is expressionism wrong? Do they destroyed everything that is architectural and turns the subject into something that is too literal? Yes, they took the concept of “form follows function” word-by-word and make a building that takes forms of their own desire. For example, a duck building that inside is selling, obviously, duck.
However, there are also great architects that makes interesting shapes and revolutionize the architectural world by being expressive. Due to the development of technology in architecture, buildings are not confined to only be a box and rectangles anymore. Architects like Frank Gehry or Zaha Hadid designs their building to have curvature and complexity.
In conclusion, there is no right or wrong in architecture (if it doesn’t collapse). One may find it to be a shallow end towards architecture and some may find it spectacular and prefer the building in unique forms.
This week’s lecture take us to a discussion on “Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture” by Robert Venturi. When we look at the very specific concept of Modernism where it’s either “right” or “wrong”, “Bourgeois” or “Non-Bourgeois”, “Black” or “White”, if you could not choose where you stand, there’s always “Post-Modernism”
From the book, we discussed and tries to tell the difference between being “complex” and “complicated”. They are not the same, in fact they are almost the opposite of each other. Complexity can also mean simple and pure while complicated is just, well..., complicated. Post-Modernism plays between the area of being white and black, and does not limiting themselves to any set of rules. I like the fact that post-modernist architects are free and didn’t force their designs but rather making it flexible and adaptable.
Playtime by Jacques Tati
This week, we take a brief peek at the film “Playtime” by Jacque Tati. There is a reason this film was shown in our history class. Although we did not get the chance to see the whole film, it is already clear what Jacques was trying to express through the movie. “Playtime” clearly shows the viewpoint of the director towards the modernism era. The film starts out in the airport and right from the very first scene we see how the architecture and interior looks like at the time, big glass facade building with geometric arranging inside. To their eyes, the architecture may seem futuristic but it would soon become just a normal building in the present day. Yes, the buildings shown in the film, they are seen all over in Bangkok.
The films follows a tour group of American ladies arriving in Paris. They are clearly fascinated by the modernism era but what is funny to me is that the buildings all look very similar, if not the same. There are also posters showing different countries with exactly the same type of architecture on it. Furthermore, there are also a chair that turns to its original shape once the user gets up, how the main character gets lost through all the cubicle office, it is clear up to this point that Jacques Tati is trying to mock the modernism era.
I find the film really amusing and very enjoyable to watch.
Julius Shulman was one of my favorite architectural photographer, being was one of the best and still is in my heart. He expresses architecture in the period of modernism through photographs with a glimpse on the people living in the house. Not only the architectures he shot are iconic but it is also undeniable that the photographs of Julius Schulman is as iconic as well. The uniqueness of Julius’ photos must be how he captures the most beautiful design element from the architecture and expresses it together with the lifestyle of the habitant.
Shulman’s work is not considered a “product of architecture” but the work itself demands that it is an independent form of art. As said above, every images taken by Shulman really has its uniqueness of his perception to the architecture and his understanding of the relation between the building and its context. His pictures are so beautifully composited that it makes many of his work an iconic architectural photos of the modernism era. As he believes that the precise compositions reveal not just the architectural idea behind a building’s surface, but also the vision and hopes of an entire age. A sense of humanity is always present in his work, even when the human figure is absent from the actual photographs. In contrast, Placing people in the architecture shows architecture being functional. When people appears in the picture, the audience would draw themselves to be one of those and by this, the audience of the photograph see another dimension of architecture where they get involve as a part of the architecture by seeing sample of how it can be use, live and work in the architecture.
Julius Schulman has taught me so much about the little details in architecture and he will always live in my heart.
This week’s lecture take us to Mies Van de Rohe, a world-renowned modernism architect and still refers to our previous study on “From Bauhaus to Our House”. He was one of the very important avant-garde of the modernism movement and one of my favorite architect due to the fact that his designs are all based on “Less is More” concept.
There is no doubt the “Barcelona chair” Mies Van de Rohe designed is a masterpiece. It is not often that you come across furniture that stays popular through decades of new trends that comes and goes. However, I still find this piece of furniture quite ironic since from the reading “From Bauhaus to Our House”, Mies was one of the architects who believed in designing for the non-bourgeois. How could this expensive chair, ranging at 6 digits number of price be any non-bourgeois, it is clearly for the bourgeois who can afford this much. They are also difficult to mass produce which also contradicts the fact that this chair is from a non-bourgeois designer. However, despite the fact that this notorious (to myself) chair is not a non-bourgeois design, it could not be argue that it is a masterpiece. Owning this chair simply means you’re investing on a piece of history, an icon of modernism.
Today’s History of Architecture’s class takes us to a movie that has brief connections with the lesson we learned previously, “From Bauhaus to our House” and the film is called “Metropolis” by Fritz Lang. It is a silent film done right, so a lot of the the meaning must be interpreted visually. The film explores the relationship and an oxymoron against human and machines. Since this is a history of architecture class, the analysis of this film will be approached through an architectural perspective. Throughout my analysis I will try to look to different scenes and attempt to analyze the space in the film through my understanding of the architectural history.
The film strongly interpret urbanity. Metropolis starts off with images of structures operating mechanically and suddenly my mind goes to “the industrial age”. There are clear juxtaposition going on in the film between the workers and thinkers or in metaphoric term, humans and machines. Without the heart and understanding, the thinkers and workers would not unite as a whole unit. The film contrasts the two group by showing the workers are working deep under the ground while the thinkers all live in skyscrapers. The workers all dressed the same, work through an endless hours, removed all the identity of humans, they are almost... like a robot.
In conclusion to the movie, Rotwang decided to expresses robots to be human-like and how the human workers are controlled like machines. The movie shows the ugly truth of the human traits and how we sometimes get lost through all the technological fuzz around us.
