Comparing Architectural Styles - Essay Example

?Comparing Architectural Styles Introduction In this era of advanced technical knowhow society as well as culture has also undergone numerous changes. Such changes have also touched the field of architecture. In due course of time there have been many creative innovations especially in the architectural style. Frank Gehry and Le Corbusier have been the most distinct styles of architecture. Both the styles have major contributions in creations of some of the most well known buildings in this world. But the two styles have been quite distinct. Frank Gehry involves construction adding a playful as well as whimsical touch while Le Corbusier is a much more simplified one (Comparing Architectural Styles). The essay intends to present a detailed comparison of the two architectural styles thereby giving a vivid description of both the styles.  Architecture can be regarded as the greatest skill or art that human beings have developed. He has made the effective use of the art to create spaces and utilize the total space for his own usage (Jones 1). The development of architectural skills originated from the Renaissance period. Buildings were inspired by religious beliefs as well as mythologies. From 1980s onwards changes began to take place in the area of modern architecture. There emerged the era of postmodernism. Development of a proper theory helped in changing attitudes towards design and innovative ideas. Modern architecture was chiefly concerned with improvisation of prevailing human conditions. For this purpose it led to assimilation of nature and technology. Overall all this evolvement has helped people in developing new skills (Heyer, 84). In recent times the most well known international styles of architecture has been Le Corbusier and Frank Gehry. Villa Savoy in France is inspired by Le Corbusier architectural style while Guggenheim Museum in Spain has been designed according to Frank Gehry style of architecture. Both of the styles have been influenced by cultural orientation (Comparing Architectural Styles).  Le Corbusier style of Architecture This style of architecture was born under the father of architectural style Le Corbusier. He first gave houses and other constructions a new modern look and containing plenty of open space. He also created furnishings for his buildings. He invented the purist design. He has major contributions for improvisation of constructions of houses in metropolitan cities. His lesson of five points in architecture has helped many modern day architects in enhancing their architectural skills. He wanted modern look in cities with lots of open spaces. He used to believe that “a house is a machine for living in”. He began his career by designing a number of villas. His goal was to establish his own signature style of architecture to fill the vacuum created by the World War I. His focus was on houses made for single families and gave many unique ideas. He made houses with three floors with kitchen, bedroom and living room in different floors. One important feature of his designs was that terraces were built on the roof (Analysis of Le Corbusier’s Architectural Style). Le Corbusier style has emphasized on the relationship between human and nature. Gardens and other such open spaces are always occupied with dwelling places under this style. Tall buildings are found with roof gardens. The principal style places a construction in the middle of landscape. This style surely causes a harmonization between landscape and architecture. Here the building along with the landscape together constitutes the desirable space (Heyer, 86). The specialty of Le Corbusier’s style of architecture has been free flowing geometry with outcomes obtained in free forms. The architects and also developers have gone through Le Corbusier’s theories to understand the style of designing a free flowing apartment amidst a landscape (Heyer, 6). Construction now required heavy usage of steel and concrete with a tint of industrial glazing. New architectural style was born with three dimensional constructions. This was based upon volumetric intricacies. The uniqueness generated in architectural styles with the new trend of designing houses as cars. Houses received the treatment of ‘living machines’ as if heading back to the age of machines (Chami). The five point lesson has taught the architects to raise buildings above ground level and leave sufficient free space beneath. The usage of pilotis was termed as important for construction. Architects learned to construct a building framework excluding the load bearing walls. Le Corbusier first introduced light weight ribbon windows. There was a conversion from pitched roof top to flat roof top under this style. The flat space was later utilized for constructing garden terrace. Under this style the building constructed was rounded up with ornamental decoration of the outside surrounding space (Chami). The style of architecture has brought about playful and interlocking kinds of expressions for the buildings. There has been a transformation of the concrete structural form which prevailed previously (Heyer, 283). Modern architects have shown an inclination towards vernacular and Le Corbusier was not an exception to this. Le Corbusier right from his youth has showed interest in native things like village potters, gypsy musicians etc. Throughout his Balkan trip he closely watched the local houses. The impact of vernacular on his architectural process and playful style could not be denied even though his building designs were inspired by machines and industries. The architect even took interest in other people’s vernacular. This was due to the impact of Rousseau on his educational life (Passanti). Examples of Le Corbusier’s Style of Architecture The Domino House constructed in 1914 is looked upon as a remarkable work inspired by Le Corbusier’s style of architecture. The building which stood on steel pillars had no walls above. This transformed the building into an open space. Such a work took a high position in the world of industries. In Paris he claimed fame in 1922 when he designed Ozenfant’s house. This style has stressed upon the need to have a roof terrace and unrestricted interior space in buildings. It has also emphasized upon expansive windows, usage of columns to give support to the structure (Le Corbusier). The Algiers Plain designed by Le Corbusier in 1930 gave ideas to architects for unique designs. The building was designed in accordance with the turns of expressway which ran through countryside. Le Corbusier’s style of architecture claimed major achievements lie in designing a city enjoying the amenities of nature. Such was ‘Une Ville Contemporaine’ which was designed in such a way that three million cities were structured in a grid around circular systems and placed within a park. Not only was this design beautiful but also quite strong (Heyer, 185). The efficient use of intellects as well as different attitude was fond in Le Corbusier’s architectural designs. This style brought into the world of architecture designs of pure prisms, glass plains and exterior ‘skins’ which happened to be sleek (Heyer, 283). The cube design of building with windows resembling industrial size was inspired by the designs of ships and ocean liners. Le Corbusier named it as Maison Citrohan taking the mane of car maker Citroen (Chami). Criticisms The Le Corbusier’s idea of linking houses to machines was never acceptable for modern architects. With land developers taking over the residential markets the scope of such architectural styles have become very limited. Expansion of edged cities is also not considered as a possibility in this era of technical advancement (Demchak).High modernism which is reflected in Le Corbusier’s international style of architecture, have not only transformed the buildings but also damaged traditional and old prevailing culture to a great extent. The architectural style is losing attraction with the post modernist architects taking much more interests in ‘degraded’ landscapes (Jamenson, 1-4). They even hampered the user friendly urban plans through establishment of a complete ‘steel and glass’ environment (Trynauer) Frank Gehry’s Style of Architecture Frank Gehry has never been involved in promotion of any particular style or thought of architecture. Gehry’s architectural style has evolved since 1960. The emergence of Gehry was at a time when people had experienced enough of modernist architecture chiefly based on religion and culture. He claimed fame by designing the Guggenheim Museum in Spain in the year 1997 which is regarded as the most important piece of architecture during that time. Such a single architectural work had brought in enormous fame and fortunes for Gehry. His style of architecture can be seen in many commercial and residential projects in the 1960s. His work had a touch of Dadaist sensibility. He created a tension between the interior and the exterior views of the house. He kept a connection with the new and old regarding materials and space. He also concentrated on designing products. He promoted the use of plastic laminates. His lamps were made in shapes of fish and snake. There were reflections of both Post Modernists and Deconstructivists in his style. His buildings carry his personal language which is in a way eccentric. He combined both practical and abstract ideas. His designs were technically very strong. He used computer applications to shape his sculptural ideas through computer imagery (Architecture Inside Out Frank. O. Gehry). Gehry’s style of architecture is basically known to be an innovation in modern architecture. He had his own unconventional style in architecture. At an early part of his career Gehry showed keen interest in the design of Romanesque churches and it showed off in his work. He started working on low budget projects and took his house in Santa Monica for experimentation. In his early years his style was primitive and gradually it evolved to create his own “High Gehryism” style. The architects of new generation are greatly influenced by him. In urban settings, Modernism was rejected by the common people because under Modernism, on the pretext of clearing slums, many “user-friendly urban plans” were rejected to pave way for concrete constructions of glass and steel. Gehry’s work provided a solution to the problems that were arising from modern architecture. He experimented with the fish stick and extracted the architectural essence from it. He avoided double curves like many architects as the buildings could not be economical. He adopted compound curves in his design. When he reached the optimum level of what is buildable, he looked for other ways to satisfy his growing sense of creativity. With the help of his partner, he learnt the use of computer applications. There was wildness and energy in his style. Gehry was an advocate of Modernism and also supported the Postmodern trends (Trynauer). His architectural designs are inundated with physical qualities. He created close relationships among buildings within the limitations of abstract space. Like a choreographer, he creates motions in his buildings. Influence of art and choreography can be seen in his work as he was associated with artists. He created designs effortless as his pen glides on the paper. He created “sweeping curves” and “complex but flowing interiors”. (Walter, Frank & Richter, p.10) Examples of Frank Gehry’s Style of Architecture Bilbao in Spain has been able to attract a lot of tourists in recent times and the design of Guggenheim Museum has been the chief reason behind it. Global art culture has been shaken by such a work which resembles much to a bouquet of fishes of silver color. It won acclamations from the critics as well as from the academicians. Gehry’s architectural style is also reflected in renovation of the Basque city. The architectural work was remarkable and the process involved low costs (Trynauer).  Influence of Dadaist sensibility can be seen in the sculptures of Loyola Law School and the California Aerospace Museum (Architecture Inside Out Frank. O. Gehry). Criticisms Gehry’s playful nature in his style of designing even in buildings of serious nature has attracted criticisms. His method of designing is considered as waste of structural resources and his buildings do not adapt to the local climates or cultures. His overuse of materials when building museums is also not favorably accepted. His museums are criticised to be more attractive that the artwork they held. The Ray and Maria Stata Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts is another work that is criticized for being insensitive and impractical for daily use. The price is supposed to be very high. There is lack of privacy with the presence of glass walls and some people even suffered from vertigo in the lecture rooms. The design was not sufficient and the emergency exits get blocked by ice and debris. Some critics say that he must follow building codes while constructing buildings (MacDonald). Comparing Architecture Styles Le Corbusier adopted the “Modular proportioning system” in his buildings. The proportion of the building is obtained from the body. He has given less emphasis on the movement of bodies in buildings. This has been expressive in the work of Frank Gehry. He energizes opportunities for human choreography in his architecture and are enhanced by excessive usage of light (Yudell & Ruble 167). Le Corbusier emphasised on volumes of “bodily shapes and curving ramps” to work within the abstract space. Unlike Corbusier, Gehry instead of increasing volumes of his buildings, he created intimate relationships among his buildings (Walter, Frank & Richter, p.10). The designs of Le Corbusier were anti-social while Frank Gehry’s designs have a touch of playfulness and grab the attention of the viewers. The designs of Le Corbusier are not eye-catching for the general public and carry a sense of aloofness. Le Corbusier designed terraces and gardens on rooftops instead of on the ground floor which makes them unattached with nature and difficult for easy social access. He did urban planning with few streets and alleys connecting with shops and restaurants. This diminished the possibility of social gatherings. His designs reflected his personality since he was basically a vagabond and led a lonely and unhappy life and disliked human company. The Villa Savoye has raised columns which act as deterrent to socialisation. Some typical styles of Le Corbusier are to raise edifices on stilts and create walls whether needed by the structure or not. All these styles act as discouraging factor for socialisation. In contrast to this alienating style of Le Corbusier, Gehry’s designs can be described as absurd and idiosyncratic. His effort was to unite the common people to exchange their expressive views and functions. Frank Gehry’s designs like in Guggenheim are done in the manner so as to persuade millions of people to visit the city and it also influences designs of museums all over the world. International style of architecture is reflected in the works of Le Corbusier and one such example is Villa Savoye which is a modernist villa in Poissy, Paris. Gehry’s Guggenheim illustrates the postmodern style of architecture. The International style is known for its purity and lack of complexity in designs and thus is in complete contrast with the postmodern style which is characterized by whimsical and complex contradictions. Le Corbusier’s designs the user-friendly factor and is usually not in consistent with the environment, while Gehry’s designs are created to adapt with the environment. The International style can be seen in the clean and uncomplicated lines of Villa Savoye, and the postmodern style of architecture is reflected in Gehry’s Guggenheim. Gehry’s designs of buildings are related to the cultural values of the city where they are constructed. While the Villa Savoye stands apart from its environment, Guggenheim is designed to look similar to a ship to fit in with the environment because it is situated in a port city on the coast of the Atlantic. One of the most common features of postmodern architecture is playfulness in the creativity of buildings and Gehry was largely influenced by this as is evident in his whimsical designs like the Guggenheim. The development of machine and industry was seen in the designs of Le Corbusier and his designs are largely characterized by huge sections of performed concrete which was immensely popular in the twentieth century and it includes the Villa Savoye. The playful quality in the design of Gehry is in sharp contrast with the formal design adopted by Le Corbusier. Unlike Gehry, whose designs attract many people to gather in groups to interact with their creative skills, Gehry’s work tends to divide individuals. There is a purity in the architecture of Le Corbusier and is influenced by the International style of designing. The design of Gehry’s Guggenheim is based on the function and purpose of the modern style of architecture. One similarity between the works of both the architects is that they are both results of the latest technologies of their times. In spite of their differences in the style and design of their respective works, each of their architectural styles was created in respect to the cultural outlook towards architecture and towards the design and purpose of the edifices. The whimsical nature in Gehry’s designs includes huge sculpted curves that illustrate how different and incompatible elements can be united in a holistic way as can be seen in the Guggenheim. The curves also illustrate the latest technological development in the field of computer aided designing. Since, Le Corbusier belonged to an older era; his work did not have the computer aided designs of advanced nature like Gehry. Comparing Le Corbusier and Frank Gehry’s styles of architecture is almost equivalent to comparing international and post modern styles of architecture. An element of anti socialism is reflected in the building designs of Le Corbusier. Villa Savoye was a strong reaction against the anti Decomovement cam (International and Postmodern Style in Architecture). The architect has also used lot of curves in his design signifying Anti Deconstructive Movement of 1970s (Kulic). But this is never reflected in Frank Gehry’s designs. They rather display a playful mood. The boat inspired design of Guggenheim Palace is a representative of its location i.e. the Atlantic coast. Such a difference in their designs is mainly due to their differentiated cultural orientation (International and Postmodern Style in Architecture). The clear nature and simplicity are the special features of Le Corbusier’s style of architecture while Frank Gehry’s works are known for its attention seeking feature of playfulness (Comparing Architectural Styles). Le Corbusier emphasized on the subject of architecture as a volume. For this purpose windows and wall were needed to give the impression of a volume. Hence a continuous skin was created for doors and windows. In contrast Frank Gehry’s architecture was of deformed style. It was concerned with piling up of cubes which emphasized on creating twisted volumes. In that respect Ginger and Fred building in Prague designed by Gehry can be sited as an example of such design (Kulic). Clearly modernists like Le Corbusier did not support such cubic structures of Gehry. However in modern day architectures the three dimensional structures are adopted for buildings. This is done through digital methods of scanning and milling. The intention has been to give an expression symbolizing ecstasy and joy seeking inspiration from Frank Gehry (Vidler). Purity has always been the key to Le Corbusier’s designs. The designs created by him were directed providing knowledge about real world be it education or people or medical care. The architect was seen as the author advocating the purpose of exhibiting bravery through designs that shows protests against the ongoing movements in society (Keedwell). Although mainly highlighting modern perspectives on his architectural designs, Frank Gehry at times has also expressed environmental concerns. He designed a cancer care unit in Scotland and also confessed guilt by charging high fees when it could have been directed towards improvisation of cancer drugs. Architects although differentiated through designs, they are known to create a soothing and calm environment through their architectural works (Keedwell). The importance of grids and geometry developed utmost importance under Le Corbusier’s works. He has always emerged as a worshipper of the fundamental style of Geometry containing precise lines. He has preferred its ideal forms. His architectural works consist mostly of straight lines and right angles which he found to be a representative of human character. In contrast Gehry brought in the architectural style of network. For his famous design of Museum in Bilbao he had established a horizontal network which was quite a complex one. These networks appeared dispersed but actually they were interrelated. In this sense Gehry to some extent negated architectural styles of the modernists (Taylor). Moreover the works of Gehry also caused a shift from the polished steel and glass environment that can be seen for Le Corbusier’s architectural works. For Frank Gehry, his architectural works were left unpolished rather intentionally. Gehry has always favored rough edges to enhance his architectural designs. Even the cardboard chairs that were designed by Frank appeared to be broken and mostly unfinished (Taylor). Overall these two well known styles of architecture, no matter how much distinguished they are, have similarity in terms of one common factor. Their works clearly reflect the culture under which they have been residing. Cultural influence has even been noticed in their nature of edifices as well as their functioning (International and Postmodern Style in Architecture). Conclusion Frank Gehry and Le Corbusier have been two well known architects at different points of time. Le Corbusier has dwelled in the age of modernists architects while Frank Gehry emerged during the breakdown of modernists. Their architectural styles and process have been quite different. While Le Corbusier focused on establishing a steel and glass environment through his works and considered ideal forms of geometry, Gehry has used raw materials for his works and preferred rough edges and unpolished look to enhance his architectural style. Although a lot of differences have been traced out in their works they both have displayed their underlying cultures in their works. Both of them had concerns towards environment and directed towards creating a calm one. References 1. Heyer, Paul. American Architecture, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1993 2. Comparing Architectural Styles, Lots of Essays, n.d, December 14, 2011 from : http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/2000311.html 3. Analysis of Le Corbusier’s Architectural Style, Simply Charly, 2007, December 14, 2011 from : http://simplycharly.wetpaint.com/page/Analysis+of+Le+Corbusier%E2%80%99s+Architectural+Style 4. Jones, Cranston. Architecture Today and Tomorrow, London: Tata McGraw Hill Book Company, 1961 5. Le Corbusier, R Gallery, n.d, December 14, 2011 from : http://www.r20thcentury.com/biography_detail.cfm?designer_id=75 6. Chami, Camillie. Le Corbusier and Villa Savoye Remembered, archinnovations, 2007, December 14, 2011 from : http://www.archinnovations.com/featured-projects/houses/le-corbusier-and-villa-savoye/ 7. Demchak, Gregory L. Towards A Post Industrial Architecture: Design and Construction of Houses for the Information Age, 2000, December 14, 2011 from : http://architecture.mit.edu/house_n/documents/Demchak00.pdf 8. Passanti, Francesco. The Vernacular, Modernism and Le Corbusier, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, (1997), 56.4, December 14, 2011 from: http://www.jstor.org/pss/991313 9. Jamenson, Fredric. Postmodernism or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, United States: Duke University Press, 1991 10. Architecture Inside Out Frank. O. Gehry, traffic east, n.d, December 14, 2011 from: http://trafficwest.com/archives/issue-5/architecture-inside-out-frank-o-gehry 11. Trynauer, Matt. Architecture in the Age of Gehry, Vanity Fair, 2010, December 14, 2011 from: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/08/architecture-survey-201008?currentPage=all 12. MacDonald, Nancy. “Frank Gehry’s Really Bad Year”, Maclean’s, 121.38, 29th September, 2008, pp.56-58, December 14, 2011 from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=112&sid=a933b066-c5a7-4228-91cb-19eac6a3de44%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=34527734 13. Yudell, Buzz and John Ruble, Moore Ruble Yudell, Australia: Images Publishing Group, 2004 14. Forster, Kurt Walter, Gehry, Frank and Ralph Richter, Frank O. Gehry, Guggenheim Bilbao Museoa, London: Daehan Printing & Publishing Co., 1998 15. International and Postmodern Style in Architecture, Research Assistance, n.d, December 16, 2011 from http://www.research-assistance.com/paper/41427/a_ra_default/international_and_postmodern_style_in_achitecture.html 16. Kulic, V. The Complexity of Architectural Form: Some basic questions, Complexity International, (n.d), 8, December 16, 2011 from: http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/skey/research_prev/reading/complexity_in_architecture%20(historical).pdf 17. Vidler, Anthony. Diagrams of Diagrams: Architectural Abstraction and Modern Representation, iris.nyit.edu, 2000, December 16, 2011 from: http://iris.nyit.edu/~rcody/Thesis/Readings/Anthony-Vidler-Diagrams-of-Diagrams-Architectural.pdf 18. Taylor, Mark C. The Moment of Complexity: Emerging Network Culture, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001 19. Keedwell, Paul. Architecture and psychology in the 20th century: archetypes of human need and sanity, History of Architecture Double Dissertation Module AD3021N, n.d, December 16, 2011 from: http://drkeedwell.com/drkeedwell/%22Psychitecture%22_files/architecture%20-%20a%20psychological%20history%20(minus%20images).pdf Read More