Compating Two Architecs - Essay Example

? Comparison between two architects (Usage of or nts and traditional aspects vs. Simpli and no or nts) Introduction In afast evolving world, the field of architecture has undergone significant changes over the generations to meet the demands and desires of the society. Rapid urbanization and the high demand for houses has led to variations in the architectural designs that are used in the design of structures. There are contradictory forces between those who propose simple structures that are practical without ornaments and those that demand for traditional architecture that embraced ornaments to beautify the structures. Significantly, there is a great divide between the construction of simple practical structures that do not lay emphasis on ornaments and using of ornaments in architecture. It would be appropriate to consider the impact of either form of architecture to the environment. In essence, architecture in either the traditional or modern form should be able to stand harmoniously with culture.(Rhodes, 1995). It should be noted that the changing facets of architecture have been brought about by commercialism and consumption attitudes, architectural fashions and professional egoism that have significantly transformed over the decades. Towns and urban centers should have architectural designs that provide an identity to the place and present an appreciation of the cultural aspects of the place. Over the generations, architecture has been between mankind and the environment around them. As individual characteristics are different so it should be with cities, with urban planning. In traditional architecture, ornaments were accorded very high value. The ancient times are rife with examples of impressively decorated capitals in Eastern Europe. In the Arabic world, mosques were also designed with intricate combination of wood and plaster to produce stunning works. Ornamental architecture added to the visual appeal of architectural designs and also helped make people to easily relate to the buildings around them since they showcased important cultural aspects.. Modern architecture has changed the values that it portrays in the society.. It reflects different set of values from the traditional local ones; buildings and space are symbols for economic and political power, importance and status, achievement and wealth, ours and theirs, poor and rich. Tall imposing buildings are meant to show economic advancement without necessarily being appealing from the ornamental perspective. The prerequisites are visibility and surprise; the creation of a distinct image in the observer’s mind for capturing his attention. This goes to the extent of borrowing symbols and motifs from earlier periods or other culture in order to legitimize a new social order. Modern architecture has given prominence to the concept of “internationalization”. The design of buildings has become uniform regardless of the cultural background. It has become a norm to have generic high rise block buildings in almost every city in the world. The advent of modern architecture in the 1920s marked the beginning of the demise for ornamental architecture. The notion of good design has evolved to mean that an architectural design has to be plain and simple. According to Loos (1998), ornamentation was unnecessary and had high cost implications. The origins of modern architecture can be attributed to the social and political revolutions of that time. Advances in technology and engineering gave rise to new materials such as iron and steel which encourage minimalist design. The paper seeks makes a comparison between two architects: showcasing modern minimalist architecture and the traditional ornamental architecture. The major issue is to analyze the impact of both forms of architecture to the society. Notably, the impact of the evolution of architecture over time is analyzed in order to ascertain its relevance to the society and the environment. Traditional Ornamental Architecture: Dankmar Adler The definition of an ornament in architecture is any element that is added to a structure in order to improve its aesthetic appeal. According to Triling (2001), ornaments have been part and parcel of architecture since ancient times and this is evident in light of the past architectural pieces from ancient civilizations such as Oriental China and India. The decorations that are used in ornamental architecture are derived from various sources such as embossed motifs and objects in the society. The creative use of local materials, skills and meaningful forms added a visual subtle language which enabled people to easily understand and relate to the buildings that were constructed. The essence of the buildings lay in the cultural and symbolic aspects rather than the mere economic value. The proponents of ornamental architecture proclaim that its beauty has seen it serve humankind from generation to generation. In a sense, ornamental architecture evolved over the years in cognizance of the changing times. The kinds of materials that are used as decorations to architectural designs have changed from the traditional ones. Advances in technology have made it possible to utilize plastics and other materials to serve as beauty enhancements to buildings in the global perspective. For example, in the ancient Chinese cities different parts of were linked together by an organic network of alleys and hierarchical spaces from public to semi-public to private. The networks defined districts each have a strong family/tribal identity. In this sense, districts were physical expressions of the social fabric reinforcing community and territorial identity. The collective identity allows for an individual personalization within the acceptable social norms and values (Sankovitch, 1998). Such old urban areas display a great sense of tranquility and equilibrium, unity and order, and character and charm within an interesting variety of wide and narrow, low and high, light and dark, public and private, residential and commercial, and natural and man-made environments. Designing contextual architecture, which incorporate the culture and ecology of the place, puts people at the centre aiming to humanize the city, to provide a vibrant environment, and to address the problems of space disharmony, estrangement, and disorientation. Translating the previous concepts into actions has to overcome many challenges because it necessitates many changes and adjustments of existing processes and practices. They are clear expressions of the shared values and attitudes, and the common pattern of life styles. Lieven (1999), states that past masterpieces should not be changed. This is a potent statement to show just how much ornamental architecture has impacted the society. According to Bloomer (2000), decorations have been part of the tradition of architecture throughout history. Systems theory requires ordered substructure on all scales of a complex form so as to attain visual coherence. Natural structures have this property since nature has a way of balancing things. However, man-made form lacks ordered structure on one or more obvious scales, and as such the human beings perceive it as lacking visual coherence (Alexander, 2001). Liking a building depends on establishing visual and tactile connections with it on top of the utilitarian aspect. It is worth noting that ornaments provide an important aspect of forming this connection. Dankmar Adler Dankmar Adler is one of the most celebrated traditional ornamental architects. His practice spanned from the late 1800s to 1900 and he designed some of the most striking architectural pieces in his time. He worked with the talented designer Louis Henry Sullivan to come with designs that were both aesthetically impressive and structurally sound. One his notable works involved the reconstruction of Hooley’s Theater in Chicago. Adler designed stunning ornamental elements that were widely acclaimed and also blended in the acoustics in a perfect manner. He used carefully designed light fixtures to act as overhead decoration in an even and balanced manner. The theater design was novel and it gave him fame and a solid reputation as a leading architect of the time. His other leading work was the design of the Auditorium Building in 1886. Together with Sullivan, he designed a lavish interior that featured elliptical arches with ivory panels. He creatively used lighting to offer not only illumination but also to act as decorative elements. The details of the walls and ceilings were unique and dramatically intertwined triangles offered striking visual appeal. The ornamental aspects of the design were in complete harmony with the acoustic requirements of the Auditorium. Adler believed the three principal functions had to be considered in a harmonious way. He postulated that the design of buildings needed to be striking and act as works of art rather than as passive works. His themes were inclined towards giving life to buildings and designing them in such a way that they could create a bond with people. The assertion that form follows function and that all things found in nature had shapes held sway in the design philosophy of Adler. Therefore, it was imperative that buildings were given shapes and forms that could give the buildings life. The inner life of a building was intrinsically related to its ornamental aspect. This implies that essentially, a building is defined by the nature and use of ornaments in its design. He argued that ornaments are not separate from architecture; they form an integral part of architecture. In this sense, he further stated that human beings invariably feel more comfortable in structures that are decorated as compared to plain structures. To lend credence to his views, Adler and Sullivan clearly endeavored to design structures that were visually appealing by encompassing artistic ornaments. Modern Architecture: Adolf Loos The advent of modern architecture was heralded by Adolf Loos in 1908 when he published an essay titled “Ornamental Crime” that marked the onset of a shift in thinking in architectural design. In the essay, Loos argued against the art novae movement that was encouraging ornamental architecture. His arguments were basically aimed at giving opposition to the neo traditional architectural movement of that time. According to Loos, ornamental architectural design required a lot of materials and labour which was uneconomical. Modern industrialization required that the dynamics of construction should take advantage of technology and be cost effective. Ornaments had ceased to serve their original purpose of promoting culture and community identity hence he theorized that they were no longer relevant. The issue of cost also trickled down to the workers who designed the ornaments. Since the value of ornaments had gone down, the workers who made the decorative elements were underpaid and this was unfair. Those in favour of modern simplistic architecture also held the view that ornaments the real and important aspects of building (Peterson, 1991). The critical issue is that the structure is more important than the aesthetics. Hence, the outside of a building should remain plain and decorations should be in the interiors if need be. The relationship between architecture and art was also questioned in the context of modern architecture. Essentially, modern architecture considers artistic tendencies in building design to be unnecessary. According to proponents of modern architecture, function is more important that the aesthetics of a building. It reduces the architecture of a building to a purely technical concept that merely deals with the assemblage of materials. Suffice to say, art is considered as a kind of personification of a piece of work and hence inclined towards an individual rather than the public (Devas, 1999). The Looshaus in Vienna is one of the most famous works by Adolf Loos. The design of the building was aimed at relating history of the city and the invention of a new city based on modern architecture. Adolf Loos designed the building in an extremely minimalist manner with not even a trace of ornaments. The extreme simplicity of the design of the building was so controversial that it resulted in intense public furor. In 1899, Loos designed the Cafe Museum which showed his departure from ornamental architecture. The design of the cafe asserted his theory that technique should be of a higher dominance in comparison to stylishness. Loos also tried to realize a balanced equation between beauty and utility. Every object that was used in the design of the cafe had to have a useful function. According to Loos, every decorative object must also serve as a utility. In the design of the cafe, the ceiling was made of strips of brass which were concurrently utilized as electrical conductors. The design of the cafe clearly manifested the aspect of minimalist design that is a common characteristic of modern architectural design. Modern architecture has evolved since its advent in the twentieth century. In the early days, modern architecture was characterized by a concept whereby form followed. For the duration of up to 1990, the mantra of modern architecture was that form followed function. Buildings were designed to serve a practical purpose. In this sense, very little concern was given to the ornamental aspect of design. In the present times, architectural designs were based on the context that form followed finance. This is evident considering the rapid developments in real estate where structures are built to suit financial demands. Conclusion One of the arguments against traditional architecture is that ornaments serve to obstruct the real materials of the building. Modern architects make their work to be plain so that they remain visible. The logic for this is that the building materials are of more importance as compared to the ornaments and as such they should not be hidden from view. The counter argument to this view from the traditional aspect of ornamental architecture is that every building has to include basic decorations; given the fact that buildings need to have an aesthetic appeal. Modern architecture proposes that there should be that art and the works of architecture should be treated differently. According to Loos, art should not have any relationship to the creation of objects that are supposed to serve as utilities. Ornaments do not have any practical function therefore their inclusion in practical buildings is completely unnecessary. However proponents of traditional ornamental architecture it is necessary for buildings to have ornaments in order to create a relationship with its inhabitants. Another argument posed against traditional ornamental architecture is concerning the issue of costs. The argument posed by Loos argues is that the use of ornaments is a waste of materials and resources. However, Sankovitch (1998) argues that ornaments add value both to the building and also the designers of the ornaments hence they make economic sense. In the ancient times, ornaments served an important role in endearing architecture to the society. This could be attributed to the fact that back in the days, ornaments were handcrafted and very expensive. The ornaments captured the aspirations of the community and served to create lasting bonds between the community and the pieces of architecture. Also, the use of ornaments was a show of wealth and power in the society. However, the advent of mass production of ornaments and their consequent cheapness made them less desirable. The other reason for the decline of ornamental architects is that contractors used them to hide defects and poor workmanship. The crisis of contemporary architecture is clear in the diversity and contradictory interpretations of its meanings by the different schools of thoughts. One may consider it as richness, but the miserable, faceless and soulless states of our cities tell another story: Architecture becomes a fashion laden with many fallacious stylistic ideological cliches. It ignores the urgent needs of an increasing urban population, the cultural values and the environmental demands. The few scattered successes of contemporary architecture are far more outweighed by the mistakes. Many icons of modern architecture and winning prizes projects are dynamited because they fail the test of time. In the housing sector, the problems and their implications are immeasurable. The professional vandalism, done in the name of modernity, has transfer cities, throughout the world, into faceless, depthless and placeless environments. The loss of orientation and identification and the impoverishment of sensual perceptions are of grave psychological impacts on the part of the inhabitants. People cannot identify themselves and cannot be identified; they are strangers into their own localities. Furthermore, focus has been paid to physical aspects rather than developmental which incorporate social, cultural, economic and environmental variables. As such there is much disregard to cultural values, and in the same token to natural conditions and developmental considerations. Traditionally, people were able to maintain strong identity in their buildings and spaces because everything was locally influenced, produced and managed. This is not the case of our modern cities, because the power of decision flows between the different groups of capital (commercial, industrial, international, small businesses), the central government, local government and coalitions of special interest groups. The current rejection of internationalism and mounting problems of present cities require new approaches to urban design and planning in the pursuit of identity. From the analysis, it is evident that architecture has evolved over time. The essence of traditional architecture was basically to make appealing buildings that had a lot of ornaments. Most of the architectural designs based on this philosophy were meant to have a monumental effect on the society and form lasting bonds with the community. However, the issues of costs and functionality of buildings gave rise to the modern minimalist design. Modern architecture embraced simplicity in order to come up with structures that were functional and cost effective. Further, the rapid increase in the demand for housing has made modern simplistic architecture to be gain traction. However, it should be noted that ornaments add life to structures and hence help to make them relate harmoniously with the human beings. Therefore, there should be a careful blend of simple design and ornaments in order to maintain the importance of architecture in the society. Bibliography Bloomer, K. 2000. The Nature of Ornament. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Devas, N. & Rakodi, C. 1993. Managing Fast Growing Cities. Harlow: Longman El-Masri, S. (ed.) .2005. Al Muharraq: Architectural Heritage of a Bahraini City. Bahrain: Miracle. Girardet, H. 1996. Cities: New Directions for Sustainable Urban Living. London: Gaia Books Limited Jones, O. 1982. The Grammar of Ornament. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Loos, Adolf .1998. Ornament and Crime. Trans. Michael Mitchell. Riverside, CA: Ariadne. Meiss, P. 1991. Elements of Architecture: from Form to Place. London: Chapman & Hall. Sankovitch, A. 1998. Structure/Ornament and the Modern Figuration of Architecture. The Art Bulletin, Vol. 80, No. 4 Trilling, J. 2001. The Language of Ornament. New York: Thames & Hudson Willis, C. 1995. Form Follows Finance: Skyscrapers & Skylines in New York & Chicago. New York: Princeton Architectural Press Read More