Understanding of Modernism in Architecture: Louis Isadore Kahn - Essay Example

?Write about Louis Isadore Kahn and discuss about his work and practice to illustrate our understanding of Modernism in architecture In order to understand the role of Kahn in the development of Modernism in architecture it would be necessary to refer primarily to the key elements of the specific trend, as they have been revealed in buildings developed between the World War I and the late 1960s, the period most influenced by Modernism. Modernism, as a trend has appeared earlier; in fact, modernism was reflected, for the first time, in the well-known painting of Picasso, Les Desmoiselles d’ Avignon, a painting which was created by Picasso in 1907 but it was just in 1939 that it became well known to the public, since its installation in the Museum of Modern Art, in New York (Walz 3). In the period between the creation of the above painting, in 1907, and its installation in MOMA modernism was expanded across Europe (Walz 3). The key characteristic of modernism, as a cultural trend, has been ‘the rejection of traditional cultural ideas and aesthetics’ (Walz 3). Modernism was based on the promotion of contemporary forms and values, focusing on the future rather than on present or past (Walz 3). In accordance with ‘the art critic Harold Rosenberg, modernism can be characterized as the tradition of the new’ (Walz 7); in a more precise description, modernism can be considered as ‘a term of aesthetics’ (Walz 7). At this point, it should be made clear that ‘modernism’, as a term of aesthetics, is differentiated from ‘modern’, a term used for explaining the aesthetics rules and principles that governed the period from Renaissance up to the late 19th century (Walz 7). Through a similar point of view, Grbich (2004) notes that modernism, as a cultural trend, can be considered as ‘an assessment of the limitations of philosophies related to modernity’ (Grbich 3). In the area of architecture, the development of modernism has followed a particular path: the power of Romanesque and Industrial traditions on architecture has been gradually decreased since the beginning of the 20th century. Then, new buildings started to appear based on ‘the different use of space and form’ (Grbich 11), compared to the past. An indicative example of the influence of modernism on architecture is the ‘Casa Mila in Boulogne’ (Grbich 11). The above building, which is actually a block of apartments, was developed in the years between 1906 and 1910 (Grbich 11) and is characterized by the following features: ‘a carved faced on balconies and tidal markings on the plaster ceilings’ (Grbich 11). Another building also based on Modernism is the ‘Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye, a house built at 1930’ (Grbich 12); the above house is characterized by ‘large, open areas and has been built on stilts’ (Grbich 12). In regard to its inside, the house is painted in soft colours, while a spiral staircase supports the access to all the houses’ spaces (Grbich 12). The Guggenheim Museum in New York is another important example of modernism. The above building has been given a circular structure (Grbich 12), in opposition with the traditional square structure. Also, an elevator has been incorporated for allowing the access of visitors to all areas of the museum (Grbich 12). The museum was built between the years 1934 and 1937 and can be considered as an excellent example of the influences of modernism on architecture. Emphasis has been given on the museum’s design, focusing on the use of various geometric forms, such as triangles and ovals throughout the building (Grbich 12). Frank Lloyd Wright, the architect who built the above building has been a well-known supporter of Modernism. The forms and the principles of Modernism, as indicatively explained above, have been based on various philosophies and social ideas. In accordance with Williams (2002), modernists have focused on the future, but not directly. They rather employed ‘cyclic views of the past’ (Williams 2), meaning that they reviewed past events and philosophies and developed new ideas, which were not totally foreign to the past, but they had some level of relevance, even limited. A crucial difference between modernism and past philosophies and values has been the following one: modernism opposed ‘the view of continuation in historical development’ (Williams 2). Of course, such idea cannot lead to the view that modernists rejected the past; on the contrary, they valued the past at the level that it could help to develop universal ideas on the world and values. Such benefit would be resulted by contrasting the past with the future, at the level that the ideas that these two periods reflect are usually contradicting, or, in any case, conflicting (Williams 2). In general, it could be noted that modernism helps to transform the role of architecture. Instead of being aligned with specific domestic needs or cultural trends, architecture, as reflected in design plans based on modernism, reflects the transition from the local to universal, creating large spaces of flexible use (Kahn and Ngo 88). In accordance with another view, modernism is considered as related to the capitalist production (Myrsiades and Myrsiades 2), which has promoted modernization in regard to ‘ideologies and practices’ (Myrsiades and Myrsiades 2). It is implied that the need for developing the ideas of modernity, and promoting modernism, has been resulted by the need for changing the conditions of living, as this idea has been enhanced by capitalism. At the same time, modernism has highlighted the increased potentials of humans to control the nature, an assumption related to the achievements of humans through the history, particularly in regard to technology and science (Myrsiades and Myrsiades 2). Braun, Gromling and Bleher (2005) note that the key characteristics of modernism, in related to architecture, are the following ones: open areas, spaces of flexible use and separation of offices from service zones (Braun, Gromling and Blehler 21). It is explained that the above characteristics have been inherited to modern architecture from the industrial buildings of the thirties (Braun, Gromling and Behler 21). These buildings were initially used as patterns for buildings that would house administrative services (Braun, Gromling and Behler 21). Then, the design rules of those buildings have been considered as ideal for developing buildings that would be used in laboratory research (Braun, Gromling and Behler 21). In 1950s and 1960s well – known architects, such as ‘Louis Isadore Kahn, Phillip Johnson and Frank Lloyd Wright’ (Braun, Gromling and Behler 21) supported such initiatives, contributing significantly in the expansion of modernism. The promotion of modernism in architecture has served a specific target: the transformation of the role and the potentials of buildings, as such outcome is related to the replacement of classical ideas by modernism. The achievement of the above target has not been an easy task. Indeed, the development of modernism in USA has faced the opposition of supporters of other cultural trends. For example, reference can be made to the strong conflict developed in Yale campus between modernists and the supporters of Academic Gothic (Thomas and Brownlee 124). A threat had been developed for Yale to become full of pieces of art of different ideas and material (Thomas and Brownlee 124). This threat was controlled in the following way: in a visit of the Dean of the School of Architecture of Philadelphia in Yale, the conflicts between modernists and supporters of classicism were discussed (Thomas and Brownlee 124). The Dean suggested that his associate, L. Kahn, could assist Yale’s Architecture faculty using his skills on architecture (Thomas and Brownlee 124). By late 1960s several spaces across Yale have been developed following the ideas of modernism (Thomas and Brownlee 124). Bailey and Gardiner (2010) support that the key element of Kahn’s view on modernism has been ‘the distinction between form and design’ (Bailey and Gardiner 66). For Kahn, form refers to the human needs that have to be served through a particular building (Bailey and Gardiner 66). On the other hand, design indicates the solutions that are available for achieving the above target. In other words, form ‘is related to human nature and cannot depend on factors, such as time or location’ (Bailey and Gardiner 66). This fact verifies the dependency of architecture on non-architectural elements, meaning the human needs and nature. Such finding further supports the superiority of modernism compared to classicism; however, it also highlights the co-existence of different needs in architecture. This means that modernism cannot be totally independent from classicism, a view that is aligned with the perceptions of Kahn on modernism. The role of Louis Isadore Kahn in the development of modernism in architecture has been significant. However, Kahn did not supported existing forms of modernism, as the specific term had been related to the introduction of universal ideas and the limitation of traditional aesthetics. Rather, he introduced a new form of modernism, which was based on the revival of classical aesthetics and ideas (Lejeune 11). In other words, the views of Kahn on modernism can be characterized as opposing to the common views on modernism, as analysed above. Kahn had chosen to follow the ideas and practices used in the architectural designs of previous decades, when aesthetics and ideas were under the influence of ‘modern’, as a term of aesthetics and a cultural trend (Lejeune 11). In accordance with Solomon (2008) the ideas of Kahn on modernism could be identified in his view on architecture in general; in accordance with Kahn, ‘architecture is the thoughtful use of spaces’ (Solomon 32). Based on this view, Kahn has tried to contribute in the expansion of modernism but in a different format as known up to then; for Kahn modernism should be supported by classicism (Solomon 32). The perceptions of Kahn on modernism are clear in the case of Jewish Community Center in Ewing (Solomon 32). Kahn developed the small building where the changing rooms of the Center’s pool are housed. Expensive materials have been avoided; emphasis has been given on geometry and the co-existence of light and green spaces within the building (Solomon 32). Solomon notes that Kahn has been unique in using low-cost materials for developing buildings of exceptional style (Solomon 32). The work of Kahn in regard to modernism seems to be continuously alternated. Early in his career, such as the Mill Creek Housing Development project, Kahn followed closer the rules of modernism (Mallgrave 2005). Through the years, his priorities in construction design have been changed. Instead of focusing on the rules of ‘spatial abstraction and functionality’ (Mallgrave 341), as related to international modernism, Kahn preferred to promote ‘internal order’ (Mallgrave 341), meaning the emphasis on architectural lines that define clearly the various levels and spaces of buildings. At this point, reference should be made to the study of Smith (2011). The above researcher noted that Kahn, who had an extensive teaching experience for almost three decades, from 1950s to 1970s, supported modernism, but not in its common form (Smith 14). It is explained that Kahn focused rather on ‘monumentality, solidity and craft than industry’ (Smith 14). The above view is in accordance with the theories of Kahn on modernism, as also highlighted in the literature presented above. However, a gap seems to exist between the beliefs of Kahn in regard to modernism and his works. The participation of Kahn in the development of laboratory research buildings, similar to those of the industrial buildings of 1930s, as explained in the study of Braun, Gromling and Behler (21) presented above, proves that the actual characteristics of the work of Kahn can be differentiated from his perceptions on modernism. At a first level, such differentiation could be possibly explained by the following fact: in his first steps in the particular field, Kahn followed strictly the rules of modernism; his later works prove clearly the change in Kahn’s view on modernism. For example, the Yale Art Gallery (Thomas and Brownlee 124), the Jewish Community Center in Ewing (Solomon 32), the Kimbell Art Museum (Burden 35, see also Figure 3 Appendix), the Phillips Exeter Academy Library (Burden 35) and so on. A series of works of Kahn is presented in the Appendix section, Figure 1 up to 4. The willingness of Kahn to combine modernism and classicism is clear, even if in certain cases the elements of modernism seem to be stronger, as in the case of the Jonas Salk Institute of Biological Studies, La Jolla, California. Works Cited Bailey, Chris, and Gardiner, Hazel. Revisualizing visual culture. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2010. Braun, Hardo, Gromling, Dieter and Bleher, Helmut. Research and technology buildings: a design manual. New York: Springer, 2005. Burden, Ernest. Elements of architectural design: a photographic sourcebook. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2000. Grbich, Carol. New approaches in social research. London: SAGE, 2004 Kahn, Louis, and Ngo, Dung. Louis I. Kahn: conversations with students. Houston: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998. Lejeune, Jean-Francois. Modern architecture and the Mediterranean: vernacular dialogues and contested identities. Oxon: Taylor & Francis, 2010. Mallgrave, Harry. Modern Architectural Theory: A Historical Survey, 1673-1968. Cambridge University Press, 2005. Myrsiades, Kostas, and Myrsiades, Linda. Margins in the classroom: teaching literature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994. Shamiyeh, Michael. What people want: populism in architecture and design. New York: Springer, 2005. Smith, Ryan. Prefab Architecture: A Guide to Modular Design and Construction. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2011. Solomon, Nancy. Architecture: celebrating the past, designing the future. New York: Visual Reference Publications, 2008. ?homas, George, and Brownlee, David. Building America's first university: an historical and architectural guide to the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000. Walz, Robin. Modernism. Essex: Pearson Education, 2008. Williams, Louise. Modernism and the Ideology of History: Literature, Politics, and the Past. Cambridge University Press, 2002. Appendix Figure 1 – University Art Center, New Haven USA, 1951-1954 (Source: http://designmuseum.org/design/louis-kahn) Figure 2 – Jonas Salk Institute of Biological Studies, La Jolla, California, 1959-1967 (Source: http://designmuseum.org/design/louis-kahn) Figure 3 – Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas, 1967-1972 (Source: http://designmuseum.org/design/louis-kahn) Figure 4 – Yale Center for British Art, New Haven, Connecticut, 1968-1974 (Source: http://designmuseum.org/design/louis-kahn) Read More