Architecture and Avant-garde - Essay Example

? ARCHITECTURAL AVANT-GARDE IN MODERNISM Since ancient times, architecture has gone through significant transformation in terms of innovation in design and construction of buildings. Transformations witnessed within the architectural context can be attributed to evolving aspects of art and culture. Aesthetics as a philosophy is evolving and so is the intellectual culture behind construction technology. Inception of Avant Garde, which is a French terminology for vanguard experiments, marked start of contemporary styles in structure development. In this case, the term contemporary covers a period from recent history to present moment. There is modernity and the post modern periods, which cumulatively form contemporary period in architecture. This essay involves evaluation of architectural advances as a means of appraising breadth and depth of Avant Garde or vanguard experiments. In order to objectively analyze this concept of Avant Garde, we will consider examples of buildings developed in the 20th Century, which is a period when fore-guard experiments were prevalent in art. Introduction: Avant Garde As acknowledged within the abstract section, Avant Garde is the French version for vanguard culture. In the context of art, vanguard culture refers to non-conformational and experimental approach of developing objects of art like music, structures and paintings. Dorita (2013) says that Avant Garde is distinct from traditional art of 19th Century because it employs substantial innovation and advanced skills in developing iconic pieces of art. This form of culture became dominant during the first four decades of 20th Century, especially in Europe and America. In operation, vanguard culture opposed mainstream norms. It labeled mainstream values as resulting from mass production effects of industrial revolution during the 19th Century. Early founders of Avant Garde criticized the manner in which traditional art and architecture incorporated superficial styling of objects in the name of innovation. In this regard, it sought to distance itself from mainstream habits and foster individual creativity. It involved seeking autonomous excellence in artistic merit rather than following rigid conventions. Modernism Having gained an insight about Avant Garde, it is appropriate to extrapolate on the two concepts of modernism and postmodernism. Sharp (2002) says that most essayists including Max Horkheimer and Adorno assert that vanguard culture serves as an icon for modernism. According to Sharp (2002), autonomy in stylish creativity and innovation creates a distinction and draws boundaries between modernism and the post form of modernism. In this context, modernism covers the artistic period of early 20th Century, especially the first four decades of this century. According to Heynen (2000), it was a period marked by employment of human intellect in enhancing aesthetical values of art. Innovations and autonomous creativity of modernism led to significant improvement in science and technology. In addition, vanguard ideologies motivated experimentation on almost all spheres of life as seen in architecture. It adopted a hierarchical and procedural approach of acquiring and applying knowledge in improving state of art. According to Heynen (2000), modernism is closely associated with the use of rational thinking models and logic in gaining and utilizing knowledge. Supposedly, modernism ended after 1945, thus giving way to postmodernism. Postmodernism Goldhagen (2005) says that as opposed to modernistic principles of logic and rational thinking, postmodernism adopts unscientific and irrational approach towards art. In the first four decades of 20th Century, architectural designs were taken as representing unique and genuine creativity of artists. However, postmodernism does not regard the work of architecture as the originating from authentic skills of an individual. According to Scoffham and Machedon (1999), postmodern era is marked by subjective and hyper-realistic models of thought as opposed to rigid and logical models in modernism. After the Second World War, science and technology improved significantly with introduction of electronic machines like computers. With substantial advancement in technology, original creations of art could be reproduced in mass quantity. Therefore, prototype of an original painting lost its value of rarity. Meaning of pieces of art started becoming subjective rather than objective. Marta and Petra (2010) says that architectural styles that were considered authentic and vanguard in modernism are currently viewed by postmodernism as subjective work of artists with personal interpretation on aspects of innovation and authenticity. In this case, postmodern art is not regarded with the same level of seriousness and merit as it was during the past are of Avant Garde. Avant Garde or Vanguard Culture in Architecture Goldhagen (2005) says that architecture during modernism period was marked by thoughtful and scientific alignment of geometry. According to Goldhagen (2005), most buildings developed during this period possess substantial attributes of dynamism in terms of asymmetrical utilization of space. The main principle of architecture during modernism period involved employment of rigor procedures in designing structures with maximum utilization of the volume aspect. This explains why the concept of paradigm found substantial application in creating aesthetic themes and compelling adoption of architectural conventions. As a result, there was close association between visual language of art and intended meaning of artists. Physical form of architecture carried a transparent message and content; hence there was no place for subjective interpretation as it is in postmodernism. Goldhagen (2005) says that style adopted in developing a given building was interpreted from a publicly uniform and collective perspective. Throughout the years, architectural historians have collected and compared works of vanguard architects in order to unearth similarities in technical conventions used. Detailed analysis of such historical work indicates that paradigm systems used in modern architecture possessed substantial impulsion on structural expression. Every structure was a unique visual expression of an artist’s cultural intelligence in aesthetics. Apart from structural expression, principles of vanguard art emphasized about transparency in creating monographic objects. According to Marta and Petra (2010), most buildings developed in the modernism era demonstrate definite social and political convictions. This means that prevailing social and political convictions were pre-disposing factors in design and construction of buildings. As a result of cultural convictions in influencing architecture, industrial and residential buildings developed during modernism period possess considerable similarity in terms of style and aesthetic values. In most cases, one may be tempted to think that all architects who designed structures during modernism era were solidly united by some coherent aesthetical doctrines. Modernism architecture spans across architects from different political and social backgrounds. For example Sr. John Wilson was a democrat while Niemeyer Oscar was a socialist. However, works by both architects display minimum aesthetical difference. Both created industrial buildings with a semi-circular roof and vertically inclined walls. In this context, one cannot conclude that political and social convictions were responsible in influencing design of structures. According to Charles and Sean (2011), modernism architecture was more influenced by artificially unifying conventions than socio-political convictions. This is because despite the definite heterogeneity of convictions by different architects, their work still presented identifiably similar aesthetic values. At this juncture, it is undeniable that exercising of autonomous freedom by architects in modernism era was invariably restricted by the unifying goals of architecture. This invariable restriction is evidenced by similarity in villas built in Italy and Germany. In such a case, Charles and Sean (2011) say that the only reasonable justification is that architects in vanguard movement period were inspired by identical conventions of physical form and corresponding aesthetical meaning. Architectural Icons of Modernism: Town Hall, Hilversum 1931 Figure i Willem Dudok, Town Hall, Hilversum, the Netherlands 1931 One building that represents modernism architecture is the Town Hall in Hilversum, Netherlands. This building which appears in the image above was used to house government offices and official events at Hilversum municipality. It is an urban structure designed in 1924 by the famous architect Willem Dudok. After completion of its design, construction started in 1928 until 1931 when it was officially opened for official purposes. The Town Hall in Hilversum is a perfect representation of prevalent architectural conventions in design and development of official structures in Europe at that time. As it appears from the image, the Town Hall has vertically inclined walls coupled with vast horizontal volumes. In addition, this building also possesses substantial attributes of monumentality. Despite being located within an urban setting, both the vertical and horizontal symmetry are articulately inclined to create massive voids. According to Foster (2011), this demonstrates that manner in which modernism architecture was closely concerned with the use of geometry in maximizing volume. Finally, the Town Hall in subject has flat roof, as opposed with postmodern roofing styles. In order to understand the technical conventions underlying modernistic architecture, one has to acknowledge the role of multidimensional phenomena in influencing perceptual attributes. Goldhagen (2005) says that modernistic architectural motifs were closely related to stylistic tropes that fell comfortably within the boundaries of pre-determined paradigm. At this point, it is undeniable that modernism placed emphasis on aspects of rationalism and constructivism. Paradigm systems at that time created an impulsion on artists to consolidate their ideals in a conservative manner. Inasmuch as architects like Willem Dudok possessed substantial creativity in their work, they were invariably restricted by modernism paradigm into limiting their artistic edges within the established boundaries of paradoxical styles. In most cases, architectural historians adopted the impression that the physical forms of structures like the vertically inclined walls of the Town Hall in Hilversum were influenced by universality of themes and external influence. According to Goldhagen (2005), Willem Dudok must have based his work on the regional influence of culture, climate and political practices. Regular shaped buildings like the Town Hall in Hilversum represented an official image, thus it was preferred for use as a government house. One physical attribute about this hall in Hilversum is the flat roofing style commonly employed in development of official buildings during the first half of 20th Century. In postmodern architecture, architectural icons like the Willis Tower in Wacker Drive, Chicago, have complex roofing structures as opposed to flat roofs in modernism. After the elapse of modernism period, flat roofs were swiftly replaced by deconstructive and unsymmetrical roofs. According to Allen and Kennedy (2011), the use of bricks and concrete in developing flat roofs was replaced by use of glass and tiles in creating unconventionally skewed top cover in skyscrapers. Modernism architecture did not have a varied range of developing roofing geometries. However, postmodern architecture employs complex and pluralistic calculations in designing and constructing illusion roofing systems. According to Allen and Kennedy (2011), this does not necessarily mean that modernism architects lacked appropriate technological tools like computer programs in designing complex roofs. Flat roofing seen in Town Hall of Hilversum signifies the manner in which style-based paradigm forced artists to strongly incline their work towards counter-subjective reasoning. Having acknowledged the role of objective and rigid paradigm in influencing the design and construction of Town Hall in Hilversum, one may want to know why official buildings in Netherlands bore close resemblance to official structures in distant regions like Russia and Greece. Despite heterogeneity in artistic skills and knowledge of modernism architects like Willem Dudok, their work portrayed substantial homogeneity in the use of visual symbolism and style. This means that modernism era experienced wide assimilation of international ideas and cultural values in the use of object symbolism in creating conceptual meaning. Allen and Kennedy (2011) say that after the First World War, flat roofs were considered protective and structurally strong to resist mechanical damage from adverse climate and violent human behavior. In this case, modernism architects were caught up in interrelatedness of objectivity and uniformity in cognitive habits. Despite significant variation is asymmetrical alignment of walls and roofs, architects of modernism still displayed substantial cognitive tenacity in establishing a balance between aspects of volume and style. Therefore, similarity in buildings in different geographical region signifies employment of common intention in creating physical style in art. Glass Pavilion, Cologne 1914 Figure ii Glass Pavilion by Bruno Taut, Deutscher Werkbund Exhibition, Cologne, 1914 The Glass Pavilion, designed in 1914 for the Deutscher Werkbund Exhibition in Cologne is another example of architectural representation of modernism architecture. Glass Pavilion was constructed in 1914 after a completion of design by the famous German architecture Bruno Taut. It served as an exhibition of art in Deutscher Werkbund, which was a popular art center in Germany. During the first two decades of 20th Century, this glass pavilion was a colorful landmark of art exhibition in northern Europe. With respect to the image attached above, Glass Pavilion was constructed using concrete and glass. One interesting thing about this building involves use of colored glass in building part of the upper walls and the roof. According to Goldhagen (2005), colors of these glass materials used range from green, to yellow with blue in the middle. Images of the Glass Pavilion shows that this structure was shaped into a pineapple form with multifaceted polygonal structures. Another important feature of this building is the staircases constructed outside the outside perimeter. Staircases led into the upper entrance where viewers could enjoy the experience of kaleidoscope colors caused by illumination from sunlight. Taut’s work was among the first architectural structures constructed using concrete and colored glass. In this regard, it served as a representation of unofficial buildings of modernism. Having appraised the physical form the Glass Pavilion, we will carry out a detailed analysis on the manner in which modernism principles influenced Bruno Taut’s work. First, Glass Pavilion signifies use of expressionism in German architecture. This corresponds to the earlier acknowledgement that Avant Garde encouraged the use of structural expressionism on design and construction of buildings. The building’s interior walls were prismatic and polygonal in shape. This created an expression of symbolism in art. It represented creative skills of Bruno Taut as an established artist of the modernism period. Goldhagen (2005) says that the colored roofing structure made of glass signifies mosaic flexibility which was preferred in design and construction of unofficial structures at that time. Combination of brick and glass serves as an excellent instance of style versus intention. Architectural historians reached a conclusion that use of glass, brick and concrete in constructing the Glass Pavilion is a clear expression of technological edge at modernism era. Aspect of style features in the manner in which Bruno employed orthogonal geometry in creating an artistic allusion of the Glass Pavilion building. On the contrary, intention is represented by use of sophisticated building material in articulating an artistic orientation with maximization of the volume aspect. In this context, structural expression as emphasized by modernism paradigm ensured that style elicited the desired socio-ethical intentions of the architect. According to Goldhagen (2005), technology used in creating the asymmetrical polygonal structure represents architectural interest and intelligence prevalent during Bruno’s hey days. During the first decades of 20th Century, the consumer public was substantially interested in visionary representation of aesthetical judgment. The public perception was strongly influenced by conscious conceptual values of formalistic point of view. Apart from authenticity in architecture, the Glass Pavilion in Cologne represents modernistic embrace of elitism in engineering. According to Goldhagen (2005), orthogonal alignment of the rhombic glassed roof shows keen interest in geometric repetition. In this context, ideologies of vanguard culture suppressed the architect’s desires to adopt vertical walls, thus opting to design an offensively inverted alignment of walls and the roof. With respect to postmodernism, there is a great possibility that the Glass Pavilion would not have adopted a repetitive geometry in designing the roof. The culture of postmodernism is not fond with predictive and uniform expression of artistic skills. This explains why current skyscrapers in New York are physically different from each other. In an event that New York skyscrapers were developed during the modernism era, they would all employ similar techniques in portraying the architect’s intentions. According to Sharp (2002), postmodern conventions of architecture make repetition and copying of designs almost impossible and out fashioned. Modernistic architects like Bruno Taut and Willem demonstrates similarity in autonomous dynamism. Despite the fact that the two buildings in Hilversum and Cologne served different purposes, it is still evident that both artists employed the same intentions in choosing the underlying style. However, postmodern buildings do not portray resemblance in style and even artistic intentions. In fact, conventions in postmodern architecture make it almost impossible to reproduce another artist’s work. In addition, it is hard to deduce postmodern intentions of art since architects operate on subjective convictions as opposed to rigid and objective convictions of modernism era. Comparison between Modern and Postmodern Architecture At this juncture, it is undeniable that modernism expressed substantial autonomic dynamism in structural expressionism. In most cases, one may be tempted to imagine that all architects operating during the early 20th Century underwent education and training within the same learning institution. However, such a notion will be misguided since most of the architects came from different social and political backgrounds. This means that uniformity in academic skills cannot be used to deduce convergence of artistic skills of architects like Bruno Taut and Willem Dudok. According to Robert (2007), convergence and uniformity in artistic skills demonstrates the manner in which modernism architecture was significantly influenced by close relationship between cultural conventions and professional conference. Despite the fact that postmodern architects may be trained by the same lecturer within a similar learning environment, they will still demonstrate considerable fluidity in professional undertakings. Postmodern architecture is considerably detached from identifiable forms of thought patterns and allegiance in uniform cognitive reference. This explains why modernism was fond of intellectual tradition of figurative representation, while postmodern architecture adopt obsolesce in incorporating principles of mass culture in style and content. Conclusion In conclusion, it is undeniable that art, especially architecture in modernism and postmodernism had substantial differences. Conventions adopted by modernism architects were uniform and predictable. However, postmodernism does not encourage application of uniform architectural conventions. This uniformity in conventions explains why modernism buildings like the Glass Pavilion explicitly portray artistic intentions in an absolute manner. On the contrary, postmodernism architecture portrays significant relativism in skills of architects. At this juncture, it is evident that architects in postmodern era are more liberal in their work as opposed to those in modernism era. Reference List Allen, R., & Kennedy, K. (2001). Optimizing Compilers for Modern Architectures: A Dependence-based Approach. Journal of Modern Engineering, 23(7), 12-27. Charles, H., & Sean, G. (2011). Radical Post-Modernism: Architectural Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Dorita, H. (2013). Event-space: Theatre Architecture & the Historical Avant-garde. New York: New York University. Foster, H. (2011). Art since 1900: Modernism, Anti-modernism and Postmodernism. Harrisburg: Thames & Hudson. Goldhagen, W.S. (2005). Something to Talk about: Modernism, Discourse, Style. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 64(2), 144-167. Heynen, H. (2000). Architecture and Modernity: A Critique. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Marta, R. & Petra, B. (2010). In the Vanguard of Culture Transfer: Peripheral Transfer of Architectural Knowledge. Indianapolis: Barkhuis. Robert, J. G. (2007). The Experience of Modernism: Modern Architects and the Future City, 1928-53. Cardiff: E & FN Spon. Scoffham, E. & Machedon, L. (1999). Romanian Modernism: The Architecture of Bucharest 1920-1940. New York: Cengage Learning. Sharp, D. (2002). Twentieth Century Architecture: A Visual History. Washington DC: Images Publishing. Read More