Minimalism, functionalism and neo-eclectic - Essay Example

ARCHITECTURE The three main movements in architecture are minimalism, functionalism and neo-eclectic or postmodernism. Minimalism refers to a movement where all extravagance was removed to expose a structure to its minimum core. Architect Ludwig Mies is associated with the movement for he coined the phrase "less is more" to highlight the fundamental characteristics of his design orientation. He focused on use of space without restricting it within elaborate walls and structures. Meis and other minimalist believed in stripping down a structure to its basic core in order to use space more effectively. There were certain important characteristics attached with this movement. Small or less was the basic feature. Because it was small, it was easier to pay close attention to detail. When a thing is constructed with smallness or less in mind, it is easier to pay closer attention to it. This can be judged by the fact that when there is a small object in front of us, we can study its details more closely. Minimalism has suffered from lack of definition. Since there was never a proper definition to explain minimalism in design, the movement suffered as variety of structures and designs were associated with it. Kenneth Baker writes, "The word 'minimal' is used loosely these days in reference to any stylistic austerity in the arts " (9). It is important to thus focus on the intricate and essential basic feature of a minimalist structure. Smallness was the first thing that could be observed. And "less" or smallness of an object creates a different kind of intimacy with it as Robert Morris explains: "The quality of intimacy is attached to an object in a fairly direct proportion as its size diminishes in relation to oneself. The quality of public-ness is attached in proportion as the size increases in relation to oneself" (230). Another important feature was simplicity. Simplicity was introduced to make a structure appear more natural and thus more livable. Smallness and simplicity thus became the core of minimalist aesthetics and have been associated with such important names as Walter Gropius, Alberto Giacometti, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, Henri Gaudier-Brzeska, Constantin Brancusi, Le Corbusier, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Barth has explained the minimalist doctrine in these words: "artistic effect may be enhanced by a radical economy of artistic means, even where such parsimony comprises other values: completeness, for example, or richness or precision of statement" ( A Few Words 1). 3 Functionalism as the word suggests is a movement that focused on utility of structures. It was felt that a structure must do what it is intended to do. And while the movement may have suffered from ambiguity, no one can seriously deny the effectives of the basic doctrine of functionalism. Every object must be created to perform that job it is intended to perform. It was felt that each part of a structure must serve a purpose. It was a rather austere and neutral approach to building as if a work of art was suddenly stripped off its soul. While utility was an important characteristic and one that even modern architects cannot ignore, basic aesthetic values were largely ignored and this gave rise to criticism. It was argued that if utility is taken a bit too far, things other than utility may take a backseat and thus the entire approach suffers. This has been interestingly explained by Pile (1979) in these words: "Simplistic discussions of function in design often lose sight of the complexity of multiple functional requirements that characterize the development of most modern objects. If one supposes that each thing has a function, it can seem that discussions of this matter are pointless. The definition of a chair, after all, requires that any chair can be sat in. Similarly, all knives must cut, airplanes fly, and failure in this kind of primary function dooms an object to total failure and, in all probability, to the junk heap. In practice, every object has, in addition to the obvious primary function, many other subsidiary functional characteristics." (p.75) Postmodernist architecture, which is also referred to as neo-eclectic design, came into the picture in late 1970s and continues to this day. The essential features of this type of architecture include a return to past glory, rejection of modernist ideals and a link with asymmetrical structures. Postmodernism emerged from the belief that there was no such thing as natural in architecture and design. It challenged the naturalization of objects complaining that some things that we take as natural are often cultural and can thus be disposed off. It was an interesting concept and one that opened doors to experimentation in design. While postmodernism did not completely subvert tradition, it appeared to do so on the surface. This kind of duplicity or double-ness is what made postmodernism popular and a more enduring approach than the rest. From the beginning postmodernism rejected modernist ideals knowing that modernism had started as a reaction to ravages of two great wars. Modernism had emerged as a "heroic attempt after the Great War and the Russian Revolution to rebuild a war-ravaged Europe in the image of the new, and to make building a vital part of the envisioned renewal of society" (Huyssen 1986, 186). Postmodernism did not believe in that ideal and since it emerged at a time when world was witnessing considerably stability, there was ample space to experiment. There were no particular social and political restrictions and thus it refused modernism for did not understand the changes, which had occurred in social needs and urban design. Discussing the emergence of postmodernism and its basic features, Hutcheon (1988) writes: "the architecture of the 1970s from the start signaled a conscious move away from the modern movement or the International Style as much for overtly ideological as for aesthetic reasons. The social failure of the great modernist housing projects and the inevitable economic association of "heroic" modernism with large corporations combined to create a demand for new architectural forms that would reflect a changed and changing social awareness. These new forms were not, by any means, monolithic. They did, however, mark a shared return to such rejected forms as the vernacular (that is, to local needs and local architectural traditions), to decoration and a certain individualism in design, and, most importantly, to the past, to history." (p. 26) While minimalism was a more natural approach to design, postmodernism appears to encompass the Vitruvian goals more completely than other approaches. This is because it doesn't restrict itself to one basic feature and allows more for experimentation. It is easier to focus on utility according to each person's needs instead of a combined definition of utility. Design is meant to fulfill the needs and beauty ideals of the persons who would be using that structure. This is something that postmodernism allows with its rejection of restrictions. Since the approach developed without any particular influence, it can both subvert and adopt history and culture as and when the need arises. It can thus meet the needs and values of utility, beauty and firmness more effectively than functionalism or minimalism. References Baker, Kenneth. Minimalism: Art of Circumstance. New York: Abbeville Press, 1988. Barth, John. "A Few Words About Minimalism". New York Times Book Review 28 December 1986: 1-2, 25. Morris, Robert. "Notes on Sculpture". In Battcock, Minimal Art: A Critical Anthology 222-35. John F. Pile. Purpose, Form, and Meaning.University of Massachusetts Press. Amherst, MA. 1979 Linda Hutcheon. A Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction. Routledge. London. 1988 Huyssen, Andreas (1986) After the Great Divide: Modernism, Mass Culture, Postmodernism, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Read More