Modern Spaces - Our Understanding of Space as Affected by Modernism - Case Study Example

Modern Spaces: Our Understanding of Space as Affected by Modernism Throughout most of history, social spaces have been thought of as a form of three-dimensional man-made construction – whether it was a purposeful arrangement of rocks and skins or a more permanent collection of bricks and mortar. During the past century, however, our conception of buildings has made a tremendous transformation. Under current ideas of space, social areas are recognized as something more than a structure to be built within a specific budget; buildings are also considered a means of expressing or repressing social harmonisation, interaction and innovation. Unlike past centuries in which the material element of the building was the main focus of design, the backbone philosophy of modern architecture is seen as an exploration of the intimate relationships that are shared between the constructed space and its occupants. In other words, modern architecture is all about finding and legitimizing the connections between human emotions and physical space as the places reserved for community interaction are identified (Massey 2000, p.49). Scholars define modernity as the relationship between a space in which to live and material architecture or as “a condition of living imposed upon individuals by the socioeconomic process of modernisation” (Heynen 1999, p.4). Thus, modernity should be understood as a conceptual framework of individual expression as well as a reflection of society as a whole. This implies that it is comprised of intellectual ideas and movements as well as by the development of new processes and materials of modernisation. In the architectural context, modernity is the “dialectical relationship ... which modernism consciously or unconsciously, directly or indirectly, positively or negatively reflects the effects of capitalist development” (Heynen 1999: 4). The modernist ideology is thus revealed to have a number of different contexts bound together and interacting with our social understandings contributing to our intuitive and overt sense and understanding of space. To improve our understanding of modern spaces, it is helpful to begin applying the theories to actual practice as they were explored by such architects as Le Corbusier. The primary influence Modernism had was brought forward during the early to mid-1900s. This occurred as a result of the excitement of industrialization and the introduction of new materials which inspired new direction in design and philosophy. The rationale behind modernism is complex. It is fundamental as well as aesthetic, involving ethics, progress, knowledge and techniques, all defined by mankind’s requirement for shelter, space for social interaction, and a desire to incorporate the wonders of the machine age. According to Marshall Berman, modernity can be thought of as “a mode of vital experience—experience of space and time, of the self and others, of life’s possibilities and perils—that is shared by men and women all over the world today. I will call this body of experience ‘modernity’” (Berman, 1982). For Berman, the contradictions of modernity are can be described as an irresistible tendency to order space and time at the same time that events and ideas of progress strive to promote the failure of this established order. “To be modern is to live a life of paradox and contradiction. It is to be overpowered by the immense bureaucratic organizations that have the power to control and often to destroy all communities, values, lives; and yet to be undeterred in our determination to face these forces, to fight to change their world and make it our own. It is to be both revolutionary and conservative: alive to new possibilities for experience and adventure, frightened by the nihilistic depths to which so many modern adventures lead” (Berman, 1982). Another way of demonstrating this idea of the modern as a constant struggle between the ordered and disordered can be shown through an analysis of the World Trade Center of New York City. Berman describes the physical structure of the towers as “isolated” because the center itself was hard to get to and difficult to use. According to Berman, “it gave off hostility” in a way that was not shared by other structures such as the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings, each of which were seen as standing in the midst of life and as part of the total system in which they stand. “Their [the Port Authority who designed the buildings] idea of safety involved repelling the people. The slab shape of the Towers and their isolation grew out of an aesthetic voiced best by Le Corbusier, who said that in order to have modern planning we have to ‘kill the streets.’ For him the street epitomized disorder and chaos” (Berman, 2002). In comparison, the Battery Park City Complex, designed by the same Port Authority and with many of the same underlying conceptions as the World Trade Center, is given a much friendlier aspect thanks to its inclusion of parks, museums, restaurants and other amenities that encourage visitors to stay and enjoy. Even though it is usually felt that the city is the ultimate melting pot of diverse cultures, people, ideas and practices, Berman indicates it is also “an endless series of completely sterile and empty gigantic spaces all over the world” (Berman, 2002). Thus, modernity is defined by a contradictory set of ideas that constantly shifts and changes even while remaining the same. As people are learning to function within this environment, these contradictions become so ingrained that they are no longer obvious. It may seem that the concept of modern architecture would need little explanation. However, attempting to translate the paradoxical conceptions of modernism to the medium of constructed space would seem impossible as buildings necessarily reflect a specific period in time. “In the field of architecture, the term [modern] was used … to connote the works of architects from profoundly different origins and cultural backgrounds, who had based their own work on a reduction in expressive media, a rediscovery of the value of empty space and a radical elimination of everything that does not coincide with a programme of simplicity and formal cleanliness” (Cinar, 2000). While this does not fully explain the principles of Modernism as they applied to structure, it does begin to explain how the emphasis on clean lines and reduction in ornamentation were applied to the buildings designed in this period. Only by taking a closer look at a representative example can a clearer picture emerge. The four principle designers associated with the modern movement were Walter Gropius, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, and Frank Lloyd Wright. Among these, Le Corbusier was arguably the most influential designer on future modern developers. For this reason, he is typically named the pioneer of modernism. Modernism, according to Malcolmson (2006), was the reflection of a search for “a better place for all citizens at all social levels after the appalling carnage of the Great War” (p. 410). It reflects a search for the kind of utopia which would combine the artistic and aesthetic movements that were most important to the common man. Mies van der Rohe’s grand but mystical skyscraper designs provide some stunning examples of the age of citizenry as does Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye. Figure 1 - Villa Savoye Source: http://www.archinnovations.com/featured-projects/houses/le-corbusier-and-villa-savoye/ Heynen (1999) defined modernism as “the experience of modernity which provoked responses in the form of cultural tendencies and artistic movements towards the future and the desire for progress” (p.10). From this point of view, modernism refers to an objective socialisation of people as it shapes a particular interpretation of what is considered modern and the people’s acknowledgment that object, environment, etc. is modern. In architecture, it was the embodiment of the experience of modernity and the problems therein which have formed the avant-garde movements of futurism and constructivism (Heynen 1999, p.28). Cantor (1988) and other critics, however, considered modernism to be largely a political and economic explication of culture as it was understood after the devastation of the World Wars. In this case, the basic groundwork for this kind of cultural transformation emerged slowly through a process of politicised ideology rather than as a result of true transformation. Modernism thus emerged in architecture as a composition of forms with purpose which started to assimilate into asymmetric grouped shapes and flat colours. Although Frank Lloyd Wright is generally recognized as the pioneer of modernism, it was Gropius, Le Corbusier and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe who led the architectural modernist movement into the future. Their designs are characterized by logic, clarity of structure and use of space as fluid planes. Le Corbusier, for example, developed the ideology of using colours in abstractions and materials such as bottles, pitchers and glasses which pioneered many of the designs of the 20th century. He also introduced new approaches to floor plans and elevations based on these concepts. At the same time, the Bauhaus designers had already been driving the employment of straight lines and the inventive use of alternate materials in household items (Barr 1954, p. 220). Modernism in Gold’s (1998) view was “developed in the background of war, revolution and social dislocation” (p.21). Architects during this era were thus in a unique social position enabling them to radically change the design of establishments, home-making culture, and reorganize many of the core social spaces of our lives through the dwellings themselves. Early modernist architects looked to their past for inspiration and trends, while later ones developed original and radical ideas of form as a means of intentional departure. The most common theme of modern architecture is a sense of harmony developed through the employment of a master plan. This involved using layouts of structures in geometric harmony with boundaries of different zones of land use within its immediate surroundings. The interiors of these structures were more closely linked with the lifestyle of the owners as a depiction of their every day activity (Gold 1998). Charles-Edouard Jeanneret, later known as Le Corbusier, was an architect, artist, designer, writer and philosopher whose name has been synonymous with modernism since his earliest designs. Like many of the architects of his generation, Le Corbusier was strongly interested in the advancements of the machine age and had an interest in developing a new art deco age, in which the imagination of the human and the mass production of the machine might merge into a harmonious whole. His means of accomplishing this was to incorporate strong colour, elegant form and innovative materials into his designs. Two of his buildings, the Villa Savoye in Savoye, France and Mill-owners’ Building in Ahmadabad, India, are today considered among the most representative structures of modernist architectural philosophy. Le Corbusier, working in collaboration with Pierre Jeanneret, developed five core principles of architecture which are reflected in Villa Savoye (Weber 2008). Figure 2 – Villa Savoye approach Source: http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/france_829/label-france_5343/les-themes_5497/culture_13692/design-architecture_14453/architecte-corbusier-1887-1965-no-67-2007_50486.html Le Corbusier’s logic was based on humanitarian logic, and revolved around equality, fundamental needs regardless of cultural background and the right to comfortable and accessible dwellings. His architectural and design philosophy was based on his conception of collective and family life (Le Corbusier Le Grand 2008). Considering these ideas, he identified three layers of basic needs that must be satisfied in providing man with an appropriate dwelling. The first requirement is man’s pure physical need for sheltered space which man required as a form of protection appropriate to his environment. “That there is something definable as a modernist architectural space, no one living in the age of Le Corbusier can doubt. That space can be, and is in Corbusier’s architecture, the very substance of architecture, and that this is a new and revolutionary idea in architectural history, is also no longer open to question” (Millard, p. 448). Realizing the increasingly urban nature of human living spaces, Le Corbusier felt modern architecture needed to incorporate those elements of life that seemed missing in our outer worlds, namely the need for sun, space and vegetation reflected within the inner space of the dwellings. This need for open, naturally-lit and living space, he said, should be used as the foundational logic for construction. Some architectural features addressing this requirement evident in the Villa Savoye include glass walls, solarium terraces and skylights. The second level of need that Corbusier identified was the psychosomatic comfort level which can be achieved by regulating the flow of air through these designed spaces. This was achieved through the inclusion of ventilation shafts, sonic ventilation in the form of adjustable openings to create or close off air systems, and shutters installed in the glass walls of windows providing the means of ‘shutting them off’ if and when desired. This necessary movement of air and ability to somewhat control the air and air temperatures within the living space contributes to the meaning of the constructed space as we realize the psychological boost it provides us. Foucault’s observations that “how we are housed helps to determine who we are and may be, and one can thus examine through what means, conceptual and physical, and in response to what problems, we have come, so to speak, to inscribe ourselves in architectural stone” (cited in Rajchman, 1990, p. 33) can be extracted to how this air flow affects our sense of the space. Regardless of how open it is, a hot, enclosed, airless space will always feel stifling and decrease our sense of ability while a room at a comfortable temperature and a sense of air movement will help us feel more energized and able. The third layer of comfort was based further from the individual to consider the effects of culture which Le Corbusier believed to be the main basis for the specific types of activities that were conducted within the dwelling-space. He recognized that basic services within the infrastructure of a city such as laundry, shops, schools, gymnasiums, theatres and restaurants needed to be included if the city was to serve the basic needs of the modern man. Similarly, in individual dwellings, functional but spacious units should reflect particular individual culture and style (Choay 1960) while still leaving the space flexible enough for different use. “Modernity stands for the attitude toward life that is associated with a continuous process of evolution and transformation, with an orientation toward a future that will be different from the past and from the present. The experience modernity provokes responses in the form of cultural tendencies and artistic movements” (Heynen, 1999, p. 10). Thus, the activities that are conducted within the living space reflect the culture and ideas without the space even as they are changed and adapted in reaction to the space and re-introduced to the outer world contributing to a constant ebb and flow of changing ideas building and shaping the future. Le Corbusiers conception of the relationship between creatures and nature could be best described as an “assertion of man in the face of nature” as nature contributed to man’s understanding of himself. According to Le Corbusier, the outer landscape was as important to architecture design and logic as its dwellers. Elements like windows, roofs and terraces helped structure the unit within the framework of the landscape while opening up space that could be changed and adapted by man. His theory also included the use of modern materials to achieve desired effects and innovative carpentry techniques to make the most of the spaces offered (Choay 1960). This, too, contributed to the living experience of man and helped shape the way in which he approached the more abstract concepts of life. It can be concluded that modernism has been a movement of ideology rather than a purely cultural or political shift. While critics may consider a movement as having the characteristics of political, social, ideas, and cultural change, modernism lacked in that sense. Nevertheless, modernism was a revolution that changed the characteristic landscape of architecture and interior design. It transcended and transformed the concepts adopted by classic architects and designers. Modernism’s relationship with architecture and interior space was hinged on the profusion of domestic application of art and design. These were clearly denoted in the new approach to designing simple interior furnishing items like tables, chairs, and dividers etc. These works were developed with the ideal of removing some of the ills of industrialisation. Le Corbusier in particular was a master planner who believed he could revolutionise the urban industrial landscape through his designs. Unlike his predecessors, he did not concentrate on individual buildings or interiors only but developed plans that harmonized with the landscape. His vision was to integrate new designs which blend in with the old landscape, but to create new dimensions for its dwellers and improve their living conditions. His preoccupation with wide windows, lighting, ventilation and open terraces were meant to improve the dingy and dark living environment of the industrial cities. His avant-garde ideology was the basis for modernists to develop mass consciousness in physical and social change. He was responsible for driving social change which reflected the industrial environment. Moreover, his ideology was formed to offer solutions to industrial ills rather than merely pursuing design form. References Le Corbusier Le Grand Illustrated. (July 2, 2008). Phaidon Press Inc. Barr, Jr. A. (1954) Masters of Modern Art. Simon and Schuster: New York pp. 214. Berman, Marshall. (1982). All That is Solid Melts Into Air: The Experience of Modernity. New York: Penguin Books. Berman, Marshall. (2002). Big Apple Redux: An Interview with Marshall Berman. Retrieved October 22, 2009 from < http://eserver.org/clogic/4-2/monchinski_berman.html> Cantor, N. F (1988) Twentieth-Century Culture: Modernism to Deconstruction. Peter Lang: New York. Choay, F. (1960) Le Corbusier. G. Braziller: New York. pp. 18. Cinar, Selin. (2000). “Minimalist Architecture.” World Architecture Community. Available October 22, 2009 from < http://www.worldarchitecture.org/theory-issues/?position=detail&no=29&ref=ri&rel=2> Gold, J. R. (April 21, 1998) The experience of modernism: Modern architects and the future city. Taylor & Francis; 1 edition. Heynen, H. (1999) Architecture and Modernity: A Critique. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts/ London, England. Malcolmson, P. (2006) From Bauhaus to Our House: Modernism, 1914-1939. Queens Quarterly. Volume: 113. Issue: 3. Fall Issue pp. 410+ Massey, D. (2000) "Space-time and the politics of location" in Architecturally Speaking: Practices of Art, Architecture, and the Everyday by Alan Read ed. Routledge: London. Millard, Charles W. (Autumn 1967). “Modernist Architectural Spaces.” The Hudson Review. Vol. 20, N. 3, pp. 448-453. Rajchman, John. (1990). “What’s New in Architecture.” Philosophy and Architecture. Andrew Benjamin (Ed.). London: Academy Editions, pp. 33-37. Weber, F. (2008) Le Corbusier: A Life. Alfred A. Knopf. Read More