Tectonic Revolution - Coursework Example

Tectonic Revolution Introduction Through the emergence of a diverse form of new materials, including iron, steel, and reinforced concrete, the nineteenth-century exhibited a tectonic revolution. As architects grappled with this new forms of creative expression many strands of thought emerged that was in many instances conflicting. While most influential architects embraced the new forms of technology, they disagreed with the ways in which they should be implemented, and the extent to which they should form an entirely new form of architecture. This essay considers a number of sometimes conflicting viewpoints in an effort to develop a pragmatic understanding of the complex relation between artistic form and function, and the way architects believed the new materials should be implemented. Towards An Architecture In Towards An Architecture, Le Corbusier begins by discussing the relation of tools of construction to the epochs in which they were invented – Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age – and argues that “they are direct and immediate expressions of progress; tools are necessary helpmates; tools are liberators too.”1 He draws a parallel between the nature of the building, specifically the house, and a connection to religion; for Le Corbusier, the house roof is akin to a steeple pointing toward heaven. He believes the ‘religion of the house’ has remained static for centuries and must change in order to better suit the nature of humanity. He derides National Schools for perpetuating this traditional concept of the house, and presumably architecture in general. For him, these schools and their traditional modes of architectural production are perverted by being too ornate, as their reliance on facades and other means of expression demonstrate that they have become too far removed from what he believes is the true nature of architecture. What Le Corbusier is getting at in this piece is that the forms of architecture should be based on things that are closer to mathematical reason. That with the advent of the tectonic and industrial revolutions the architectural and social order has changed so dramatically that there should be a corresponding shift in architectural form. He states, “Our exterior world has been formidably transformed in its appearance and its use owing to the machine. We have a new vision and a new social life, but we have not adapted the house accordingly.”2 Throughout the essay there is a noticeable aesthetic favoring of what he perceives as a rational and mathematical order. In one instance, he even aligns the taste with the natural order of the world of which mathematics and rationality and similar aligned with, and implies that only buildings designed in this state of mind are aesthetically appropriate, “Architectural emotion: that’s when the work resounds inside us in tune with a universe whose laws we are subject to, recognize, and admire.”3 In all, the essay is a firm affirmation of the tectonic revolution, and it suggests a new aesthetic approach devoid of the facades that are promoted in the National Schools. Five Points Towards a New Architecture In Five Points Towards a New Architecture Le Corbusier outlines five points that develop his vision of a new architecture in tune with the tectonic revolution. His ideas in this article are very similar to those he discusses in Towards An Architecture, namely the heavy reliance on mathematical forms and rationality in constructing the buildings. For instance, he writes, “Both supports and support foundations are precisely calculated according to the burdens they are called upon to carry. These supports are spaced out at specific, equal intervals, with no through for the interior arrangement of the building.”4 In all points of his plan Le Corbusier considers not importance of decoration in the buildings but rather emphasizes practical concerns, such as reinforced concrete construction and constructing the windows so that maximum light will be directed into the building. Le Corbusier furthers his critique of traditional forms of architecture, going as far to say that learning literary and historical teaching is useless as the tectonic revolution -- coupled with social progress -- has made such past epochs irrelevant. He again concludes by wholeheartedly embracing the technological forms that have changed the means by which buildings can be constructed, “Thus the architect has at his disposal a box of building units. His architectural talent can operate freely. It alone, through the building programme, determines his architecture. The age of the architect is coming.”5 As one can see, for Le Corbusier, these new tools of architectural expression have the potential to empower architects into a new realm of discovery and progress. Principle of Cladding In Adolph Loos’ Principle of Cladding he considers the nature of architecture from its origin and uses this as the foundation to which he develops a theory for how architecture should function. In the beginning, carpet was placed up as cladding to create warmth and only later were walls constructed to extend the cladding so that an entire family could be accommodated. This is significant as it indicates that the feel of the building or home was the original intention of architectural construction, not the look or façade. While Le Corbusier has seemingly one direct path for architecture – that based on rationality and mathematical congruity – Loos’ perspective is more open to artistic creativity. He states, “Art, however, has nothing to do with counterfeiting or lying. Her paths are full of thorns, but they are pure.”6 Similar to Le Corbusier, Loos derides reliance on historical forms of architecture as an element of the masses, and indicates that it is contrary to the work of the true artist. While it seems that Le Corbusier is in favor of a more stringent set of principles directly aligned with a mathematical order, Loos is merely concerned with reducing the artifice of buildings. He discusses a number of laws he believes should be followed in building construction. They laws forbid wood to be painted as if it were not wood, and stuccowork to be painted as it were brickwork. Similar to Le Corbusier, there is a sense that getting back to the essential elements of architecture is the right path and that the progress of the tectonic revolution should be harnessed for these means. Address to the Illinois Institute of Technology In Mies van der Rohe’s Address to the Illinois Institute of Technology technological advances are embraced in opposition to what was deemed as van der Rohe’s past concerns of spirituality in architecture. For van der Rohe technology becomes an exalted thing. Van der Rohe’s concept of technology as a transcendent form of expression has many similarities to Le Corbusier’s mode of thinking. Both architects completely embrace the tectonic revolution and the new forms of expression it allows. They also differ from Adolph Loos in that they understand technological progress to be intimately aligned with progress in the world, and they seem to support a view of the world as moving in one direction determined by rationality and adherence to mathematical forms. Both architects also encourage the removal of the artistry of the architect from the form of creation, instead understanding the role and incorporation of new forms of technology as the primary driving force behind artistic creation; van der Rohe states, “Technology is far more than a method, it is a world in itself. As a method it is superior in almost every respect. But only as it is left to itself, as in giant structures of engineering, there technology reveals its true nature.”7 Rather than architecture being an element of artistic expression, for van der Rohe and Le Corbusier it is the unfolding of undiscovered potentials that will be integrated into the progress or architecture. He writes, “Whenever technology reaches its real fulfillment, it transcends into architecture.”8 That is, as new technology emerges it will not merely disregard the old forms of construction, but that these past technological advances will become the foundation on which new advances – such as those of the tectonic revolution – will supplement into new forms of creation. Four Elements of Architecture In Four Elements of Architecture Gottfried Semper begins his examination of the interrelation between technological materials and architectural form very similar to the way Le Corbusier and Adolph Loos began their investigations; namely, they begin with the earliest forms of building construction and work from there to argue that their architectural vision is the correct vision. For Semper, this starts in Asia Minor and the camp fire, after which the roof, enclosure, and mound were constructed. It’s notable that this differs slightly from Loos’ formulation in which the carpet cladding walls were the first elements of form; although both architects place great emphasis on the nature of architecture as aligned with these early carpet constructions. Semper goes on to trace the development of the building from these early incarnations of the Assyrians, all the while indicating that there is a clearly defined means of progress being made from one form to the next. For Semper, as well as Loos, the carpet and its subsequent adornments seem to stand in contrast to the conclusions develop by Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe. In the case of the latter, it was always the technological form that followed the function, whereas Semper argues that more developed works of art, sculpture, and architecture are determined by their complexity of expression. He states, “The faces do not show the slightest trace of an artistic effort to render the inner state of the soul; they are, even with their constant smiles, without any individual expression. In this respect they are less advanced than Egyptian sculpture and resemble more the early works of the Greeks.”9 While all the writers thus discussed have demonstrated a firm belief in the progress of art and architecture, they differ on the means that the material changes of the tectonic revolution should be incorporated into the construction of new buildings. Semper and Loos place more of an emphasis on artistic expression and reliance on traditional architectures, while Le Corbusier and van der Rohe believe that an entirely new form of expression should be developed from these new materials and that studying the past has very little importance on means of expression in the present. Applying New Architectural Principles In Applying New Architectural Principles Viollet-le-Duc follows the previous architects discussed by emphasizing the important contributions new forms of technology and building materials make to the progress or architecture. He states, “It is not by fits and starts that progress takes place but by a series of transitions, and so far from losing sight of the past let us rise above it by building upon it.”10 Similar to Le Corbusier he emphasizes that the form of the buildings should be consistent with a rational and mathematical order. While he doesn’t criticize the past styles of the Romans, or Louis XIV, he believes that the new architecture should, “endeavor not to impoverish, despoil, and humiliate ourselves,” which he insinuates is evident in the grand facades of these past styles “but to gain respect by a display of taste, thought, and good sense, rather than by an unjustifiable abuse of wealth.”11 The text notes that le-Duc was a large supporter of iron. Like Le Corbusier, his understanding of architectural form is, “that the design of the building should be devised in terms of the structural system appropriate to the needs of the program.”12 He goes on to give a number of hypothetical designs for buildings. In all, it seems that his perspective is very similar to that of Le Corbusier in that his emphasis on strict form and practicality supersedes concerns with facades and ornamentation. Conclusion As can be seen the complex ideas proposed by these architects are many times contradictory. Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, and Viollet-le-Duc believed that the new materials of the tectonic revolution should form an entirely new form of architecture that would emphasize strict function as determined by rationality. Conversely, Adolph Loos and Gottfriend Semper envisioned a form of architecture that was more open to artistic interpretation that would, nonetheless, embrace and make use of the new forms of tectonic expression. Ultimately, all the architects understood that the new materials signaled a major element of progress for architecture. References Le Corbusier, ‘Aesthetic of the Engineer’ Toward An Architecture Le Corbusier, Five Points Towards a New Architecture Loos, Adolph. (1982) ‘Principles of Cladding’ Spoken into the Void. MIT Press Roth, Leland. ‘Address to the Illinois Institute of Technology’ America Builds. Harper and Row Publishers. Semper, Gottfried. (1851) The Four Elements of Architecture. Cambridge University Press. Viollet-le-Duc. Applying New Architectural Principles. The Architectural Theory of Viollet-le- Duc. Read More