Modern Movement in Architecture - Term Paper Example

MODERN MOVEMENT IN ARCHITECTURE Name Tutor Course Date Abstract Modern movement in architecture refers to a shift in the design of how new buildings were designed that is different from the traditional ways of construction. It refers to the modern art and architecture created in the late 19th and 20th century1. The movement began in Europe in the year 1920 and spread to the United States. This paper will discuss in detail the modern movements that have taken place in architecture. It will first look at the overview of modern movement that will look at its characteristics. The paper will then look at how the modern movements differ from the traditional forms of architecture in terms of who ordered for them and what they comprised. The paper will then critically compare the work of historian Sigfried Giedion and Le Corbusier. It will also look at how different their views are. Finally, the paper will come up with a conclusion taking into consideration the discussions that the authors presented. Overview of modern movement Modernism is a concept that refers to the recent past, especially after the 2nd world war. Modern movement involves a movement that comprises both artistic and architectural works that are unique and different from other historical precedent. The modern movement was started in the late 20th century and came into being due to changes in political and social arenas2. It takes the form of movement, styles and various designs. It was also brought about by technological innovation and creativity that created a revolution in design. In the 20th century, architects viewed the world in a new way because of the advancements in engineering and construction. New products such as steel created new opportunities for the designers. Buildings were reinvented due to creation of new manufacturing techniques. The modern architecture had the characteristic of simplicity and clarity. It relied on natural appearance and used machine aesthetic in enhancing their beauty. Another characteristic of modern architecture was that its architects expressed their views through the use of vocabularies3. The architects took into consideration their functionalism and cost efficiency. This is because it involved the tastes and preferences of the public making cost an important factor to consider. The modern movement was different from the traditional forms in that the modern one took into consideration the needs of the working class and various people. In many countries, the modern movement was brought about by an expansion in economic base that led to more money being invested in architecture. The modern forms were rational unlike traditional architecture that was created according to predetermined models. They allowed exploration of various possibilities which led to various designs and a range of architectural aesthetic. The form upon which the structures were built was determined more by aesthetic rather than their utility and function. Buildings that were complex in nature were built because the designers integrated the above characteristics in building them. The traditional designs were associated with the tyrannies of the past while the modern ones were rational and did not depend on certain individuals4. Before the 19th century, artists were required to accommodate the wishes of the period in regard to color, size, subject matter and techniques. The architecture was also commissioned by government officials, aristocrats and wealthy individuals. This is different from the modern movement that took into consideration the desires of various individuals and made the architecture available to the public for them to purchase. In the modern movement, the artists had the freedom to use different forms of media in making art. The modern movement that was developed in Europe comprised of simple surfaces that had no decoration. The architecture was different from the traditional one that comprised colors, patterns and writings. The modern movement also engaged sculpture in their design, an example being the Catalina Baptist Church. Comparing the work of le Corbusier and that of Giedion in modern architecture Giedion and Corbusier were both famous personalities in the early years of modern architecture. They were allies and they acknowledged the work of one another. Together, they wrote a working program for the congress of the United States5. Le Corbusier was the mastermind of the congress while Giedion played the role of the secretary. They both noted that technology played an important role in revolutionizing modern architecture. They both considered steel and glass as important materials in the construction and designing of modern buildings. Le Corbusier also reinforced the use of concrete and received support from Giedion. Not only did they take into consideration the durability of the materials but they acknowledged the value of aesthetic in modern architecture. They both stated that the house was functional if it was built from a good machine. Both authors had the belief that creating a better architecture would improve people’s lives. They also believed that it could lead to a better world. Their opinions were based on the fact that the new designs would lead to creating comfort and enjoyment of lives. This paper is of the view that their opinions were limited. It argues that for a world to be a better place, social, political and economic matters needed to be put in place. The people had to have these other securities in order for them to get satisfied and for the world to be a better place. The interior construction of both the work of two authors and architects was similar in some way. They both advocated for openness and transparency. Their views can be seen in the houses that were built with an open space without obstructing walls. However, the work of Le Corbusier showed more transparency because the interior and exterior would be observed simultaneously. Both the historians were supporters of modern architecture. They stated that it was far better than the traditional models of architecture. They were also well aware of the challenges and the opportunities that surrounded modern architecture. Each appreciated the other persons’ work in terms of structure and the materials that were used. They both supported unity of thinking that was evident in science and art6. They also considered architecture as an art that was above other forms of art. The authors had a non-rational approach towards architecture. The work of Le Corbusier showed some form of overlapping with that Giedion. They both learnt from each other and gave America notable information that was useful to their architectural designs. Both historians wanted to transform the society through the use of modern architecture. They saw transformation as a necessary tool in avoiding a revolution that would shake the society. They both wrote several books where they gave their views on modern architecture. Some of their views were criticized while others were incorporated into the society. They considered technology as an important tool in creation of a modernized world. They were architects who designed various buildings such as administration buildings, universities and even parliamentary buildings. Their work had both a social, economic and political impact on the society. In one way or another, they managed to improve the living conditions of many people. Through their ideas of proper planning, crowding in the cities was reduced to minimum. Approaches towards modern movement in architecture Sigfried Gideon The movement in architecture is viewed differently by different historians. Some view it as a social matter that developed due to political and social influence while others view it as a technological development. Others view it as a concept that was brought into being by tastes and preferences of those with authority. The paper will compare the work of Le Corbusier and Sigfried Gideon. Sigfried Gideon was a Swiss art historian and a critique of architecture whose work had an impact on the modern architects. He is the author of the book named as space, time and architecture among others7. In his book, he has discussed broadly how architecture interacts with space and time. According to Gideon, the modern movement architecture relied on glass and iron structures that were built on concrete floors. He states that the structures were subconscious in that they outwardly had old pathos but hid behind facades. Gideon used the term interpenetration to refer to the qualities of new architecture; He used the term due to the experience that was brought about by the new structures. He transformed the experiences of space to describe the new architecture. He also used space to understand the future developments in architecture. He used the term Durchdringung to refer to the most important elements of architecture. He relates it with the aspects of space with one another. He states that architecture cannot be defined by objects such as stations. He looks at it in broader aspect in terms of spatial relations. The major idea that the author puts forth in his book is that architecture is not concerned with high volumes of monuments but rather on relationships between structures. His book notes that it is the relationships that create logic and meaning out of structures8. In his book Gideon also attaches meaning to modern structures. According to him, the structure does not represent eternal value but are objects that are valuable within a certain period of time. He states that its value should be defined by its use and therefore should be written off within measurable time. The idea that Gideon puts across is that houses should be open and represent the values of people that live in it. He considers that people have different feeling and the houses should be a representation of those feelings. This paper agrees to the concept of Gideon in that houses should not be viewed as places with eternal existence. With modernity and integration of various aspects in life, houses should have an open space. It should enhance comfort and reflect the feelings of those people that live within it. Openness should be in terms of lighting and transparency. He states that the art of openness and flexibility will lead to lower rents and liberate people from tradition. He particularly states that the women will be relived from a lot of chores that will be reduced to minimum. Openness, as Giedion states will also expand their view in both family and house. Giedion views modern architecture as an art that takes into consideration the surrounding environment9. He not only focuses on building but also looks at how the environment gets affected and how it influences the designs put in place by various structures. This means that his opinion in architecture is not only limited to buildings but has a broader perspective of looking at the environments such as cities. He envisions ways upon which cities can be structured to reflect upon the desires of those people that live within it. According to him, contemporary architecture is influenced by a new essence of space and time. He states that space and time are inseparable because separating one from another will cause it to fade away just like a shadow. Giedion also gives the views of how architecture plays a big role in the social phenomena. He states that unlike the past where only the upper classes constructed progressive buildings, the modern times have allowed even the low class are able to advocate for the design of their buildings. This means that the modern times have brought with it a sense of equality by giving the low class people the freedom to make choices. The writer states that the movement in the modern architecture has brought with it a new culture where political and social connotations interact with one another. He came up with the idea of using art to create a social reality. The description of modern movement in architecture by Giedion comprises of several aspects. This paper is of the view that the ideas of the author are new and use experimental ideas. He is a radical writer because he questions the nature upon which architecture takes place. The paper states that the ideas of the writer can be clearly seen because in the world today, buildings are not rooted to a certain place but they stand tall and float in space. The aspect of irrationality is observed in his book because it states that emotions should be considered in modern architecture. His concept of space and time gives it the capacity to fill the gap that exists between thoughts and actual feelings of people. His notion of bringing life and art together is described in a less explicit way. He does not describe in detail how art and life interact in order to create reality. He only states that art should be used to organize social reality. Giedion shows some difference in his position about how architecture and social life are related. In the year 1928, he states that social life should be organized on the basis of art10. In 1941, he however stated that the art is limited in social developments. It means that architecture no longer impacts the society as a whole. Through his work, there has been awareness on space in modern architecture. Le Corbusier Le Corbusier is known as the most influential modern architect that who introduced objects such as cruise ships and automobiles. He was a French Swiss architect and a historian who was one of the pioneers of modern architecture11. He influenced urban planning because he wanted to improve living in the cities. He believed that through proper planning, the cities would become less crowded. His major aim was to improve the living standards especially of the low class people in the society. The main idea of Le Corbusier towards architecture was that of perfection and standard. To him, a machine was not an end by itself but work that was created by the goals of architecture. He considered men as people who had similar needs and therefore considered a house as a machine for living. His view differs with that of Giedion who states that houses should not be considered as a place with eternal value. According to Giedion, the houses should be a representation of the feelings of those people living in it. It therefore means that he considers people differently; that they have different needs. Le Corbusier only looks at perfection without considering those people that live in them. Giedion even takes into consideration the surrounding environment while Le Corbusier only focused on the architecture and buildings. Le Corbusier’s design of architecture took a different shape from that of Giedion. Its structure was flat roof with white stucco and one with ribbon windows. His buildings simultaneously showed the exterior and the interior. The walls were concrete while those of Gideon were mainly built with steel and they only displayed the interior part. On the roof, Giedion paid much attention to iron and chose it as the material for construction. The historians had different views towards architecture. Le Corbusier was concerned more with the beauty of work while Gideion was concerned with the social impact of the architecture. He states that architects needed to have sensitivity towards the needs of the community in order to transform the people. He also points that it was necessary for the architects to have social imagination in order for a positive impact to be attained. He further states that Le Corbusier had the ability of social imagination and would transform the society through it. In his book, towards a new architecture’ he appreciates age differently from Giedion. He states that authentic principles should be rehabilitated while Giedion talks about a revolutionary analysis12. While Giedion considers architecture as the relationship that exists between buildings, Le Corbusier gives a lot of importance to the objects and the value of buildings. To him, it is the structure and its beauty that matters and not the relationship that exists. It is for this reason that Le Corbusier used various forms of technology to build structures that were complex in nature. His structures were even appreciated by Giedion. Though the author’s views differ, Giedion considers the relationship between spaces as important because he pays a lot of attention to space13. This paper is of the view that space is important in architecture because it shows how planning was done. Spacing also defines the environment upon which the structures are laid. Even though space and time are very valuable in design, beauty that is proclaimed by Le Corbusier should not be ignored. Conclusion In conclusion, the modern movement in architecture is a representation of the changing needs in the society. The movement has led to a new revolution and a new view of world. It has made the artists to think all new about the environment and how they participate in it. Modern architects have influenced various forms such as music, art and even literature. The ideas of Giedion of time and space can be seen in tall buildings in various parts of the world. The view of open space is not only seen in residential houses but in offices that have an open plan. These offices have saved time and promoted transparency that is highlighted by Le Corbusier. A difference in architecture can be viewed in several buildings that have done away with ornaments. Most of them are plain and are built to express their purpose. This paper states that though there were shifts in architecture from the traditional to the modern forms, both have some sense of commonality. They have a social link where social systems and architecture are linked. They have some sense of belief in history in that even modern art has some historical element in it. Through the use of machines, there has been a mass production of buildings that represent different functions. The new architecture takes consideration the emotions and preferences of all individuals in the society, not only the upper class. In the year 1930, many modern architects moved to the United States which led to widespread modernism. The movement became scattered in Europe and has become the dominant style in the 20th century Bibliography Jencks, Charles, Modern Movement in Architecture, London: Architectural Association, 2006. Appendix Figure 1 Source: modern movement in architecture Read More