Viewing is optional!
"The "styles" are a lie"
Vers Une Architecture, 1923
So we have come a long way with architect denied trying to understand the fundamental elements of architecture, its genetic make up sort of speak. But many of you may have been disappointed or exasperated with not seeing anything that looks like architecture throughout these pages, seeing only a hole in the ground and from a distance maybe you don't even see that! But alas come closer and peer into the abyss and you will see the mighty foundation we are building our great edifice upon. Or you may just want to walk away (point and click in this case) and come back later after we have built our great palace and then I'll give you the inside tour if that is your choosing, or not. However, if you are a trooper and curious to know what brings a building to life, what gives it spirit and soul, then let's press on. So before we build up, we still have a few things to do before we start laying down the floor plans... sorry.
Historic Style
So you may be wondering, OK, we have a solid foundation to build upon, what's next? Before we answer that, we need to figure out what architectural order, style, we will be building in. In the "real world" the obvious answer is whatever the client wants it to be and what the architect thinks it should be but that is an inaccurate statement to make (you may think the client or architect is in charge and maybe they believe they are but there is more to it than that, see article 11&12) Let's not forget the client is only one element in this multi-variable equation composed of many people, influences, and ideas (read article 4 Attractor patterns) Other guiding factors depend on geography, culture, historic precedent, social acceptability, design boards, committees, what's in style at the time, political influences, financial capability, marketability, site constrains and characteristics, daring, what is currently being promoted by institutions, corporations and of course let's not forget the all and powerful media, Toohey style? I forgot to mention one other factor, how obstinate the client or the person telling the client what to do are! (You don't get this last one? read between the lines) Sorry had to get that dig in there. I'm sure there are other influences like invention, uniqueness and some other stuff I'm sure I missed. Unfortunately the reality of what style of architecture gets built is taken too literal and people tend to get too wrapped up in a specific style because, "well, I want my house or building to look like, fill in the blank: a colonial, a Victorian or a Shingle style" or whatever.
This approach to developing architecture is skin deep and superficial. I know you hate me for saying that, but you shouldn't, we are learning here, myself included. Most skyscrapers when it comes to "style" seem to have things figured out and follow a set of rules that make absolute sense, why? Because they have to (That's a whole different topic, well maybe not, but I will leave that for another time) In past debates with other architects and people, I noticed most took a strong personal position for a preferred style and an equally strong dislike for other styles. I have heard absurd stuff said like, "I adore traditional and detest modern" as one of my employers in the past declared and practiced. I once attended a class at a certain design institution in NYC that was fierce in it's hatred for modern architecture. My mentor a brilliant designer in any style, loved traditional but hoped for a modern commission to come his way. Then there are the pundits on their soapbox's, or in this case on the cover of Architectural Digest promoting the world's "greatest architecture". Not cool AD for stinking your tongue out at me, saying ha, look at what you will never be able to do! Hey give us "other" architects a break and start covering us!...OK, we were talking about style, I digress, my apologies. I think it's all a ridiculous discussion because aligning with one style of architecture over another is analogous to saying the English language is better than the French, or French is better than Polish, sounds pretty pathetic to think that way doesn't it? But unfortunately in architecture this discrimination is alive and well. Imagine if we did this with other things. What if I said one person is more worthy than another because they are prettier, oh wait, some model just choked on a raisin scone....be right back.
Here on Long Island it's interesting to see the fads that come and go, what's in and what's out. I'll give you a few examples. When I was a kid I remember my dad taking us on Sunday drives throughout the Island and my favorite place to visit was Westhampton Beach. That was because I started to become aware of architecture and they were building like mad on this narrow strip of land accessible only by bridge with the bay to one side and the Atlantic on the other. The style or should say the craze at the time (back in the seventies when I was 8 or so) was the interpretation of the so called international style in tongue and groove vertical cedar siding. It seemed every house was a variation on this theme, which I thought was pretty cool at the time. Now of course this, "not so timeless style" is rarely, if ever built. In Southampton travel down Meadow Lane on the shore and you will see one by one the traditional shingle style home, or the vertical cedar siding international, being replaced with ultra sheek modern edifices, except for Norman Jaffe's design which was already way ahead of its time because of his deeper understanding of architecture and style. Everywhere else in the Hampton's you get a couple of options to build: the super wealthy seem to prefer the ultra modern and the common wealthy build Gambrel after Gambrel after Gambrel after Gambrel, Gangnam style. (cue music)
I mentioned architectural styles are like spoken languages in many ways. They both have unique characteristics and expressions that identify them. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to admire one language over another or one style of architecture over another and maybe falling in love with one in particular. But let's not forget these are personal and sentimental assessments we are basing design decisions on. I get it, we are human and many of us play into emotions more than others when it comes to making a decision but you must realize making decisions based on emotion leads to poor outcomes; take marriage for example, wow, we have reached an all time low at Architect Denied, that was hitting below the belt...sorry for that.
Some may say the opposite is too harsh as well, basing every decision on logic and reason. Le Corbusier said "A House is a machine for living in." Une maison est une machine-à-habit, Vers une architecture (1923) But most people don't want to live in machines no matter how logical or reasonable they may seem. Most people including myself don't want to live in a cold raw utilitarian design. Le Corbusier and other pioneers of "Modern Architecture" (here we go again with labeling) did not intend on developing a style of architecture that is cold and raw but rather a response to efficient function and needs (emotional needs usually omitted) The need for a house to look cozy, homey, or cute took a back seat to a house having to serve its primary functions. Modern architecture and architects in many ways are trying to take the "nesting" syndrome out of the home and make the house more a reflection of man's technological achievements. "OK so you are telling me I need to live in a house that looks like a microwave, or a toaster oven?" No I am not. "Modern" architecture does not have to be viewed as hard, sterile lacking in comfort and made to look foolish as in some instances. Luis Barragan, famous Mexican progressive architect said " My house is a refuge, an emotional piece of architecture, not a cold piece of convenience"
It's obvious to any architect or anyone having anything to do with architecture what architectural style is in vogue and knows what's trending and what a typical homeowner will demand. So when you submit to a certain style it's already predetermined by a kit of parts that get rearranged to give the illusion that you are creating something unique and original when you are not . This is of course not what the Architect Denied supports. Now before I state my case for what architecture should "be" style wise, I want to be transparent with my views on my personal style of choice. I favor modern, or let's say progressive thinking architecture although I practice primarily traditional architecture. This may sound bizarre to some and it is to me but that's just the reality of my world now. You may be wondering, am I a sell out or I do not pursue my dreams but that is not entirely true. I love all styles of architecture so I do not get upset when I'm practicing one style over another. What I absolutely refuse to do and the reason my cup does not "runneth over" is I do not get involved with projects that are the "Sub-division" or "sprawl" style. Well look at you Mr. High and mighty, yes go ahead sling your arrows it's human nature. I'd rather be the starving artist than contribute to something I'm not in agreement with. What you think you're better than me? OK have I just offended my audience? Please do not be, that's not why I'm here and that's not why you're here.
OK so here comes the fun part of the article, our foundation is poured (Cast, for you purists) and we must decide on what life form the building must take. In reality we don't build our foundations until we know what we are designing them for, so please play along with my hypothetical "building" which is just an analogy for our learning. So what language are we speaking? What's in style now? What sells well, what won't shock my neighbors, what looks cozy, does it have a white picket fence, should it be a Ranch, Colonial, Victorian, or Craftsman? Don't ask any of these questions. In reality these are the criteria people focus on but let's go with something different, I like the way I phrased "what life form" rather than what style should our building take on. As it implies, a "life form" is the sum total of all its parts, seen and unseen, rather than a superficial skin deep beauty approach. For the sum total approach let's use a different criteria rather than picking from our kit of parts to put together a style in a new and unoriginal way. How do we impart life, spirit, function, and technology that gives life to a building rather than piece together elements to form the beautiful bride of Frankenstein? By all means the electrodes are waiting for that perfect lighting storm but I implore you, don't go creating more lifeless forms. Let's employ the latest sustainable material, let's build big enough for our needs and not more let's build clean efficient structures that don't pollute and let's celebrate the site we build on, not bulldoze it. Got it! GRASSY LANDS, 400 unit sub division Approved! (I know, I have a long way to go before I convince the investors of Grassy Lands) You're giving me a Snow job, you want me to build a modern house, well it ain't going to work, I want what I want! You want what your neighbor wants, and your neighbor wants what you want, it's a bit of a catch 22? So in the future when you have no choice or very little choice because of shortages such as fossil fuel, timber, land, space, the decisions will be made for you. So in our ideal house I'm not asking you to choose "Modern" rather I'm saying to get ahead of the curve and be progressive, which is my favorite "style" of architecture. Maybe you are fond of historic homes, so am I, maybe you love comfort, so do I, maybe you're sentimental about your architecture, so am I. Being progressive does not mean throwing out all your values, it just means being open to new ones.
Would it be possible to erase the mind of preconceived thoughts and what we believe to be "our truth" when it comes to style? Probably not. We all have our predispositions, some deeply ingrained some up for change. The point of this article is to make you aware that there is no "right" style but rather to understand you have been sold a bill of goods. Your preferences I can assure you are not your own, even if you believe they are. They happen to be circumstantial and many times forced upon you without you even knowing it. How does this happen? Ever hear of the heard mentality? Or maybe your friends, parents or aunt or uncle convinced you that a certain style of architecture was the best. Or maybe you're just keeping up with the Jones's and you want to out do them. OK, I could continue to try and convince you your thoughts are not your own but you would never believe me so no need for a lecture. My point is, if you have an idea of what style is, most likely someone put it there. (not me of course, wink, wink)
So let's ponder this suggestion: Would it be reasonable for someone to ask you to consider dropping the preconceived thoughts someone placed in your head and replacing with them with your own? I think that would be an awesome experiment...
Lewis Portal AD
This approach to developing architecture is skin deep and superficial. I know you hate me for saying that, but you shouldn't, we are learning here, myself included. Most skyscrapers when it comes to "style" seem to have things figured out and follow a set of rules that make absolute sense, why? Because they have to (That's a whole different topic, well maybe not, but I will leave that for another time) In past debates with other architects and people, I noticed most took a strong personal position for a preferred style and an equally strong dislike for other styles. I have heard absurd stuff said like, "I adore traditional and detest modern" as one of my employers in the past declared and practiced. I once attended a class at a certain design institution in NYC that was fierce in it's hatred for modern architecture. My mentor a brilliant designer in any style, loved traditional but hoped for a modern commission to come his way. Then there are the pundits on their soapbox's, or in this case on the cover of Architectural Digest promoting the world's "greatest architecture". Not cool AD for stinking your tongue out at me, saying ha, look at what you will never be able to do! Hey give us "other" architects a break and start covering us!...OK, we were talking about style, I digress, my apologies. I think it's all a ridiculous discussion because aligning with one style of architecture over another is analogous to saying the English language is better than the French, or French is better than Polish, sounds pretty pathetic to think that way doesn't it? But unfortunately in architecture this discrimination is alive and well. Imagine if we did this with other things. What if I said one person is more worthy than another because they are prettier, oh wait, some model just choked on a raisin scone....be right back.
Here on Long Island it's interesting to see the fads that come and go, what's in and what's out. I'll give you a few examples. When I was a kid I remember my dad taking us on Sunday drives throughout the Island and my favorite place to visit was Westhampton Beach. That was because I started to become aware of architecture and they were building like mad on this narrow strip of land accessible only by bridge with the bay to one side and the Atlantic on the other. The style or should say the craze at the time (back in the seventies when I was 8 or so) was the interpretation of the so called international style in tongue and groove vertical cedar siding. It seemed every house was a variation on this theme, which I thought was pretty cool at the time. Now of course this, "not so timeless style" is rarely, if ever built. In Southampton travel down Meadow Lane on the shore and you will see one by one the traditional shingle style home, or the vertical cedar siding international, being replaced with ultra sheek modern edifices, except for Norman Jaffe's design which was already way ahead of its time because of his deeper understanding of architecture and style. Everywhere else in the Hampton's you get a couple of options to build: the super wealthy seem to prefer the ultra modern and the common wealthy build Gambrel after Gambrel after Gambrel after Gambrel, Gangnam style. (cue music)
I mentioned architectural styles are like spoken languages in many ways. They both have unique characteristics and expressions that identify them. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to admire one language over another or one style of architecture over another and maybe falling in love with one in particular. But let's not forget these are personal and sentimental assessments we are basing design decisions on. I get it, we are human and many of us play into emotions more than others when it comes to making a decision but you must realize making decisions based on emotion leads to poor outcomes; take marriage for example, wow, we have reached an all time low at Architect Denied, that was hitting below the belt...sorry for that.
Some may say the opposite is too harsh as well, basing every decision on logic and reason. Le Corbusier said "A House is a machine for living in." Une maison est une machine-à-habit, Vers une architecture (1923) But most people don't want to live in machines no matter how logical or reasonable they may seem. Most people including myself don't want to live in a cold raw utilitarian design. Le Corbusier and other pioneers of "Modern Architecture" (here we go again with labeling) did not intend on developing a style of architecture that is cold and raw but rather a response to efficient function and needs (emotional needs usually omitted) The need for a house to look cozy, homey, or cute took a back seat to a house having to serve its primary functions. Modern architecture and architects in many ways are trying to take the "nesting" syndrome out of the home and make the house more a reflection of man's technological achievements. "OK so you are telling me I need to live in a house that looks like a microwave, or a toaster oven?" No I am not. "Modern" architecture does not have to be viewed as hard, sterile lacking in comfort and made to look foolish as in some instances. Luis Barragan, famous Mexican progressive architect said " My house is a refuge, an emotional piece of architecture, not a cold piece of convenience"
 |
| Luis Barragan |
It's obvious to any architect or anyone having anything to do with architecture what architectural style is in vogue and knows what's trending and what a typical homeowner will demand. So when you submit to a certain style it's already predetermined by a kit of parts that get rearranged to give the illusion that you are creating something unique and original when you are not . This is of course not what the Architect Denied supports. Now before I state my case for what architecture should "be" style wise, I want to be transparent with my views on my personal style of choice. I favor modern, or let's say progressive thinking architecture although I practice primarily traditional architecture. This may sound bizarre to some and it is to me but that's just the reality of my world now. You may be wondering, am I a sell out or I do not pursue my dreams but that is not entirely true. I love all styles of architecture so I do not get upset when I'm practicing one style over another. What I absolutely refuse to do and the reason my cup does not "runneth over" is I do not get involved with projects that are the "Sub-division" or "sprawl" style. Well look at you Mr. High and mighty, yes go ahead sling your arrows it's human nature. I'd rather be the starving artist than contribute to something I'm not in agreement with. What you think you're better than me? OK have I just offended my audience? Please do not be, that's not why I'm here and that's not why you're here.
Nice video on the Brutalist style
Would it be possible to erase the mind of preconceived thoughts and what we believe to be "our truth" when it comes to style? Probably not. We all have our predispositions, some deeply ingrained some up for change. The point of this article is to make you aware that there is no "right" style but rather to understand you have been sold a bill of goods. Your preferences I can assure you are not your own, even if you believe they are. They happen to be circumstantial and many times forced upon you without you even knowing it. How does this happen? Ever hear of the heard mentality? Or maybe your friends, parents or aunt or uncle convinced you that a certain style of architecture was the best. Or maybe you're just keeping up with the Jones's and you want to out do them. OK, I could continue to try and convince you your thoughts are not your own but you would never believe me so no need for a lecture. My point is, if you have an idea of what style is, most likely someone put it there. (not me of course, wink, wink)
So let's ponder this suggestion: Would it be reasonable for someone to ask you to consider dropping the preconceived thoughts someone placed in your head and replacing with them with your own? I think that would be an awesome experiment...
Lewis Portal AD
No comments:
Post a Comment