As a proponent of Architectural Realism, Otto Wagner was interested in urban planning. Although Wagner began as a traditional architect, he promoted the transition from historicism to the idea of an architecture that spoke to its time. As an architect, Wagner began his career with buildings that were designed in the conventional Baroque and neo-classical styles. Wagner attempted to turn away from the accepted traditional forms of architecture by bringing together structural rationalism and technology. However, he retained a sense of historicism and eclecticism.
According to Holl (1989), the most distinctive feature of architecture instead of the other activities is to stem from being an integral part of a place. This means that place is a ground with its inside and outside and constitutes the basis of both the building and the design. Holl’s architectural manner contains the responsibility of focusing on the urban voids in architectural design. In his essay named as “Modernizm’in Yerellikle Uzlaşma Arayışı: Holl” , Abdi Güzer (1995) mentions about the concept of anchoring of Holl that the exterior voids are not only the ground of the building but also of design concepts. Also, the building does not always have a change in order to take part in music, film or art, thus every building has only one place.
Ridgway remarks, “The fact that any of this could be considered contentious indicates that extent to which architects have become alienated from the heart of their profession” (279). He asserts, “Part of any technography must be an acknowledgement of the historical context of construction knowledge. This is not only so we can better understand our rich architectural ancestry, but because it re-establishes a connection with the origins of our profession in building” (279). Rather than a “miniature projected representation of an imagined building, details are drawn as poetic constructions themselves, following the logic of drawing and not building and representing the “built detail symbolically, in addition to instrumentally. The symbolic and practical are one and the same thing” (280).
In this essay we’ll basically discuss these questions in a dialectical mode of logic. The essay contain three main parts 1) A position on the theoretical topics, the thesis; 2) An acknowledgement of the shortcoming of the position through the critical eyes of opposing points of views, the antithesis; and 3) Transformation of the conflicting views, the synthesis For thesis, I’ll delve into the architects who believes in form follow function and on the building often looks simple from outside but simply concern their performance as per the user’s requirements who use them. The appearance of the building is followed by the function of the building which is obtained accidentally after the process of designing to accomplish the requirement of the user. For exampl... ... middle of paper ... ...se. In fact, form could precede use; use could be determined later.
Modern Architects saw their role as ‘reformers,’ (R.Venturi, 1966, pg16) and tended to break with tradition and start anew. Considering it was a new revolutionary movement they tended to ignore potential problems and focused on the new modern advancements available. A modernist tendency was to build individually however Venturi claimed that a ‘building derives meaning from its context’ (Out Of the Ordinary, 2002) and evidently each individual location requires a different form of architectural style to represent this. In Venturi's book ‘Complexity and Contradiction’ he quotes ‘familiar things seen in unfamiliar context become perceptually new as well as old’ (R.Venturi, 1966, pg43) here he perhaps means in order for art to become worthy of aesthetic appreciation the v... ... middle of paper ... ...ical architecture in which he feel shouldn’t be forgotten but instead should be admired and inspire future movements. Despite modernism striping what Venturi believed was the ‘art’ from architecture he fought to overcome these tendencies are drew upon relevant historic features and characterisations and applied them liberally to his design, in accordance to their context.
“I believe that the idea of the totality, the finality of the master-plan, is misguided. One should advocate a gradual transformation of public space, a metamorphic process, without relying on a hypothetical time in the future when everything will be perfect. The mistake of planners and architects is to believe that fifty years from now Alexanderplatz will be perfected.” –Daniel Libeskind In the world of architecture, it is important that one make their mark, but in a way that will be able to stand out from the rest. Unlike many things, architecture is very hard to change. With that being said, how can one change it?
However, this assumption has undergone much debate and criticism. Those who reject this notion, maintain that Postmodernism is in fact a historical movement in it's own right, generating a distinct society from that of Modernism. Perry Anderson is one such optimist. In my essay I wish to present a summary of Anderson's attempt to offer a historical account of the decline of modernism and the transition to Postmodernism. I will begin by paying some attention to Anderson's Modernity and Revolution, which pursues the path of Modernism from the onset.
This particular essay going to illustrate the following questions from historical and contextual basis. How did Louis H. Sullivan’s “form follows function” turn out to be the fundamental concept of modernist architecture? What did drive Louis H. Sullivan to construct his famous philosophy “Form follows function”? From different perspective to argue that question, it will be considered whether “form follows function” was the fundamental concept of modern architecture or not. To argue with that, understanding about the philosophy “form follows function” and modernist architecture is necessary.
Deconstructionist architecture must start from deconstruct the construction at first, with a name indicates its schemes, its intuition and its concepts, or its rhetoric. Deconstruction also contains an insight of fundamental importance for the historian¡¦s conception of what he or she is doing. It uses theory to understand history, and history to understand the theory to construct a more perceptive view of the cultural and social. As deconstructs a structure, it strictly meets the terms of architectural construction and the philosophical construction of the concept of architecture. Therefore, deconstruction is understood to be un-problematically architectural, as it combines with the idea of the system in philosophy, and theory, also the practice and logic ... ... middle of paper ... ...re of architecture.
Kant thereby established a precedent for ... ... middle of paper ... ...contemporary concepts and concerns. While Burgin provides a means of distinguishing postmodernism from Modernism in art, there remains the problem of how to, or indeed whether, one ought to distinguish qualitatively between different postmodernist works. If social relevance is a characteristic of postmodernism, then degree or accuracy of social relevance may be used as an evaluative tool; however, as Harrison and Wood have pointed out (see Modernism in Dispute, p.240) radically critical work may become marginalised and lose its ability to challenge. Furthermore, if the main impact of a work depends on its contemporary relevance, it is likely to lose conceptual value with the passage of time; Haacke's The Safety Net (pl.D24) borrows its meaning from contemporary politics rather than conforming with Greenberg's idea of art as self-defining, and is hence now arguably of historic rather than artistic interest. The aesthetic of Greenbergian Modernism may never recover a dominant position within art history but, as Harrison and Wood have suggested, 'the contingency of the historical is only half the point of art'.