Literary Dose #3
In the absence of a common language or system of understanding, the kind of communication proposed by Postmodernism could not reach the wider public. Inherited symbols remain dependent on a particular cultural moment or context and cannot survive changing conditions. If architecture is to remain convergent with culture, it needs to build mechanisms by which culture can constantly produce new images and concepts rather than recycle existing ones.- Farshid Moussavi
from The Function of Ornament (2006)
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteDon't want to be an annoying pedant, but The FoO was not published until Dec 2006. I only know cos I'm about to write a review of it for May's Sesquipedalist.
Oops! Fixed it. Thanks for the head's up. That's one of the pitfalls of copy/paste, in this case from literary dose #2.
ReplyDeleteI looked the other day to see your review of Tools of the Imagination (here's a link to my review), though your page was down. I probably would've seen the Ornament review, too. Good to see it's up again.
Has anyone seen contemporary domestic architecture--people can't get enough of inherited symbols. Postmodernism didn't work because architects messed with the inherited forms/symbols and made them ugly. It is a nice thought, but it seems terribley inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteIn the first example, what inherited symbols are you referring to exactly, sideofwisdom? I'm not sure I follow.
ReplyDeletedon't know if this is what the sideofwisdom is talking about, but gable roofs as applied ornament are ubiquitous in europe, north america, and even here in japan. that is just for starters; there are many many more, going down in scale even to the oddly deformed doric columns on new mcmansions. people are not aware of the greek connection i would guess, but they do know that doric columns meant something about power once, and they are happy to have them on their own homes...so the language persists.
ReplyDeletei am not convinced by the argument by Farshid Moussavi either. it seems to me a bald-faced declaration in spite of reality used to justify a desire to be funky with design...nothing wrong with that. to the contrary i am all for it, however the argument is far too reminiscent of the apologists way back in the days of art nouveau. the only distinction is that now the argument os for a new kind of symbolism because the old ones have no meaning, while back then they were arguing on nationalistic grounds and wanted to remove foreign-inspired symbolism. we all know how that turned out...
anyway, architects cannot produce culture. it i a requirement that it take place on its own. we can contribute, but the idea that we can direct it, and based on some higher ethical/theoretical grounds no less, rings of supreme narcicissm to me. no wonder architectural work seldom strikes a chord with the general population...
will - A bit later in Moussavi's introduction to the book he talks about progress and new forms, in a for-it's-own-sake way, something I don't really agree with and am growing tired of. I think this quote, though, highlights the difficulty of how architects must deal with facades these days, especially when their role might be limited to that area.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it makes one question the use of ornamental, two-dimensional gables or the orders, without outright abolishing them. Along with other unnamed examples, their use carries some sort of cultural weight (a misguided nostalgia and/or a displeasure with the contemporary situation, for example) but not one that is grounded in contemporary culture. Does a doric column supporting a gable-ended porch really relate to what's happening inside the 5,000 sf house, with its home entertainment center and other modern features? Or is it more grounded in a mythological view of home?
Your example might just be an expression that meets Moussavi's criteria of "convergent with culture" but not in the way he'd like it to. But that thing we call culture, that hard-to-pin-down "thing" that is our interaction with each other, is currently so pluralistic that it embraces all of these various expressions. Perhaps his argument tries to show that the gable and doric column created today will not be seen as particularly relevant over time, but a wrapper by Herzog & de Meuron might.
could be right john. i think that your phrasing of the idea that the gable may be "..."convergent with culture" but not in the way he'd like it to." is pretty telling though.
ReplyDeletewhat it comes down to is that some guy doesn't like the symbolic power of certain aspects of our built history, for no other reason than he finds them flat and boring...which is to say, for no good reason at all. He just happens to have written a book about his pet peeve...;-)
nostalgia IS a valid part of culture. Austin Powers would never have existed if that weren't the case. Nor would Oasis, for better or worse.
Even Herzog And DeMeuron get that point, as is clear from their own rather cheeky use of the gable home image in several of their built and yet to be built works (such as the vitra hotel most recently).
i am also very doubtful that their work will outlast the staying symbolic power of the doric columns, or that their work will replace the old imagery in any way at all. If quoted at all it would likely be more like koolhaas quoting Mies' work in severla of his buildings...which is to say, more an example of architectural insidership than anything, and hardly a matter of something as open as "culture". anyone quoting their skins at some future date would likely face a similar disinterest and lack of understanding by the general public.
it always worries me when theorists start talking about ornament and style as though it really matters. Surely there are times when it does, and where culture plays a part. But in general the styles of architecture are not that deep and largely not significant either.
I am not sure how i feel about that as an architect, but my own work does tend to be less about style and more about space and inhabitation...so maybe i am avoiding it.
I did find one book during undergrad that helped clarify the issue for me though, called "sources of architectural form", by mark gelerntner. basically his book is a history of the flip-flopping of discourse on the role of ornament in architecture since architecture really got going...largely everything falls, according to him, between 2 extremes of approach. it is a bit simplistic, but still worth reading i think, though it may make books like Moussavi's seem a little less relevant...
It is wrong when we begin to talk about the style that we have to exercise to be convergent with culture. By this time, architects should be talking about principles and ideals, then later the means to carry about these in the design; only because we are contributors to a culture. I would like to believe that this is the driving force in the designs of postmodernism, that whatever they lack in engaging architecture in this culture is rooted in their underdeveloped principles rather than their (postmodernists) pursuit to re-interpret an old language.
ReplyDeleteDidn’t somebody say a little bit of narcissism is good? If artist, philosophers, politicians or actors can influence a culture, why not architects? The thing is architects do. That is where an architect’s responsibility to the society lies, in the fact that one’s work will affect a society.
Michelle, wouldn't PoMo's principles be exactly that? The pursuit of reinterpreting an old language, in response to Modernism's obliteration of that language? Its principles were rooted in expression rather than function or things I'm guessing you're referring to (correct me if I'm wrong), like sustainable and social principles.
ReplyDeleteAt first reading your comment, I started to think that maybe what Moussavi's arguing for is PoMo in another garb, since he's splitting expression from the everything else. Admittedly he talks about the architect's role being limited to the facade in some cases (something I mentioned in another comment above), but I would argue that architects need to fight this and should actually try to expand their goals to help point society in a more sustainable direction.
Again, may I be pedantic and point out that Farshid is a woman!
ReplyDeleteI would also argue with will's assertion that "in general the styles of architecture are not that deep and largely not significant either."
In today's fashion conscious world, everything is concerned with style, and architecture is as big a culprit as any. Remember that modernism itself is only a style, as are all its reactions.
I thought Charles Jencks invented the term "Postmodernism" in his "The Language of Postmodern Architecture", but a little googling proves me wrong. However, it certainly was popularised in culture through its use in architecture. I'd argue that nobody in any design field can design without a "style" just as telling somebody not to think about something is a sure way to make them think about it!
Finally, I'd point out that nostalgia ain't what it used to be!
I'm looking forward to reading this book now, seeing so much comment from just a short quote.
Sesqui - Thanks for correcting that error and exposing some ignorance, at least on my part. Something similar happened in a class where we thought a man was a woman...I can't remember the name, though.
ReplyDeleteAnways, the book is a good one, especially for the wonderful graphics and the level of technical research put into it by the studio that produced the book. It's a great counterpoint to Rem's Harvard-based explorations that require 700+ pages and lots and lots of apparently incidental imagery. This one's tight, and future editions would not at all be uncalled for. Maybe Moussavi can explore it further in HER future studios.
John, we are being told in school that we are postmodernists in training for the mere fact that we are living in the postmodern era. I think PoMo is indulgent and I would rather be affiliated with the modernists. I just thought that I might be missing on something if I don’t figure out what postmodernism has to offer. But if you are saying that PoMo really do focus more on expressions rather than more important issues raised by living in the 21st century then I rest my case.
ReplyDelete