Manifesto Introduction

Manifesto by Wichapol Hirunsathitporn (Arm) ID 5234808025

How is history used?

History is an evidence that tells people what had happened or existed in the past. In architectural terms, history may has been looked at mainly in terms of innovation in order to see how things were constructed. Famous architects used history differently. For example, Brunelleschi used history to study how to construct the dome, Le Corbusier used history as an inspiration to create “Modulor” which is his own way of indicating scale and proportion, and Robert Venturi also used principle from the history, in this case modernism, as a guideline to make a difference and create a new movement of postmodernism.

Sequence of “Change”

Nothing lasts forever, there is always something new comes up. Some change happened step by step, some had made a big jump or become something new. Some changes that happened have similar sequence of change, although they took place in different period of time.

“Sacredness” has stayed with architecture for a long time. It still stayed in late renaissance architecture. But, to be “sacred” in late renaissance is not the same as being sacred in classical period. In this case, classical period was purely about god while in late renaissance the sense of sacredness worked together with humanity.

The interesting part to look at is the change from renaissance to baroque together with the change from modernism to postmodernism. If we look conceptually, we would see that these two changes work in the same way. These changes have “expression” as a key concept of changing.

Another good point to think about for me is now we have had “the age of enlightenment” which came after baroque and have “reason” as a key concept. Will there be something parallel that come after postmodernism?

To be Modern

This is when things seem to be universally uniformed and industrialized. The way people dressed as well as the environmental of the city are universal. The buildings turned out in box shape and gave a sense of mass produced. But, however, they do have their own ways of specifying themselves. For example, people specify themselves through their spoken languages, city specifies itself through iconic element (Eiffel tower for Paris), and for architecture the buildings could be specify through the openings and lighting. In some of Le Corbusier’s  buildings, he used painting to create an individuality for the interior arrangement as well as the skin of the building.

To be Postmodern

This is when sense of “mixture” took over “purity”. It allows expression both in form, material and ornament. The principle of modernism had been turned up side down. This turned out that the exterior form had been emphasized more than interior function. The building would then become inviting to various group of people.

How the Architecture Is Presented

Building in modernism and postmodernism period are mainly built for human. So, the architectural presentation should relate more to human. The presentation should not show only how the building looks, but it should also show how the architecture is actually used. Photography is a good way of presenting architecture with actual life and activity that take place inside the building.

Age of Enlightenment

The age of enlightenment is a stage after renaissance and baroque where we have what we call "rebirth" in architecture and then that kind of architecture had been modified mainly through form and the use of material to be more "expressive". Above all, renaissance and baroque are based on human's belief, which has to do with god and sacred. But then, science came along and people focused more on "reason". This also affected architecture, the decorative elements were less emphasized. The architecture in this period seemed to communicate the function through form. In other words, the idea of "form follows function" seemed to appear.

BAROQUE & (POST) MODERN

From what we have been looking at what Bernini & Borromini had done, there were some sense of connection as well as principle that has transmitted to modern and post modern architecture. Bernini added and showed the expression through his sculptures and buildings. The expression can be seen not only in the color and materials used, but also in the figure where sense of "living" has been shown. While Borromini, who was in the same period as Bernini, somehow put expression on his work. But his works are monochrome and he added the principle of geometry and measurement into his works.

Then, if we look at modern and post modern buildings, the purpose of the buildings has changed from church to residence, museum, office building, etc.. These new buildings seem to be completely different to Borromini's works or Bernini's buildings, which are very religious. But the use of expression and geometry still exist and have been adapted to be working with current movement. For example, Le Corbusier used applied the geometry from his painting to the design of plan and Frank Gehry who uses expression through forms and materials.

"Sacred" in Classical & Late Renaissance

Personally, I think the architecture in classical period is based mainly on the belief of people. The architecture were built in massive scale to represent the scale of god which could be perceived as "sacred". This idea of "sacred" still appeared in late renaissance period. Although the main idea survived, the content behind this idea seemed to change over time. In late renaissance the idea of "sacred had been combined with "humanity". The invention of logics and theories such as symmetry, balance and geometry had come up and these things were used as references to support the make the sense of sacred to be even stronger. In conclusion, humanity had made the idea of sacred become more reasonable than it was in the past when people seemed to rely mainly on "belief"

How is history used?

History is like the evidence that shows the innovation from the past. The history can be used not only in physical terms, but also in ideal and conceptual terms. By looking at Brunelleschi, Le Corbusier & Venturi, I feel that we can get the idea of how history had been used differently.

Brunelleschi, Renaissance architect, who worked on dome at Duomo of Florence studied from the history by looking at Pantheon, which has lasted since Roman period, in terms of construction and structure in order to see how it was built as well as how it stayed up.

In modernism when those architectural principle from the past was replaced by minimal form, Le Corbusier somehow used history with his architecture. In this case, what he brought was not about the how the building itself stayed, but it was about how human fits into the building. Corbusier came up with "Modulor" which has to do with "scale & proportion" and could relate back to Vitruvius and Vitruvian Man of Leonardo da  Vinci.

Then when modernism came to an end, Verturi went beyond by bringing the principle of modernism as a history and change some of it to be different and more suitable to people's lifestyle as we can see from "Learning From Las Vegas". In this case, Venturi tried to make sense of "hybrid" instead of "pure". Also,  he rather focused more on the expression on exterior form than functions of the building.

Junkspace

In mega buildings such as shopping complex, there are massive spaces within the building. The interior spaces that are controlled in terms of condition are called "junkspace". Personally, I think junkspace can be both good and bad for the building. What is good about this junkspace is that when the space has been sealed off from the context and surrounded with interior elements instead, so the undesirable condition such as bad surroundings and weather can be got rid of. But on the other hand, in terms of architecture elements there is a context that works together with the building itself and by having the space sealed off from its exterior environment, the building would be isolated; no night/day or sunny/rainy/ snowy. In conclusion I think junkspace works functionally and works for solving problem of condition, but it does not go along well with how architecture should be

Postmodernism-Expressionism

From modernism, we may have heard much on functionalism of "form follows function" the designs have turned out so intelligent on the interior and details, but so simple that normal people may not notice as a great piece of design or find something interesting especially from outside. For postmodernism, the principle turned up side down. Venturi made the literally difference through "Learning from Las Vegas" where he talked about "duck building" which is completely opposite from "form follows function". 

Then postmodernism has worked together with expressions. The feature of the building has moved to exterior and the simplicity has moved inside the building. We can see this kind of design on Frank Gehry's buildings. For example, The Guggenheim in Bilbao can be seen and remembered because of its expressive exterior in both form and material. For me, I think nowadays this kind of architecture is more successful in terms of accessing people. This kind of postmodern architecture can attract people from different careers because of its outstanding look. They may not understand the concept or care what is in the building. While some modern buildings are attractive only to those who study and understand the concept inside.

Postmodern & Rem Koolhaas

In modern period we have seen Le Corbusier & Mies van der Rohe who were functionalists that created simplifications of previous styles. Modernism has left sense of "purity" & "either...or..." while postmodernism came along with sense of "mixture" which we can have "both...and..." in architecture. Postmodernism allows expression in many ways which includes sculptural forms & ornaments.

Personally, I think modernism focused too much on the function & structural details. Ornaments & human needs were not emphasized that much. For example, Mies came up with "less is more" where he designed simple in terms of look and got more complex in details. Then, for postmodernism, I think Frank Gehry has expressed the sense of mixture quite clearly.

For Rem Koolhaas, I think he has produced works that go along with the concept of postmodernism. Villa Bordeaux is one of a good example to look at, Rem provided functions according to clients' need as well as  interesting details inside the house.

Louis I Kahn's architecture & Jacques Tati's Playtime

From the film "Playtime", what I had seen on the screen were "universal elements" which include the way people dressed, modern buildings and environment of the city which could be judged as some city in USA. Although the elements in the film are universal in the way they look, each one has its own way to "specify" itself. For example, people specify themselves through their spoken languages, environment in the city has been specify though written language of iconic  element (Eiffel Tower in this case). What is unique in this film is that it was emphasized in terms of noise. Each object has been expressed its own "noise" while being used.

Another thing I could see was the way the things had been uniformed. Not only the people have been uniformed with western style clothes, but the architecture have been uniformed as well. For the exterior we can see box-shaped buildings with glass facade and we see  grids of uniformed office blocks. I think the idea of "uniform" can be linked to some of Louis I Kahn's works. In this case, I'd like to relate it to Salk Institute and Yale Art Galleries. These two buildings can be seen as formations of repeated uniform units. These buildings have been marked special by their openings as well as the lighting.

Visual Acoustics

A visual representation is an important thing to be shown in architecture. As an architecture student, I sometimes focus more on the drawings and perspective rendering. These things come before the buildings are actually built. From last class we have seen Mies van der Rohe's drawings which are nice representations. 

From "Visual Acoustics", I think the film itself has pointed out how important photography is as a way of architectural representation. The photographs express how the architecture really is. What we see in the photographs are real, unlike the drawings which are something artificial. The photographs don't show  only the architecture, but they also show the actual lifestyle of people and how the architecture has been used.

Le Corbusier's painting & architecture

In Le Corbusier's buildings, we normally see box-shaped buildings. These give sense of minimal and mass produced. If we look at mass produced creations; for example, industrial products, we'll see the repetition in terms of pattern and form. I think Le Corbusier had brought a creative way of making an individuality by connecting painting to architecture. 

The outline of Villa Stein looks quite simple and minimal, but in my opinion, the part that show the individuality is the interior composition. It doesn't only consist of rectangular shape components, but it also consists of curve. The way it was influenced by the painting has made the house become interesting and individual. I think the out line is like a frame of canvas where Corbusier composed the elements into. 

The influenced from painting can also be seen on the skin of the building; Unite d'Habitation. Although the building looks structurally repetitive and mass produced, the color and the arrangement of windows could help creating individuality for each block.

The Metropolis

The film has given a strong sense of hierarchy between working class and high class people. Those people in working class seem to have freedom and diversity. If we look at the way they dressed, we can see that they wear uniform while those high class people dress the way they want to. Moreover, in terms of living, the working class also have a limitation in their lives and live the with the same routine. For example, going to work (the way they walk is also the same) and only do their own jobs. Those workers don't have a chance to speak up or do something new. The high class are likely to have freedom in their lives and be the group of people that is able to do speak up and do things they want to.

From Bauhaus to Our House

From what I've read I think the writer have given good point about the modern architecture and those in the old time and I agree with that. The architecture in different periods has come with different features as well as different emphasis. For example, modern one may emphasize more on structure, new innovations or building technology. THe buildings come out in similar pattern; "glass box", cover with glass and quite minimal with intelligent structural system like bracing, load bearing, etc. , but they are quite lack of sculptural or precise craftsmanship. While those like Greek, Classical or Roman period, in my opinion, focus more on the way buildings look as we can see clearly in Greek columns; doric, ionic, corinthian. Not only those columns play roles in term of structure, but they also have meaning in terms of icon.