Reading Summaries:
What is Modern Architecture?
-Le Corbusier lost the commission for the Palae of the League of Nations in 1928 and was deemed a “barbarian”
-Modern architecture exhibits an intimate bond with the new forces and character of modernity itself
-because of this, its transcultural, transmedial, and transnational aspects were emphasized
-Modernism directly opposed the old political and cultural elites
-caused a divide between “civilization and barbarians”
-Bruno Taut: Modern architecture is an attempt to find harmony between architectural form and new technologies that is in opposition to “exaggerated romanticism and sentimentality”
-In Modern Architecture, the architect devotes their work to fulfillment of purpose, which would then lead to elegance and beauty
-Tied in to social ideas: buildings encourage better behavior in peoples mutual dealings and relationships with each other
-Function, even ambiguous function, replaced didactic compulsion
-Concepts central to modern architecture’s definition: abstraction, function, modern technology, space, form
-Prevalent characteristics in modern architecture: light filled, smooth, flat roofed, white, cubic, asymmetry, borderless transnational ideals free of historic constraints
-Uniformity of modern architecture described as inclusive, as it does not divide by exhibiting the culture and history present in buildings prior
-Modern architecture is comprehensible by those outside of the field, as it is function focused
-The idea that modernism separates itself socially is explored in the Crown Law Offices, that exhibit motifs from Indian, Timurid, and Gothic Venetian motifs in an “undeveloped” and primarily Muslim Kenya
Non West Modernist Past: Rethinking Modernisms and Modernities Beyond the West
-Critical of the naming “Non West Modernist Past”
-Referring to the rest of the world as not a certain region homogenizes parts of the world that are heterogeneous
-Implies that modernism outside of the west was derived from the modernism of the west, devaluing it and the study of it
-Multiple Modernities and Heterogeneous Modernisms
-Expansion
-Recently focus of historical modernism shifted to include Asia, Africa, Middle East, and Latin America (not just North America and Europe)
-However, the studies of these regions use geopolitically charged terminology (non-west, and the like) which devalues them
-Contextualization
-Development of modernism in architecture partly due to development of capitalist culture, new social organizations, techno-scientific approaches to logic, and new rationalities of governance
-Modernism is less about style/aesthetics and more about its relation to social conditions/politics
-Widely held belief that modernism contradicts traditionalism, however there are many examples of buildings employing modern technologies, and even being shaped by modern technologies, that also have a more traditionalist style
-Singapore Supreme Court in Neoclassical Garb
-Indo-saracenic architecture in British Malaya
-Interrogation
-Historicism (looking at events in a strict timeline) is a large cause for Modernism’s coupling with the West, but many feel they should be decoupled
-New frameworks like transculturation and hybridization are used to describe complex, two way global interactions and oppose historicism
-Internationalism: “translation and appropriation can unbalance and re-order the geometry of centre and periphery and cut the seeming bond between westernization and modernization”
-Brazil could not afford architects, yet their self-help housing still exhibits modernist ideas
-Multiplicities and Alternatives
-Alternative view: modernization is not homogenizing different societies to converge toward modernity based on west, but rather the process of modernization has led to a multiplicity of different societal forms that diverge from western modernism
-though some of these alternatives may not adhere to western modernism perfectly, they are not less authentic and should not be regarded as less modern
-Rethinking Modernisms and Modernities: Architectural Heteronomy
-Packaging: conflating the divergent tendencies into a monolithic entity
-Concluding Notes
-“Past” in the title implies a difference between the non-west modernisms of yesterday and today, which isn’t necessarily true because it could also imply adoption of western modernism
Crafting Architecture Criticism
-Common sense is the only thing required for the expression of one’s views
-Criticism’s essential tenets: particular care in observations, interpretations indicating nontrivial knowledge of the field, judgments showing a-typical insight
-Built works can also offer criticism by embodying the views of their designer
-Ex/ PSFS building
-“without criticism, projects do not progress, students fail to learn, and works do not benefit one another as they might”
-Worldmaking
-criticism is creative at its core and another “way of making” that enriches architecture
-Setting the Record Straight
-A designer’s unique characteristics must be brought into view for architectural criticism to be useful
-Account provided in the criticism must be reliable and backed up by documents, visits, or interviews
Ex/ Skirkanich Hall, Philadelphia
-Critics said it was out of place and indifferent to its surroundings
-After reviewing documents, author came to understand the building as an intermeshing of a new building into an urban block or preexisting facilities
-cross section indicated lateral connections to adjoining buildings
-first level plan and site indicated the upper floor extension allowed three entry points to the building and created a semipublic space along the sidewalk
-Previous criticisms were not wrong, just short-sighted
-Le Corbusier:
-“We must always say what we see”
-“above all, and more difficult, we must always see what we see”
-Reconstructing What Has Been Constructed
-It is important for a criticism to “reconstruct” the work
-this transcends description, as it accounts for process, relations, and other variables, not just the outwardly seen
-Designers also reconstruct works through words
-Relocating the Work: From its Site to the Discipline
-Criticisms reposition a work, not just next to its physical surroundings, but also next to other works of its kind
-Criticisms make comparisons to other architectural works
-Criticism Silently Understood
-Works themselves can be criticisms, oftentimes revealing its stance with respect to broader issues
-“criticism of the world”
Critical Response
These three articles each, in their own way, address exactly what architecture is. The argument each reading makes is different from that of the other two, which highlights exactly how subjective architecture is.
The first reading attempts to put a formal definition to modern architecture by describing its characteristics, effects, and reasonings. The next piece outlines how the way works of architecture is described could be an injustice to the work by shaping how it is perceived, or even spreading misinformation about architectural movements. The third describes architecture as being reliant on criticism and attempts to both show the merits of and define architectural criticism.
I, for the most part, agree with all three of these arguments and they are not mutually exclusive with one another. Architecture, both as a whole field and also its individual works, is very complex, and nearly impossible to describe with words. There are very many different systems at play in every aspect of it, and this lends itself to having multiple correct reads of both the field and its works.
Application and Interpretation
T3 House Exterior in Kamakura, Japan.
T3 House Interior in Kamakura, Japan.
The T3 House is an example of a modernist work that exhibits stylization from other architectural movements and possibly supports the argument that modernism should not solely be coupled with the western regions.
The T3 House was built in 2019 and designed by Japanese architect Hitoshi Saruta. It’s occupants are an international couple consisting of a French artist and his Japanese wife. Its located in the historic Japanese city of Kamakura, near Mt. Fuji. Though clearly modernist architecture, it is constructed in a way that also resembles traditional Japanese architecture, evidenced by the substantial, sloping overhangs and the geometric window coverings. It blends the two styles seamlessly.
The “Non West Modernist Past” reading briefly mentioned the idea that modernist architecture is globally homogenizing architectural works as cultural stylizations are slowly being lost in favor of the function that modernism typically prefers. The reading seems to try to debunk this notion by providing examples of its own. Those examples reminded me of this building, which though it is not too old, definitely exemplifies the idea that modernism is not the death of cultural stylization.
Takeaways
-Modern architecture cannot be easily defined
-Geographic/regional tags as descriptors can devalue architectural work
-Criticism, though oftentimes seen as negative, plays an integral role in progressing the field of architecture
-Modernism has many variants and does not necessarily homogenize architecture
I think that while it is true that modernism was a response against the cultural elite, I’m not so sure about the idea of fighting barbarism although this could be a hidden agenda or latent bias. Since the modernist movement was claiming objectivity and a “globally understood language” of architecture the colonial idea of barbarism shouldn’t apply – but in reality its history and the context affects the architect which illustrates the flaws of this idea of objectivity.
Highlighting that the use of language as a form of erasure seemed to be an important note in which modernism would use to push certain agendas the formed the dichotomy of west vs non-west. Homogenizing parts of the world that are heterogeneous is a great example of how we have become aware of this fallacy and working to rectify this imbalance can need to new understanding of modernism and perhaps birth a new paradigm of design.
I greatly enjoy your application example. There are countless construction techniques, design ideologies and styles that have spread across the world from Japan that are inherently modern ideas: charred wood siding for weatherization, Form following function in adaptable spaces. I’d argue T3 and other projects are not qualified as modernist by western standards (saying that complimentarily) for their inclusion of, not divorce from (or dominance of), nature in the home and in day to day life.