Summaries

Ornament and Crime

I will admit that this is one of the hardest readings I have ever done, not because of its difficulty of understanding, although I wish it were, but because of its hateful and demeaning rhetoric. I cannot in good conscience look past some of the rhetoric, but I can at least try and find sentences that have less bias in them. For example, at one point it describes that if labor is disregarded for an object or space then it is wasted. Ideally it is important to respect the work being created and the person who created the work. This concept can also be applied to buildings where design that does not revere the materials brought into play and the people who made it possible than it has disrespected the energies that were put into the piece. Essentially this piece calls into question that at that time, design needed a reality check, which is to follow the current movements of modernism. However, it’s worth noting that modernism at that time had a different thought process behind it than what we would now designate as modernism. For example, at one point the article mentions that quality of material and rarity are placed on a higher value than decoration. That being said, this was about all I could see that I felt didn’t contain disparaging and demeaning rhetoric.

Leaving Traces, Anonymity in the modern house

The article of Leaving Traces, Anonymity in the modern house by Hidle Heynen was much more productive and thoughtful to its intended audience. For example, a core concept of the article refers to modernism to see the house as the past or to seek a lifestyle of metaphorical homelessness. This is accomplished through a variety of means such as “neutrality”, which could be debatable, and material or spatial choices like openness with lots of glass.  These experiences usually had a similar response from the user such as the need to escape or leave the environment. Another issue was the concern about capital or wealth being classified by what many would see as prestigious. Moreover, what is pictured in an environment can be seen as a point of vanity towards the visitors in that particular place. It was thus important for modernism to remove the sense of class expressionism and create a more communal feeling. This also expressed a sense of mobility and flexibility towards individuals with a variety of social, political, and environmental concerns. However, the removal of attachments also created a sense of coldness and senselessness. This is likely what created the earlier feelings of the need to escape the modern environment. These concerns were responded by finding room for negotiation with modernity and attachment. The issue of modernity and sentimentality were being challenged then and will continue to be questioned to this day.

Critical response

The first article in particular I felt needed to be challenged. Essentially, it is a work that is filled with mistakes, misinterpretations, and ignorance. Putting aside the majority of offensive and negative rhetoric, there are several points that conflict throughout the work. For example, it argues that decoration on objects creates higher prices, but also wants people to appreciate the work of a craftsman. I would question how we can see quality of craftsmanship, if were only valuing the price. To expand, most people would likely agree that quality is measured mostly by time, with preciousness of material being measured second. If we seek convenience or simplicity in an object, that will likely make it easier to mass produce, and reduce the potential quality of it. Second, it argues that financial reward increases the happiness of the craftsmanship. As someone who has worked in construction for many years and understands craftsmanship, I would very much disagree with that statement. To be honest, the majority of my higher paying jobs I actually disliked because of the workload and customer demands. Whereas some of the jobs that I did that were lower paying but similar work I enjoyed more because of how kind and respectful the customer was. Moreover, it is not the money that determines quality, but experience, situation, and material. This is a concept that I am sure we will all face when we cross into the professional world of Architecture. That being said, I really don’t think that I have to justify my dislike of this article, which was clearly not well received by many then and even less now.

Application and Interpretation

For this part I will be reusing my previous building from last week, the Brasilia capital complex. To recap, it is a modern version of our U.S. Capital building which is placed in the midwestern part of Brazil so as the be an equal distance from major population centers. Its primary goal was to present Brazil as a modern technological country capable of being separated from its past colonial powers. However, if I use the ideas from of Leaving Traces Anonymity in the modern house by Hidle Heynen in context with the Brasilia, I believe it can give us greater insight into how the designers wanted the environment to be experienced. For example, a very noticeable feature of Brasilia is its openness. This is a remarkably interesting combination considering its practical purpose of providing a national congressional setting. The very idea of symbolic openness to the people would be a very appropriate quality for any governmental institution. Moreover, considering the period of its construction when Brazil was undergoing political instability seems kind of ironic too.

Takeaways

• How does the user feel when being in these spaces
• How does the objects that are presented in an environment positively or negatively affect individuals
• How do we find the balance of avoiding capitalist pride while also creating attachment and personality