LEEDS BECKETT UNIVERSITY LEEDS SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AC1.1 ESSAY
Referring to Raphael Moneo’s essays in ‘Theoretical Anxieties of 8 Architects,’ discussion of how Robert Venturi and Scott Brown have respectively tackled the long standing architectural issues of beauty and topography.
Mohamed Tamer Moussa C7186604 Rosabella Zuntivai Mobijohn C7185569
Session 2017-18
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY I confirm by submitting this work for assessment that I am its sole author, and that all quotations, summaries or extracts from published sources have been correctly referenced. I confirm that this work, in whole or in part, has not been previously submitted for any other award at this or any other institution.
This essay proceeds as a discussion of how Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown and Aldo Rossi have respectively tackled the long standing architectural issues of beauty and topography, through publications and their works. Robert Venturi (1925)— a highly distinguished American architect as well as the equally renowned and partner in their VSBA firm; Denise Scott Brown (1931), both had a polemic view on the contemporary architectural scene, denounced modernity and pioneered the postmodern era. Aldo Rossi (1931-1997)—world-famous Italian architect and editor of the influential Casabella magazine similarly denounced Modernity for a neo-rationalist style. Framing the discussion around the late 60s, in the midst of the biggest architectural shift of the twentieth century—the fall of the Modern. Preceding the discussion of how the three esteemed architects defined and promoted their own respective interpretations of architectural beauty and topography, it is essential to mention what makes their views vital in the discussion. In 1966 Robert Venturi published Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, focusing on the development of the Architectural culture and essentially pioneered the Postmodern era, freeing architecture from its confided orthodoxies and the over simplifications of the Modern 9 . It was widely praised by contemporaries, endorsed by the museum of Modern Art, praised by Vincent Skully (arguably the most influential architectural critic in America) who deemed it “The most important Architectural writing since Le Corbusier’s Vers une Architecture of 1923” 1 . Furthermore, in collaboration with Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour, the three architects published Learning from Las Vegas, 1972; considered to be one of the most influential books that paved the way for the emergence of postmodernism. However, affected by its hypertrophied conditions and environment of the Las Vegas strip, Venturi and Scott Brown approached the norm as a result of the extraordinary. Additionally, their views on beauty and topography embodied in their works, most notably the Vanna Venturi home (Venturi alone), the Sainsbury Wing of the National gallery, and the book, Learning from Las Vegas, 1972 . Last but not least, Aldo Rossi published L'architettura della Città in 1966 which similarly to Venturi’s and Scott Brown’s books, was a denunciation of the Modern movement and sought to bring more meaning into architectural culture 10 . Similarly to Scott Brown, Rossi’s publication has significantly changed the understanding of architectural duties and urban design and set him as a world-class architectural theoretician.
During the 60s, there was a shift in the definition of architectural beauty and duties; from chasing a singular homogenous solution to an examination and celebration of the diversity of heterogeneous solutions, thus giving birth to the postmodern era. Consequently, It was common at the time to question and critic Modernity, since institutions, developers and to a certain degree the entire building industry had somewhat given into the Modern excessively, to the point that it became mandatory and hence lost meaning 1 . Venturi and Scott Brown were two of the postmodern pioneers who uprose against modernity through their works and writings. Venturi sought after complex and contradictory architecture, “both-and” as he referred to it. As he was quoted “It [architecture] must embody the unity of inclusion rather than the easy unity of exclusion. More is not less.”— a statement manifested in their works 9 . Venturi’s statements are possibly interpreted as a critique of the contemporary modernity, which had interpreted beauty as the total harmonious unity of the architectural elements. Hence sought to unite a structure through a minimalistic approach that eliminated “redundant” elements and concepts in the architecture. To Venturi and Scott Brown, through over simplifications and the promotion of Mies’ “less is more” approach Modernity had abandoned architecture’s duty to address issues and various factors 8 . Furthermore, Venturi was for a messier and richer style of architecture, the over simplifications and clarity of concepts that of which the Modern embodied, were not what he sought after. Best described by his own words “I am for richness of meaning rather than clarity of meaning; for the implicit function as well as the explicit function.”— a vision embodied in both their designs 9 . Through his works he polemically advocates the architectural scene to adopt a more flexible stance towards accepting the significance and the application of conventional architectural elements for their complexity and for encouraging a more realistic architectural culture respectively— an idea that is arguably incompatible with the Modern given its utopian and progressive nature, which more often than not would rather exchange the given condition rather than enhance it 8 . The Vanna Venturi house (1962-1064) is a perfect materialisation of this concept. The house does not confine itself to one style; with its evident mannerist influence, it is not pure classicism nor otherwise 7 . The contradiction of elements and the complexity of their interconnections allow for the structure in his opinion to reach its potential of richness in
meaning and intensifies the ideal qualities of the order by contrasting it. For example, although the back and front elevations and the plan are all symmetrical about a central axis, they accommodate extremities, such as the differently sized and oriented windows on the front and back facades. Furthermore, contrary to the norms, the core of the plan is not a void common in Palladian (referring to Andrea Palladio) plans, but is rather solid masonry. The large less-than-semi-circular
arch
on
the
back
facade
borrows
further
from
another
style—neo-classical. Through his spatial layering, Venturi split the pediment to showcase the grand central core of the house— the chimney block. The wooden dado on the back and front facades celebrates the classic, but with its higher than precedent placement, it pays homage to the Mannerist style 7 . His arguably redundant use of ornaments such as the front elevation arch’s contrast with the concrete lintel in the central opening, is in fact the perfect materialisation of the “both-and” approach. The arch on its own is a tribute to the classic, but juxtaposed with the concrete and its placement allude to mannerist styles. The industrial sash windows which juxtapose with the other classical ornaments of the facade, creating a complex interrelationship between the elements. His brutal rejection of the Modern is perhaps most noticeable by the solid walled and grounded ground floor in comparison to the modern’s fascination of glass and columns that open up the space 5 . It is undeniable that the Vanna Venturi house is covered with signs and symbols— some more subtle than others, but which due to their complex and often ambiguous interrelationships have perfectly produced a tangible manifestation of Venturi’s views on beauty. He excessively uses ornaments to “enrich meaning by underscoring” (Venturi’s own words on the purpose of ornaments) and as a manifestation of his ideas— complexity, ambiguity and contradiction when celebrated rather than eliminated produce beautiful and meaningful architecture 9 . However, its commonly argued that although designed to represent a new style of beauty at the time, viewers of the house to this day have to be taught how to like it, perhaps suggesting that an architect’s definition of beauty varies dramatically from the public’s. From a superficial glance, the Sainsbury Wing of the National Gallery in London is nothing similar in looks to the Vanna Venturi house and can be mistaken for classical architecture. However, with a much closer examination, it is clear that although classic-based, it is not pure. Scott Brown’s and Venturi’s views on beauty align almost perfectly. The Sainsbury
wing, like majority of Venturi’s work is covered with juxtaposing elements that contrast each other to enrich the structure with profound meaning 8 . The Classic foundation of it’s design pays tribute to the Italian Renaissance collection it fosters as well as William Wilkins’ original building, while simultaneously maintaining its own distinct identity 6 . As manifested in the replication of the distinctively classic pilasters, but with the Mannerist touch of creating this repetitive flow that gradually comes to a halt as it goes across from the National gallery to Pall Mall South—an alignment alien to the classic and by juxtaposition enriches the overall order. Additionally, the dentil ornament beneath the cornice also carries on from the National Gallery, only to end shortly into the facade, leaving the cornice to continue (interestingly not till the end of the facade either) unadorned. The Mannerist influence in Venturi and Scott Brown’s design is vividly evident in the large rectangular cutouts in the facade that deviates from the classic to form the entrance to a late twentieth century museum 6 . Overall, the Wing draws heavily from classic architecture, however by contrasting with Mannerist and contemporary influence, the facade contains various elements that through complex interconnections with other contradicting elements, enrich and highlight the meaning of the order as a whole. In addition, through their design, they’re able to carry out a harmonious transition between the classic architecture of the older gallery with the glass wall of the east facade—a transition mimicked on the facade as it gradually turns from classical on one end to more obvious postmodern on. Through her work, Scott Brown continues to advocate for an architectural culture that produces beautiful architecture which she expresses similarly to Venturi through the contrasting of elements and the appreciation of their complex natural interrelationships in their works and their influential writings. Similarly to Venturi and Scott Brown, Rossi’s stance in the discussion of beauty is similar yet not identical. Rossi, began his architectural career amongst the likes of Ernesto Rogers (whose studio is considered to be the busiest and most influential studio in the Milanese architectural scene in the late fifties) and enviably became aware of the critique of the modern early on, as well as inspired by his rationalist mentors 1 . Rossi’s San Cataldo, Modena cemetery is arguably his most recognised work as well as most celebrated by his contemporaries as a feat in postmodernism expression of neo-rationalist values 1 . Centring his cemetery design, is the
cubed structure dubbed “the house of the dead” which humbled down architecture to its purest essence. The entire design is a bold expression of the postmodern; from the use of terracotta reds and blue hues in contrast to the natural greyness of concrete favoured by the Modern, to the design of the centrepiece which from a superficial look, is mistaken for a simple cube structure, but in fact provokes thinking—a concept crucial to the postmodern 4 . Similarly to the Gallaratese housing project — perhaps his other work most inline with this one, the cemetery utilises the repetition of primary forms 5. Contradictory to the Venturi home which also demands thinking in order to appreciate it, the Modena cemetery uses the design of the structure rather than symbology. In fact, while Venturi used architectural symbols such as the arch, Rossi’s structure is covered in aligned square and rectangular cut outs, for light, ventilation, views, access, etc. Where the lack of actual windows, a roof or even actual doorways advocates this depressive feeling to the viewers and thought of death through its skeleton-looking structure. Similarly to the Venturi house however, Venturi’s development drawings of the project, show excessive use of basic forms including the circle, square and triangle. Indeed very much like the Venturi house, Rossi’s cemetery is generally disliked by the public and has to be learned how to be liked. Suggesting that perhaps to use Venturi’s terminology, clarity of meaning is more essential to the public than richness of meaning. When topography and architecture comes together, a structure wins its authenticity. The natural features of a land and area is a physical appearance of topography. Therefore, the relationship between human and space is the start of topology which a human is related with landscape and land. Furthermore, topology is also one of the most common obstacle faced in architecture. Venturi and Scott Brown who co-authored Learning from Las Vegas 1977, were the vanguard of the postmodern topography movement of the 20th century. In 1968, Robert Venturi took a team of Yale architecture students to Las Vegas, and Learning from Las Vegas 1977, is the delayed outcome. Robert Venturi and Scott Brown claimed that the 1960s of Las Vegas, gave them a lesson on the architecture of communication as an element and function of architecture. Furthermore, they claimed that it is a city that impose “symbols in space before form in space”. It was an attempt to unravel what Venturi perceived as a weak point in architectural thinking.
In doubt that the topography of a city has ever been described so imaginatively, as well as the conventional land-use maps, ground plan (Figure 3), and street maps, Mr. Venturi presents aerial photography, maps of undeveloped land (Figure 4), of asphalt parking areas (Figure 5), of traffic intensity. He charts the distribution of wedding chapels, churches, auto rental agencies and food stores. He maps the ceremonial spaces (Figure 6), and shows how public spaces extend indoors and outdoors. Furthermore, there is a map showing the varying intensity of illumination along the Las Vegas Strip, which is a composition panorama of both sides of the Strip, and a film sequence of it taken from a moving car. There are comparative studies of the Strip's street “furniture” and of the key elements of the motels and gas stations. The presentation is sometimes strained, but the effect is radically interesting, for this description forces us to acknowledge a complex order of forms that is usually chosen to be ignored. In addition, he maps the distribution of commercial signs and road signs; one map presents, he assures us, every written word that can be seen from the road through the main Strip. Above all, there is the order in the signs of Las Vegas. The signs of Las Vegas are often taller and certainly more prominent than the buildings whose functions they advertise, because they are designed to be read at 60 miles an hour. Mr. Venturi describes Las Vegas as a giant auto piazza defined by its own version of triumphal arches and spires. That the signs advertise an “oasis” of gambling and glamour is of no more concern to Mr. Venturi than the fact that a Gothic cathedral’s west front or the mosaic interior decor of a Byzantine basilica advertises a religion what matters to him is the acceptance of signs as an appropriate element of architecture. “Comment and allusion; on the present or past or old clichés and on incredible commonplaces, and inclusion of the every day in the environment, profane and holy in the present modern architecture is what lacks the most.” In a refreshingly blunt polemic Mr. Venturi argues that the suppression of decoration in favour of spatial and structural expressionism has resulted in grandiose abstraction; modernist buildings are “too architectural.” Venturi and Scott Brown who has strong beliefs in postmodern topography and despite having trouble to the supposed defects such as parking lots and sporadic placement of buildings within the Las Vegas Strip which was there to stay, it taught them to accept what was already given of an existing landscape and go from there. In contrast to Venturi and Scott Brown,
architect Rossi had a similarly strong approach towards topography as he favoured other architectural theories in his work that each and every architectural style dominates to a certain building type. Since all cities carries its own soul, Rossi puts importance in the characteristics of structures in the city as its bestows spirit upon the city. Therefore, he declares further attention on urban topography in reflecting local characteristics, melting into the environment of the city. The location of architecture cannot place reliance to designate fundamentally. The creation of any structures standing should not dictate an organization of a city whereas be merged and compromised with the existing space. Therefore, an organically parts of the whole city was proposed by Rossi. Before this assignment was given, we had extremely minimal knowledge of all architects, Robert Venturi, Scott Brown and Aldo Rossi. After an impeccable amount of research through the reading of books to contribute towards and prepare ourselves for this essay, to sum up, we have gained much deeper depth of understanding and great appreciation towards all architectural theories and its importance towards the philosophy and history of architecture. To conclude this essay, Robert Venturi, Scott Brown and Aldo Rossi were all pioneers of the postmodern movement, questioning the modern and demanding more profound meaning in architecture in their own respective ways. Though with all philosophies, views and beliefs that each architects embodies, that may or may not be the right of way, much respect and sincere appreciation is given towards the denouement of their works. Their writings and works as evidently concluded, embodied their respective definitions of beauty and topography, from the Venturi house’s symbology, mannerist influence to Rossi’s Modena cemetery’s neo-rationalist values, Learning from Las Vegas, 1972 and many more. One thing common among both their respective works; the public must be taught how to like them. Which indicates that perhaps the too profound meaning in their works are too complex for the public to comprehend and thus appreciate it. However, it is arguable that given that Venturi and Scott Brown especially sought after complexity, then in that sense they have succeeded.
Figure 1: Front elevation of the Vanna Venturi house by Robert Venturi, 1962-1964
Figure 2: Back elevation of the Vanna Venturi house by Robert Venturi, 1962-1964
Figure 3 : Ground Plan of Las Vegas, Nevada from Learning From Las Vegas by Venturi Scott Brown, and Izenour,1977
Figure 4 : Upper strip, undeveloped land from Learning From Las Vegas by Venturi, Scott Brown, and Izenour, 1977
Figure 5 : Asphalt Parking Areas from Learning From Las Vegas by Venturi, Scott Brown, and Izenour, 1977
Figure 6 : Ceremonial Spaces from Learning From Las Vegas by Venturi, Scott Brown, and Izenour, 1977
Word Count: 3,024 Bibliography 1. Moneo, Jose Rafael, Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies in the work of 8 Contemporary Architects, US: MIT Press, 2004 2. Venturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour, Learning from Las Vegas, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2017 3. Scully, Vincent Joseph., and Neil Levine, Modern architecture and other essays, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005 4. Jencks, C. The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. 3rd ed. New York: Academy Editions, pp.9-13, 20, 91-92, 1981 5. Moos, S. Venturi Rauch & Scott Brown. New York: Rizzoli, pp.60-62, 244-248, 1987 6. Moos, S. Venturi, Scott Brown & Associates. 1st ed. New York, NY: The Monacelli Press, pp.122-139, 1999 7. Sanmartin, A. Venturi, Rauch & Scott Brown. 1st ed. London: Academy Editions, pp.15-17, 38-4, 1986 8. Venturi, R., Scully, V. and Mead, C. The Architecture of Robert Venturi. 1st ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1989 9. Venturi, R. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1966 10. Rossi, Aldo, The architecture of the city , Cambridge, Mass,: MIT Press, 2007