MYTH: the tradition, the illusion, the imagination.
Elis Misirli
Language and Myth
Myth is what makes the contigent and transitory seem permanent and inevitable. Present in our everyday life, it is a form and a method of communication. A myth is essentially derived from history and past events, and it could be of a significant importance to a culture or even a whole species. In the world we live in, reality and truth are relative. Once they are mediatised, myths are created. In “Myth Today”, Roland Barthes explains the relationship between language and myth as well as the theoretical way in which the myth is created. It is important, at this stage, to understand how language and myth are categorised in a semiological analysis. Generally speaking, mythology can exist in various systems of communication; in oral speech, written means, photography, cinema, reporting, sport, shows, and publicity.1 In everyday life, language 1 108
Roland Barthes, “Myth Today”, in Mythologies, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972.
Elis Misirli
Second-order Semiological System (Linguistic System / Metalanguage System) MEANING (signifier)
CONCEPT (signified)
SIGN / FORM (signifier)
CONCEPT (signified) SIGNIFICATION (sign)
and knowledge are transformed into mythical speech. To become clearer, Roland Barthes talks about myth belonging to a semiological system where language has existed before myth did; it therefore forms a second-order semiological system.1 He categorises this system in two completely different yet parallel behaviours; the linguistic system and the metalanguage system. First in the chain is the linguistic system, which represents the language, as this is essential for a myth to be then created. And subsequently follows the metalanguage system which represents the myth itself. Roland Barthes uses three very important terms in a semiological system; the signifier, the signified and the sign.
1 113
Roland Barthes, “Myth Today�, in Mythologies, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972. Myth: the tradition, the illusion, the imagination. | Chapter 1
The Signifier and the Signified In a linguistic system, the signifier embodies the meaning which when transformed into the metalanguage system it automatically becomes a form. The signifier in a linguistic system is more or less the reality; it does not involve any abstractness. It could be derived from a knowledge a past, a memory, a comparative order of facts, ideas, decisions.1 The image on the top is a straight forward example of a linguistic sign. The act or gesture illustrated is that of a ‘Peace’ or ‘Victory’ sign. The signifier is the index and middle finger raised and parted. The signified is the message that this gesture carries; that is to spread peace to the world or that everything is harmonious. The transition from a linguistic system to a metalanguage system however, means that the meaning will lose some of its value, as the 1 116
Roland Barthes, “Myth Today”, in Mythologies, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972.
Elis Misirli
form in the myth will put this value at a distance. This does not mean though that a myth is a complete false argument. A myth does not eliminate the truth; instead it just alters it. This depreciation of value forms the signified, the concept of the myth. A concept, in contrary to the form, is unambiguous. It is a shapeless idea, which gives the richness to the myth formed. At the same time, a concept can expand on many different forms of myth; the signified can have several signifiers.1 In other words, there are many different ways and ideas in which the same concept can be created.
1 118
Roland Barthes, “Myth Today�, in Mythologies, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972. Myth: the tradition, the illusion, the imagination. | Chapter 1
The Sign, The Myth In a semiological system, as Roland Barthes describes it, there is also a third term; the sign or signification. In a linguistic system the sign becomes automatically the signifier of the metalanguage system. In a metalanguage system however, the sign or signification is simply the correlation of the mythical concept and the mythical form. It is therefore a fabricated or developed result. Apple, the Myth Magnet In order to put these theories in practice, let’s take the Apple campaign for the new iPhone as an example. If we take this image in its purest form, the signifier is the three mobile phones that are projected. The signified is of course the fact that they are 3 new, seductive and ‘forward-thinking’ devices. All this means that any of these three phones will provide its user with forward thinking and progressiveness, forming the sign of the pure meaning of the Elis Misirli
advert. However, hidden behind this sign is in fact the signified and signifier of the myth that is about to be created. In a semiological system, this would form the second meaning. That is, these new phones will make you, the buyer and user, a much better person in society, you will become enlightened and therefore an expert in technology today. You will be a step forward from anyone else who does not possess this object. Moreover, there is a ‘coolness’ factor to it. What is sold apart from the product is the idea that you can be the ultimate technology expert and at the same time you are not a nerd; you are ‘in-fashion’. In addition to this, even the shape of this product is seamless; its form is smooth and without any sharp corners which make even the look of it seem natural. Apple in general has managed to sell the idea and notion of a simple lifestyle through its products. All of its products can connect to one another and at the same time be very distinct. This makes the buyer desire an iPhone, an iPad and a MacBook for instance, as they all provide you with different services and facilities. However, all three of them are interlocked as “iCloud puts your content on all your devices. Everywhere. Automatically. That’s the way it should be, and iCloud makes it a reality. So when you buy a song, you don’t have to download it over and over to enjoy it on multiple devices. Or worry that a document doesn’t contain your latest revisions. Or spend time transferring photos. iCloud takes care of everything for you. Just like that.” 1 Thus, once you become part of that notion, you can never escape from it. 1 http://www.apple.com/icloud/ Myth: the tradition, the illusion, the imagination. | Chapter 1
Elis Misirli
Apple has made this possible especially the last years by becoming a myth magnet. In other words, as the world today lives and feeds on media and social networking, Apple has successfully took advantage of this and has used this tool to constantly spread rumours about its next big release keeping people interested. This is to point out what was stated earlier; that myth is in our everyday life. It is mediatised and made to be seen natural, permanent and inevitable.
That which goes without saying has been socially constructed and could be otherwise. = Myth
Myth: the tradition, the illusion, the imagination. | Chapter 1
History Historicism Architecture
In historicism, as well as in mythology, a popular and justified reference is necessary in order for the subject matter to be constructed effectively. It is therefore wiser to choose a truth, a moment in time, that is appropriate to the audience, that goes without saying. Historicism is a theory of history constructed in the late eighteenth century that depends on a time and a place. It is linked with the ‘zeitgeist’, the spirit of the era. According to Colin Rowe in “Introduction to Five Architects”, modern architecture claims to be merely the result of the age.1 Architects take decisions that fit the particular time and place. Both art and architecture embrace a history that is being made physical. In other words, history is inseparable from architecture, and vice versa. Architecture, to Colin Rowe, should not reject the past; it should 1 Colin Rowe, “Introduction to Five Architects”, in Architecture/Theory/Since 1968, Cambridge, Massachussets: The MIT Press, 1972. 79 Elis Misirli
value it. Alan Colquhoun in “Three Kinds of Historicism” supports that “only by looking toward the future could they (art and architecture) be faithful to the spirit of history and give expression in their works to the spirit of the age.”1 In this theory however, could it be possibly implied that architecture of the same era is a form of repetition or of replication of an idea? Modernism has strongly relied on the zeitgeist and people have criticised this through time. In “Introduction to Five Architects” Colin Rowe suggests however that in order for architecture to be valued and established by society, it needs to evoke something remembered.2 In other words, it could be argued whether an architect has a free will or whether for a good architecture to be created, relying on the zeitgeist is always necessary. Nowadays, people are more aware of the past than ever. Nevertheless, society presents a somehow vague truth, a myth, before us. And therefore, as Alan Colquhoun states: “the use of the past to supply models for the present depends upon ideological distortion of the past.”3 Could this, hence, also imply that in architecture when a past is used in order to represent a value in the present, this ‘moment in time’ is well distorted and somehow inaccurate, yet made natural in order to fit with the present? In this sense, the role of a myth is reinforced even more; as stated earlier, myth makes the contingent and transitory seem permanent and inevitable.
1 Alan Colquhoun, “Three Kinds of Historicism”, in Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture”, New York: Princeton Architectural Press. 206 2 Colin Rowe, “Introduction to Five Architects”, in Architecture/Theory/Since 1968, Cambridge, Massachussets: The MIT Press, 1972. 81 3 Alan Colquhoun, “Three Kinds of Historicism”, in Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture”, New York: Princeton Architectural Press. 207 Myth: the tradition, the illusion, the imagination. | Chapter 2
On the other hand however, if architecture is supposed to form a better future for everyone and thus always keep changing, how is it possible that it constantly follows the zeitgeist? Colin Rowe suggests that the way that modern architecture looked for example in the 1930s should not be that same with how it looks today. “If the real political issue is not the provision of the rich with cake but of the starving with bread, then not only formally but also programmatically these buildings are irrelevant.” 1
1 Collin Rowe, “Introduction to Five Architects”, in Architecture/Theory/Since 1968, Cambridge, Massachussets: The MIT Press, 1972. 77 Elis Misirli
The Eiffel Tower Consequently in my opinion, for a good architecture to exist, the architect should rely on the spirit of the age and seek to satisfy and comply with the era it is created in. And subsequently for a great architecture to be created, the architect should on the one hand be aware of the history but at the same time turn his back to tradition. Let’s take the example of the Eiffel Tower, designed in the 19th century in Paris. Even before it was built it was criticized badly. The Tower was a not very well received piece of architecture as it was completely and utterly against the spirit of the era. People and society were very much against the construction of such a “useless and monstrous”1 tower and at the same time the French strongly protested claiming that this “giddy, ridiculous tower dominating Paris like a gigantic black smokestack, crushing 1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/eiffel-tower-opens-paris-expositionuniverselle-of-1889-photos_n_3222363.html Myth: the tradition, the illusion, the imagination. | Chapter 2
1_A carricature of Gustave Eiffel at the protest of the artists in 1887 portraying the uggliness of the tower and comparing it to the Pyrimids.
1
under its barbaric bulk Notre Dame, the Tour Saint-Jacques, the Louvre, the Dome of les Invalides, the Arc de Triomphe, all of our humiliated monuments will disappear in this ghastly dream.”1 The society has in this way created the myth that the Eiffel Tower or any other architecture that is not similar to the architecture of the era is not suitable to be designed. However, Gustave Eiffel visualized the Tower in ‘the form of a serious object, rational, useful.’2 1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/eiffel-tower-opens-paris-expositionuniverselle-of-1889-photos_n_3222363.html 2 Roland Barthes, “The Eiffel Tower and Other Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1979., 3 Elis Misirli
Before transforming the Tower in a symbol, let’s take the life of it as an object. Even after it has been blamed for being a useless monument, the Eiffel Tower has become an object inseparable from Paris; it looks over you wherever you are and you look at it from wherever you stand; “whatever the season, through the mist and cloud, on overcast days or in sunshine, in rain-wherever you are, whatever the landscape of roofs, domes, or branches separating you from it, the Tower is there incorporated into daily life.”1 The only way not to see it is be on it. And when you are on it, the Tower becomes an object with a life itself. From ground level, there are various vendors of postcards and souvenirs and in the fourth platform there is the Eiffel Tower restaurant, transforming this ‘object’ into an object of comfort and ease. 1 Roland Barthes, “The Eiffel Tower and Other Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1979., 1 Myth: the tradition, the illusion, the imagination. | Chapter 2
Furthermore, the Tower has the ability of seeing Paris and being seen by Paris giving the monument a complete meaning. Nevertheless, in essence, the Tower is merely empty inside; one cannot walk in it or be shut within it. The meaning provoked by the Tower is thus the idea of scaling it, of ascending to a view, of exploring the panorama aroused. As, in historicism, history and architecture are inseparable, so is the Eiffel Tower inseparable from the Parisian history. When standing on the Tower, one can experience the past and the present of Paris, “the Tower makes the city into a kind of nature; it constitutes the swarming of men into a landscape, it adds to the frequently grim urban myth a romantic dimension, a harmony, a mitigation; by it, starting from it.”1 The Tower overlooks the city that becomes the “nature of human space”2 . Therefore, exploring the panorama of the city that the Tower provides, one can attempt to decipher the city in order to detect the landmarks of Paris. In other words, the history of Paris is imagined from the top of the Eiffel Tower.
1 1 Roland Barthes, “The Eiffel Tower and Other Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1979., 5 2 Ibid., 5 Elis Misirli
4 3
2
5
6
2_American soldiers admiring the Eiffel Tour during WW1. 3_Long Ta, Harbin, China 4_ Funkturm, Berlin 5_Tokyo Tower, Shiba Park, Tokyo 6_The Zoo Tower, Copenhagen
Mobilising it as a symbol now, the Tower is not only present in Paris, but it is also present in the whole world. It forms the global cultural icon of France, worshipped and admired by locals and tourists from all around the world. It exists everywhere on the globe whenever Paris is to be stated, “There is no journey to France which isn’t made, somehow, in the Tower’s name, no schoolbook, poster, or film about France which fails to propose it as the major sign of a people and of a place.”1 Nonetheless, it has become a building that has inspired the work of so many other architects and has become the representative and the legacy of exposed structure in a whole new era. 1 Roland Barthes, “The Eiffel Tower and Other Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1979., 1 Myth: the tradition, the illusion, the imagination. | Chapter 2
Exposed Structure in Architecture
‘Structure is columnar, planar or a combination of these which a designer can intentionally use to gather or strengthen ideas. In this context, columns, walls and beams can be thought of in terms of concepts of frequency, pattern, simplicity, regularity, randomness and complexity. As such, structures can be used to define space, create units, articulate circulation, suggest movement, or develop composition and modulations.’1 (Clark and Pause, 1985) In architecture, the majority of structure in a building is often hidden and concealed. Therefore the experience that visitors or passers-by have with the structure of a building is ordinary or even unmemorable. And sometimes, even when structure is exposed, it is often repetitive, monotonous and expected and it it surely not considered as creating architecture.
1 Clark, R. H. and Pause, M., “Precedents in Architecture”, Van Nostrand Reinhold 1985., 3 Elis Misirli
Personally, what amuses me in this kind of architecture is the potential for structure to enrich architecture; high-scale programmatic buildings where structure creates the architecture and even further contributes a sense of excitement to it.
Myth: the tradition, the illusion, the imagination. | Chapter 3
Centre Georges Pompidou To begin with, it is vital to distinguish between architectural form and structural form. Architectural form is essentially understood as and limited to the form and shape of the building envelope. On the other hand, structural form is understood as a building’ s primary or most dominant structural system. In many past occasions, exposed structure has been fairly inappropriate taking into consideration the design ideals that existed at those times, Renaissance and Baroque periods for instance. In contemporary buildings, structural exposure can still be absent as it may impact negatively on the appearance of it as well as the goal of the architect. Therefore, it could be more fitting for exposed structures to be limited to buildings where the structure incorporates with and boosts the expression of the architectural idea behind it. Viollet-le-Duc expressed the views of eighteenth century Structural Rationalists: “Impose on me a structural system, and I will naturally find you the forms which should result from it. But if you change the structure, I shall be obliged to change the form.” 1 1 Collins, P., “Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture (1750-1950)”, McGill – Queen’s University Press 1995., 214 Elis Misirli
Richard Rogers and Renzo Piano proposed in 1970 the most spectacular post-war monument in Paris, Centre Culturel d’ Art Georges Pompidou. The Centre was at the time a passionate statement about the life of the city. It launched a whole new approach to public building and broke down the monumental exclusiveness of usual public institutions. The essence of the proposed Centre was flexibility. The architects visualized “an ever-changing framework, a ‘meccano’ kit, a climbing frame for the old and the young…”1 An equally fundamental issue was that of movement. The building would not be a static monument, but would be made accessible by escalators snaking down the façade to the piazza. The Centre Pompidou became one of the most ultimate examples of buildings whose architecture was made by celebrating its structure. In much of our built environment and iconic architecture, structure has been concealed or hidden. The Centre Pompidou however became one of the most ultimate examples of buildings whose architecture was made by celebrating its structure as well as its building systems. The components and connection of the Centre were of a scale rarely seen in the construction industry. In fact, they were more likely to be seen in civil engineering projects. The varied and dramatic exterior of the Centre derives from its expressed services.
1 109
Powell, K., “Richard Rogers Complete Works, vol.1”, Phaidon Press Limited 1999., Myth: the tradition, the illusion, the imagination. | Chapter 3
The Centre consists of five large open-plan floors supported on the main structural steel planes to east and west. Access to the building is provided by lifts, escalators and staircases attached to the west faรงade of the building. As movement is a key theme of the building, the escalators are functionally effective but also highly symbolic. The east faรงade of the Centre is the servicing zone, containing mechanical services. The structural frame provides a number of passive means of fire protection, including water-cooling in the columns, and over cladding to the beams. The services zone is a brightly coloured and huge piece of urban sculpture, but the colours codes the various services it supplies. Consequently in reality, the facades are deep zones of servicing and movement respectively. When structure is therefore given a voice, like in the Centre Georges Pompidou, it can contribute architectural meaning and richness to a design. Structure can play an extremely important role to a monument and, with Centre Georges Pompidou as an example, structure has managed to give the building attributes that turned it Elis Misirli
into a building of the future. The impact that structure has to the people who experience it is also an interesting factor of structural buildings. Visitors, passersby and building occupants witness the senses that structure has the ability to expose. One structure, releasing a sense of tranquility, soothes emotions. Another structure sets nerves on edge. A raw and inhospitable structure contrasts with one that welcomes and expresses a sense of protection. Therefore, the architecture that changes humanity has also managed to change the perception of structure. Structure creates opportunities rather than restraints for both architects and engineers. Peter Collins, the architectural theorist, shared constructive beliefs regarding structure’s architectural role. In concluding a discussion on eighteenth and nineteenth century rationalism, he suggested: “However much the emphasis on structural expression may have been exaggerated in the past by a craving for ostentation, or reduced by the competing emphases on spatial effects, sculptural effects and new planning requirements, it is still potentially one of the most vigorous ideals of the modern age, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that it is the notion which offers the most fruitful prospects for the future development of modern architectural thought.”1
1 Collins, P., “Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture 1750–1950”, McGill–Queens University Press 1995. Myth: the tradition, the illusion, the imagination. | Chapter 3
ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE: the revolution in architectural authorship.
Elis Misirli
Classisicm and the Renaissance
The classical language of architecture is a language by itself. Classical architecture has its roots in antiquity, in the world of Ancient Greece and Rome, in the temple architecture of the Greek world and in the religious, military and civil architecture of the Romans.1 When classical language has been apparent in a building, the architecture created has been expeptional and longstanding. This is merely because classical language has been widely understood and recognised. It has been established by the 5 classical orders of architecture. The 5 architectural orders are in general elements of design, codified first by Vitruvius and then by Serlio in 1540, followed by Claude Perrault in 1676. An ‘order’ is the ‘column-and-superstructure’ unit of a temple colonnade.2 The orders consisted of Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian and Composite orders which are symbols of Classicism which have a ‘long career of canonical, symbolic, almost legendary, authority.”3 (Fig 1) 1 John Summerson, “The Classical Language of Architecture”, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 7 2 Ibid., 9 3 Ibid., 9 Elis Misirli
Fig 1
Another Perspective | Chapter 1
The Renaissance architecture, born in the early 15th century in Europe, has gone back in time and made use of these 5 classical orders, signifying a revival of design elements from the Greek and Roman language in architecture. The style of Renaissance architecture is based on proportion, geometry and symmetry and highlights architecture design elements of classicism. Mannerism has used the same architectural vocabulary and was the step that has evolved Renaissance architecture to Baroque. Mannerism is not considered to be a an architectural style; it is the ‘mood’ of an age. Architects in Mannerism have not completely altered the classical language. Instead, they have imitated it but slightly distorted it. In this way, they have manifested the authorship within Mannerism. Classical language needs to somehow always inform architecture as without the knowledge and the language, no originality can exist. Baldassare Peruzzi has, at the time, reinterpreted the classical language and has become an author of his work, which bridges High Renaissance and Mannerism.
Elis Misirli
Palazzo Massimo alle Colonne The Palazzo Massimo alle Colonne is a Renaissance palace in Rome designed by Baldassare Peruzzi in 1536 (Fig 2 and 3). The palace was built on a site of a previous building that was destroyed during the 1527 Sack of Rome.
Fig 2
Another Perspective | Chapter 1
Fig 3 (top), Fig 4 (bottom)
Built on a narrow street curve, the façade of the Palazzo Massimo alle Colonne is curved (Fig 4). This is because the palace has used the foundations of the ancient odeon of the Emperor Domitian, which shows the admiration of the architect to the Roman architecture as well as marks the classical language on the building. Peruzzi’s admiration to the architecture of Rome is further revealed by his choice of the use of classical orders of the entrance of the palace. Elis Misirli
Fig 5 (top), Fig 6 and 7 (bottom)
The entrance is characterised by a central portico with some paired and some single Doric columns (Fig 5). The design and structure of the Doric columns is also apparent in the interior courtyards of the palace (Fig 6,7). Another Perspective | Chapter 1
In architecture, buildings are often described as ambiguous. In his book, Roger Scruton has pointed out “the ambiguous arrangement of columns employed by Peruzzi in the entrance loggia to the Palazzo Massimo”.1 The ambiguity in the palace is portrayed in its column design. This can be seen as both two pairs with two single columns, which in turn form pairs together with the two pilasters on each side (Fig 8), or as three pairs where the middle pair indicates the doorway (Fig 9). Both these two labels are equal yet of a different kind. In other words, they both consist of six columns at the entrance of the portico, but the one describes them as two pairs with single columns and the other one as three pairs.2 The way in which Peruzzi has designed the façade has taken a full advantage of the setting. The sequence of supports that takes places as one witnesses this entrance of the palace - pilasters, single columns, paired columns, entrance, paired columns, single columns, pilasters – makes the façade an innovative and masterful design. The variation in the size and decorative elements of the windows at the façade reinforces the multiple interpretations of the palace. There are three identical floors above the entrance loggia. The upper two are designed with identical small horizontal windows, where the ones in the upper floor has differentiated decorative frame, which come to contrast with the deep entrance.
1 Roger Scruton, “The Aesthetics of Architecture”, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1979. 2 Christopher Baumberger, “Ambiguity in Architecture”, http://www.envphil.ethz.ch/ people/baumc/publications/Ambiguity_in_Architecture.pdf Elis Misirli
Fig 8
Fig 9
Another Perspective | Chapter 1
Peruzzi, for me, has at the time designed an exceptional and long standing piece of architecture through the palace as he imitated and followed the classical orders and the Renaissance style but at the same time had somehow included an element of differentiation.The choice of the Doric order and the upright windows in podium level make the curved façade bend in a regular rhythm, without any interruption. The ambiguity in the design of the Doric columns as well as the variation in the size of the windows make the palace have no direct academic obedience to the imposition of the orders. Through this, Peruzzi and mannerist architects in general, have managed to establish an authority within the language. It could be argued that mannerism is quite emphatically based on authorship and free will. However, mannerism strongly invloves the ‘classical’ in its language and therefore mannerist architects have successfully originated a new, yet understandable language. As a result, for great architecture to take place, even today, there needs to be an element of classisicm. For the architecture to be exceptional is needs to be ‘popular, intelligible and profound’ and for that to happen there needs to be respect to the architectural formula; “Not innovating wilfulness but reverence for the archetype.” 1 Mannerism has managed to respect the classical language and at the very same time be original with it.
1 Herman Melville in: Venturi R., Scott Brown D., Izenour S., “Learning from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form”, Cambridge, Massachussets, London: The MIT Press, 1972. 87 Elis Misirli
Mannerism and Post-Humanism
Today, mannerism still exists. In the long run, mannerism has developed its function into one of a revolution; in other words, it can happen at any point in time as it entails an architectural authorship. A mannerist movement could either comprise of a sociopolitical form or of an authorial form. In architecture, for authorial mannerism to exist, there needs to be a strong combination of expression and discipline. In his essay “Post-Functionalism”, Peter Eisenman discusses architectural humanism and he defines it as an architecture that is all about the use and the user, the “function (or program) and form (type)”1 . Furthermore, he argues that program and form used to be understood as two opposite design elements, yet through time and especially on mid twentieth century architectural design begun to be understood as a form that follows function.
1 Eisenman P., “Post-Functionalism”, Cambridge, Massachussets, London: The MIT Press, 1976. 237 Another Perspective | Chapter 2
Eisenman believes that architecture is an intellectual discipline, like art and music, and that is why he strongly supports that architecture should also be just about architecture. To him, the term ‘modernism’ was misunterstood for functionalism therefore true modernism was never tried in architecture until he came along. Peter Eisenman’s House VI in Connecticut is an example of this kind of mannerist and post-humanist architecture as its language is disciplined and methodical (Fig 9).
Fig 9
Elis Misirli
Above Fig 10 Below Fig 11
For Eisenman, architecture is all about operations. The design and form of House VI was developed through the concept of a grid. Eisenman used a floor plan of a house with its typical rooms and created a concept with four planes that were then intersected and worked out until coherent spaces began to be formed (Fig 10,11). Another Perspective | Chapter 2
It is evident that Eisenman is interested in history. He uses classical language, yet at the same time rejects its meaning. In other words, Eisenman makes use of typical housing plans and rules that are usually followed in all conventinal housing architecture. He uses them to inform the design; he does not rejects the language, instead he distorts it. By using and following the discipline of housing, the architecture that was created in House VI made it apparent that the design was a house, but at the same time it was a revolutionary definition of a house. It could be argued that House VI is an unsuccessful piece of architecture as its form has in many cases failed to complete its function. For example, there is a column in the kitchen that is just floating over the kitchen table without even touching the floor. There are also some spaces where the beams do not intersect with each other (Fig 12). In addition, in the main bedroom there is a glass slot that separates the room in half as it runs through the wall and continues through the floor which excluTop Fig 12 des the existence of a double Bottom Fig 13 bed and forces there to be two separate beds (Fig 13). It is therefore evident that Eisenman has deliberately chosen to ignore the idea of form that follows function, Elis Misirli
yet, in my opinion, he has done this rather successfully for as a post-humanist piece of architecture. Even though Eisenman has created spaces that were annoying and difficult for the users, he managed in this way to keep the users aware of the architecture and make them familiarize with it. The architecture that was created through House VI is an architecture that is all about itself. The architect succeeded in creating a structure that could be functioned both as a house and as a piece of art, even if the function followed the art. Through his operations, Peter Eisenman has taken a language that already existed and through it, created a another, more original language; another, more original perspective in the world of architecture.
Peter Eisenman in House VI
ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE. Another Perspective | Chapter 2
nat路u路ral adj.
Elis Misirli
Architecture and the Natural
“Both architecture and nature seem to continuously creep into each other’s territories, as if to propel the notion that they are really inseparable.” 1 With this in mind, what is nature really? And why is nature in architecture important? The natural is used to justify situations or even systems of thinking. Sometimes, the natural is even used as an essentialist argument; ‘this is like this because that is the way it is’. Is nature, thus, beyond critic? When we have no other argument to make, do we use the ‘natural’? In the built environment, nature has its solutions. The natural helps make the architecture or at least think about how to make it. Both Luis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright argue that architecture is becoming irrelevant and its future is at stake. In this essay, we will talk about nature and architecture are intertwined and how the natural helps in making architecture relevant and true. 1 http://sensingarchitecture.com/2561/the-balance-between-architecture-and-natureslideshow/ Elis Misirli
The question of the natural in architecture builds up a tension between the conception of the natural as approaching the ideal, and the natural being informed by experience. Natural being ideal can be highly academic and very orderly and pure. Idealized architecture is made to look natural; it is predominantly supposed to be self-evident. The truth is merely within the object and its essence and it allows a great deal of authorship to the creator. On the other hand, informed nature is more vital; it is about the process. This process could be a series of operations that do not really emphasize on the result. Instead, nature speaks through the object and it informs it. In other words, it is a process that no one authored; the truth is merely out there, in nature. In any case however, is it rarely one or the other. In his essay “The Essential Frank Lloy Wright, Critical Writings on Architecture”, Frank Lloyd Wright expresses the essence that architecture should be flat and vertical in order to relate to the earth, to the landscape. It should look like something in nature; “A building should appear to grow easily from the site and be shaped to harmonize with its surroundings if Nature is manifest there, and if not try to make it as quiet, substantial and organic as She would have been were the opportunity Hers”.1 In other words, the architecture should merge with the landscape and even if there is not landscape, the architect should make the building look like Nature made him did what he did. Similar to Wright’s perception of nature in architecture, is Peter Zumthor’s Vals Thermal Baths in Switzerland, built between 1993 and 1996.
1 Wright,L,F., “The Essential Frank Lloyd Wright; Critical Writings on Architecture”, Princeton University Press, 2008. 35 Architecture and the Natural
Elis Misirli
Vals Thermal Baths, Peter Zumthor “Mountain, stone, water, building in stone, building with stone, building into the mountain, building out of the mountain, being inside the mountain.” 1 The baths are lay in the heart of a valley as if the ‘”baths are born of the mountains”.2 The relationship between the building and its immediate environment is obvious from its location and nature is is apparent not only from the mountains that enclose the baths but also from the fact that the building is sunk in the slope. The flat roof of the baths covered with grass makes the building blend in with the landscape. Only the geometrical pattern of the grass reveals its presence. Vals Thermal Baths are built in natural stone that is found in the village of Vals. The use of natural stone builds up to the experience of the user, the bather. This experience also depends on the silent, key experiences of the bathing ritual, cleansing oneself, resting in the water; on the contact of the body with the different temperatures of the water in the different spaces of the building; this whole experience on touching stone. 1 2
Zumthor, P., “Thermal Bath At Vals” London: Architectural Association, 1996 Ibid. Architecture and the Natural
Moving in the interior of the building, the spa areas revolve around two pools that have quite irregular shapes. One of the pools is located in the center of the building and the other one in the open air, having a direct access to nature. With its high walls, the pool in the open air looks as if it is carved out of the mountain.
Elis Misirli
Coming across to the relationship of the building to water, once again the built form and nature are connected to the immediate surroundings. The valley of Vals rises a spring approximately 1200 meters above sea level. The idea of water movement along the valley and into the baths creates a sense of journey through nature in Vals.
Vals Thermal Baths can hence be considered as an architecture that is heavily informed by its context and by nature. In this case, the natural speaks through the architecture and it informs it. In essence, Peter Zumthor, along with Frank Lloyd Wright, is interested in natural law and organic architecture, tying merely everything together like things in nature would. The re-embodiment of nature in architecture reinforces the importance of creating an architecture that is relevant, intellectual and true; an architecture therefore that becomes a living art. Architecture and the Natural
Likewise, Luis Sullivan is interested in making architecture a living art, yet his interests lay mostly within the essence of the object. In other words, for him, the form of a building is not merely an illustration of its function. Instead, it should be the expression of its function. In his essay, “Kindergarten Chats and Other Writings”, Sullivan supports that the important issue in architecture is that buildings do not express their function. For him, as a bird or a fish or anything in nature expresses its function, so should architecture express its essence. Thus, the essence in Wainwright Building is not that the building is an office; the essence of it is that it is tall. When Sullivan argues that architecture is becoming irrelevant, what he really means is that it does not relate to its essence anymore. He wants to create something that grows out of its function and create something bigger, something ‘artistically considered’.1 For Sullivan, architecture should be predominantly informed by its function and the object itself should thus contain and express its essence. Similarly, in this same perspective, followed Richard Rogers with The Lloyds Building in London completed in 1986. 1 Sullivan, H, L., “Kindergarten Chats and Other Writings”, New York: Dover Publications. 202 Elis Misirli
Lloyd’s Building, Richard Rogers The Lloyd’s Building has the imagery of an organism, of a machine in their exterior while in its interior accommodates this pattern as well.
Architecture and the Natural
Located in the heart of London’s financial district, the Lloyd’s building, similarly to the Wainwright Building, is a mere expression of its essence. In this case, the essence of the Lloyd’s building is the fact that it is vertical and that it is a place of movement. Exposing the mechanism of escalators behind clear glass panels was a way of celebrating movement.
Richard Rogers defined his aim at Lloyd’s as being ‘to create poetry out of basic enclosure, by translating technology into form.’1 By arranging pipes and ducts all over the facade of the building, all secondary services are converted into primary and are no longer concealed within the construction. Structure and services are all inverted to the exterior and thus become the fundamental feature of the architecture. Externally the building is a complicated object, 1 198
Powell, K., “Richard Rogers Complete Works, vol.1.” Phaidon Press Limited, 1999.
Elis Misirli
the elements of which are very clearly communicated and expressive of their functions. There is absolutely no ambiguity; it is perfectly clear which elements are the staircases, which the lifts, which the air ducts. Similarly to Luis Sullivan, Richard Rogers was interested in changing the perception of what an office space should be. Absorbed in the program and the verticality, the architecture makes the essence more noble and relevant to what it wants to be. Evolution in architecture, as in everything else, happens over generations, as things change to adapt to the environment. It goes without saying, that architecture is artificial. But from there on, is it entirely artificial (wanting to be artificial) or does it incorporate a natural process? For me, nature has its solutions for everything. Architecture cannot be present without the natural; whether that is the environment, the landscape, the organic as is in the case of Frank Lloyd Wright and Peter Zumthor, or whether that is the natural within the essence as is in the case of Luis Sullivan and Richard Rogers. Coming back to the initial quote stated in this essay, architecture and the natural, hence, are beyond doubt two distinct principles that when brought together are really inseparable.
Architecture and the Natural
ARCHITECTURE NATURE
TEYMOUR BENET BRADY CTV
ON THE QUESTION OF THE NATURAL:
HOW SHOULD ARCHITECTURE TREAT NATURE
ON THE QUESTION OF THE NATURAL:
HOW SHOULD ARCHITECTURE TREAT NATURE
Teymour(Benet(Brady( The(Question(of(Language(–(Part(ll( Culture(&(Theory(V(
ON THE QUESTION OF THE NATURAL:
HOW SHOULD ARCHITECTURE TREAT NATURE “Study'nature,'love'nature,'stay'close'to'nature.'It'will'never'fail'you.”' Frank(Lloyd(Wright(
There(are(many(the(definitions(of(nature,(many(the(different( conceptions,(and(many(understandings(of(it.(In(the(end,(everyone( understands(nature(as(the(force(that(runs(parallel(to(our(human(one.(We( can(then(opt(to(take(from(this(force(of(nature,(understand(it(and(imitate( it,(learn(from(it…(Nature(is(an(obvious(role(model(that(should(be( followed.(If(nature(is(there(and(humans(come(from(it,(why(shouldn’t( they(continue(their(path(by(imitating(it?( ( Nature(can(present(two(different(sides(to(it.(In(comparison(to(us,(nature( at(first(seems(to(have(a(messy(organization.(We(humans,(build(cities,( which(have(organized(streets(and(blocks.(Circulations(are(thought(about( and(translated(into(highways(for(cars(connecting(it(all(together.(Buildings( are(placed(in(each(block,(those(also(designed(accordingly…(But(when( comparing(us(to(nature,(zooming(in(or(out(we(find(interesting(results.( From(above,(our(cities(look(like(viruses,(which(spread(out(organically(in( all(directions.(At(night,(they(look(like(neurons(that(connect(one(with( another(creating(a(whole.(What(in(human(scale(seems(organized,(in(a( bigger(scale(it(seems(to(become(natural.(On(the(contrary,(when(we( zoom(into(nature,(we(start(to(find(perfection(and(order(in(design.(We( mostly(find(symmetry(in(all(of(nature’s(structures.(When(focusing(on(a( leaf,(we(find(a(perfect(proportional(system,(as(if(its(design(had(been( thought(about.( ( Therefore,(could(nature(be(considered(as(an(ideal(model(to(follow?(( Seen(from(an(architectural(point(of(view,(nature(is(an(integral( composition.(It(seems(that(in(architecture,(there(are(a(series(of(trends,( which(try(to(adopt(a(harmony(between(what(is(considered(human(and( the(natural.(Some(strive(to(find(the(connection(between(both,(
considering(the(whole(thing(as(one.(Designs,(which(integrate(directly( with(the(site,(and(the(boundaries(between(exterior(and(interior(of( buildings(are(blurred(with(the(blending(of(furniture(with(the( surroundings(of(the(exterior(landscape.(Everything(unified.(All(this( creates(a(“natural(experience”(in(the(designed(spaces(or(buildings.(( ( Nature(is(a(balance(of(forms,(and(this(balance(can(be(found(everywhere.( Planets(and(celestial(bodies(are(spheres,(nature(uses(symmetry(and( repetition(in(its(organisms…(it(all(comes(together(when(looking(at( different(proportions.(All(of(this(seems(to(be(ideal.( Vitruvius(uses(nature(as(an(ideal.(In(his(discussion(on(architecture(in( “The(Ten(Books(of(Architecture”,(he(explains(how(Greeks(were(very( simple(in(their(construction,(establishing(very(simple(laws(in(their( building,(the(main(one(being(symmetry,(which(they(were(very( conscientious(about;(as(opposed(to(the(Romans(which(were(much(more( infrastructural.(He(defines(symmetry(as(“a(proper(harmony(of(the(parts( to(each(other(and(to(the(whole”.( In(the(Renaissance,(forms(seemed(to(stultify(because(of(the(restrictive( routine(and(dictated(paths(to(follow.(At(that(time(constructions(were( undertaken(by(orders;(a(language(was(established(to(keep(designs(even( and(within(the(same(aesthetics(frames,(especially(by(the(ones(of( symmetry,(proportion(and(geometry.(But(aren’t(these(also(present(in( the(purest(of(the(natural(forms?( ( It(is(throughout(all(these(historical(stages(that(we(see(who(or(what(was( closer(to(establishing(a(closer(relationship(with(nature(in(construction.( While(in(the(Baroque(they(were(creating(a(strict(and(heavy(architectural( language(restricted(under(laws,(the(Greeks(constructed(through(very( simple(orders.(They(were(basically(using(symmetry(all(along,(which(is(the( main(ideal(we(can(find(in(nature.(Therefore(we(can(say(that(Greeks(were( more(pure(in(their(architecture(and(approach(towards(nature,( emphasizing(more(on(the(independent(ideals(than(to(create(a(whole( composition.( ( In(the(“Cause(of(Architecture”,(Wright(talks(about(taking(nature(as(an( ideal(model(and(puts(down(a(series(of(propositions(taken(from(a(text( called(the(Carlyle.(These(propositions(or(points(are:(to(be(simple,(use(of( different(styles,(the(blending(with(the(site,(correct(use(of(colours,(and( express(the(nature(of(materials.(Wright(designed(architecture(through( all(these(“parameters”,(the(result(being(considered(our(maximum(
exponent(in(this(topic.(In(his(buildings,(materials,(ornamentation(and( motifs(form(a(whole(composition.(His(mentality(approaches(architecture( as(a(whole(as(opposed(to(its(different(parts.( ( Wright’s(buildings(have(two(sides(to(their(design,(its(exterior(with(an( obvious(relationship(to(the(natural(landscape(and(its(surroundings,(and( its(interior,(where(everything(including(furniture(is(designed(to(combine( itself(together(as(an(entity.(But(although(he(conceives(everything(as(a( whole,(the(main(ideals(are(still(present(and(able(to(be(seen.(Symmetry(in( interior(spaces,(geometrical(shapes(of(roofs(and(different(proportions( from(furniture(to(ornamentation.( ( The(MAXXI(Museum(of(Contemporary(Art(in(Rome(by(Zaha(Hadid(is(an( example(of(a(building(which(emulates(natural(aesthetics.(Just(as(in(many( of(Wright’s(houses,(the(building(presents(its(materials(in(a(raw(stage.( Glass,(steel(and(concrete(shape(up(huge(cantilevers(which(spam(one(on( top(of(each(other(following(the(path(of(the(surroundings(streets(onto( the(site,(trying(integrate(itself(with(the(city.(( This(building(is(not(only(looking(to(create(an(entity(with(its(surroundings,( but(a(bigger(one(with(the(whole(city,(this(interest(to(integrate(the( building(into(a(bigger(whole(makes(ideals(such(as(symmetry(and( geometry(which(are(present(in(Wright’s(architecture(to(vanish.(While( Wright(is(blending(his(buildings(with(the(surroundings(but(including(the( natural(ideals(as(a(base,(Hadid(is(going(over(them(to(directly(make(a( connection(with(the(city.(But(this(is(just(another(conception(of( understanding(and(taking(from(the(natural.(Architects(can(understand,( imitate(or(extract(from(nature(at(different(levels.(While(Wright(includes( the(before(mentioned(ideals,(Zaha(Hadid(only(expresses(the(conception( of(a(whole(through(form.( Direct(imitation(of(natural(forms(can(also(be(taken.(A(prime(example(is( the(Graz(Museum(by(Peter(Cook.(Its(organic(shape(emulates(one( imitated(from(nature.(Here(and(in(contrast(to(the(MAXXI(museum,(the( building(stands(in(opposition(to(the(surrounding(buildings.(Does(this(last( statement(mean(it(is(less(natural?( ( Architecture(behaves(differently(depending(on(what(it(extracts(from( nature.(Nature(is(structured(by(a(series(of(ideals:(proportion,(symmetry,( geometry…(which(all(combined(create(structures,(organisms,(all(of(these( part(of(the(same(natural(network,(a(whole.(Why(should(architecture(not( be(conceived(as(part(of(this(network(if(it(takes(from(it?(If(we(are(using(
nature(as(a(roll(model,(everything(becomes(a(single(entity.(But(it(is(the( way(architecture(uses(nature(what(is(at(stake.(Humanity(still(sees(nature( as(a(tool,(that(was(all(right(a(long(time(ago,(but(that(has(ended.(We(seem( to(be(limiting(our(efforts(to(stop(destruction(of(nature(by(maintaining( our(industrial(system.(Sustainability(is(the(answer,(and(architecture(is( the(main(way(to(develop(it.(William(McDonough(mentions(in(“Cradle(to( Cradle”(that(“Natural(systems(take(from(their(environment,(but(they( also(give(something(back.”(If(nature(is(our(partner,(things(should(have( partnerships(with(nature,(and(if(architecture(takes(from(nature(it(should( also(give(back(to(it.(We(should(change(our(conception(around,(and(us( become(tools(of(nature(and(architects(agents(of(it.( ( ( (
MAXXI Museum – Plan Zaha Hadid
(
"
"
"
GRAZ Museum – Section Peter Cook
" "
" " " GRAZ Museum – Glass panel detail Peter Cook
"
" " Bibliography" ( Vitruvius,(“On(Architecture”,(Vitruvius:'The'Ten'Books'on'Architecture.(New(York:( Dover((1960).( ( Frank(Lloyd(Wright,(“In(the(cause(of(Architecture”(–(Critical(Writings(On(Architecture( ( William(McDonough(&(Michael(Braungart,(“Cradle(to(Cradle”((2000).( (
( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (
( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( Teymour(Benet(Brady( The(Question(of(the(Natural(–(Part(llI( Culture(&(Theory(V( 02(/(12(/(2013(
2/12/2013
Natural As Ideal Or Experienced Ideal to me is something which happened on its own and on the other hand experienced is a process which many Architects like Peter Eisenman follow. Is any one method correct/. Let us look at a few readings and what Architects or writers think about Architecture. William Mcdonough started a firm with Michael Braungart and the main aim of the firm was to” create products and systems that contribute to social and environmental prosperity.”1. He is mainly talking about the age of the Industrial revolution, where he thinks that a design according to him is right if it respects the changes happening in time, by which I think he mean historical changes. This reminds me of Alan Colquhous’s essay on Three Kinds of Historicism. He strongly states that architecture has to be related to the history even if it is modern Architecture.
Now, going to Vitruvius, which is clearly an experienced theory of looking at Architecture. “His compilations were almost from Greek sources”2His aim was to achieve a very clear idea of things and terms which are not very well spoken about , rather not very clear.
Tunisha kapadia: Culture and Theory
v
He clear states 6 principles which form the basis of Architecture. According to him, the human body is so pure and is so proportional , he considers Architecture in the same way , by which he means that Architecture also follows a specific pattern , like the human body. This gets me to think that the human body is natural, but Architecture is a process ? To Design a building is to have the right knowledge and skills, lack of one can also go wrong. He mentions about the relationship between part to whole , in one word if he were to describe it , it would be symmetry. Vitruvius defines Architecture as “ Durability, convenience and beauty” whereas Henry Wotten defined Architecture as “Commodity, firmness and delight.”3
Finally, coming to Greg Lynn. The Name of the essay itself says everything”The folded, the plaint, the supple”He basically talks about how Architecture is becoming a compilation of different elements, which is not going in the right direction. Venturi and Wigley had so many different ideas in their essays ”Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture and Deconstructivist architecture”, but they had one common aim, which was to find a solution to this fragmented heterogeneous Architecture.
Tunisha kapadia: Culture and Theory v
He comes to the conclusion, that the way out of this , is not by starting new or completely getting rid of the past, but to follow the principle of “pliancy’ as he states which is keeping the consistencies ”homogeneous elements” and blending them with the fragmented ones. He argues this through examples such as Peter Eisenman’s Wexner Centre, which is keeping the image of the past, but creating a new building and relating it to the kind of people going to be in the new building. This for me is ideal and experienced in a way, because he refers to nature’s law of blending things and on the other hand talks about a process which is followed to design the new building. But does this construct a continuous architectural language? Shouldn’t Architecture be a part of the surroundings, shouldn’t it blend with the landscape as said by Frank lloyd wright? Let us consider two examples from the past, a) Le Clorbusier’s Unite d’habitation and the traditional sukiya zakuri whch is a traditiona japanese house.
Tunisha kapadia: Culture and Theory v
The first one by Le Corbusier is clearly a process, which he follows to meet the needs of the people, to understand their living conditions, follows a module to design his building and creates different typologies for different sizes of families. Lets see how this building is, the basement having the car parking, floors having a corridor at every 3 floors, the pool and other activities on the roof. So I would say this is divided into three vertical units as said by Louis Suillavan. But you can find the human scale in the entrance, so I see symmetry, proportion and arrangement in this building.
Tunisha kapadia: Culture and Theory
On the other hand Kadokawa Teien (Suginami Tokyo ) is a traditional Japanese house, it is modern in its own way, but when I look at it, the first thing that comes to my mind, is the use of landscape to blend with the house, the use of materials which are perfectly suitable for the site. So would this be considered as Architecture which just happened by following natural laws. I think to follow the natural laws is very important because “nature has a shape which distinguishes one from the other”4 Architecture for me is a combination of ideal and experienced, following natural laws, studying the history of the place and also keeping in find the tools for designing, such as Symmetry, proportions, arrangements and Materials. Politics also changes the way Architecture is. But I wouldn’t call this inorganic Architecture, it would be a combination of both organic and Inorganic.
1.William Mcdonough and Michael Braungart(From cradle to Cradle)2000,Pg 597 2. Vitruvius, from On Architecture, Book 1c,pg5 3. . Vitruvius, from On Architecture, Book 2,pg9 4.Louis Sullivan,”The tall Office Building”Dover Publications,New York, 1896
Tunisha kapadia: Culture and Theory v