Figure and Form: Representation in Moder n Architecture Robert Venturi introduced the importance of symbolic figures in his study of the Las Vegas commercial strip in 1972, and presented theories on form that are integral to the figurative tradition.1 The figurative tradition is a reaction to the “sterile emptiness” of Modernsim, which abandoned symbolic form.2 Philip Goad declares that the tradition accepts representation in favour of minimalism, and identifies its rise as a compositional tradition in post-1945 Australian architecture.3 Ashton Raggatt McDougall (ARM) and Lyons are two architectural practices whose work is interpreted as consciously following the path of the figurative. Through computer-aided design both firms manipulate images5 to interpret Venturi’s theories, continuing the design tradition. Modernism removed the figure from architecture6. Venturi and Christian Norberg-Schulz make this connection when studying the parallels between modern architecture and nonfigurative painting. Norberg-Schulz claims that in the non-figurative’s aim to remove devaluated traditional symbols,7 recognisable figures and forms are lost.8 The subsequent language that arises is reduced to patterns and structures that are unrecognisable in the “everyday lifeworld”9. The modernist obsession with logical processes and denial of past experience, Venturi notes, blinds the value of representational architecture.10 He identifies the formal and symbolic significance of the “decorated sheds” and “ducks” along highways, who enrich audience experience of the context.11 The duck and decorated shed will be further discussed later in the essay. Thus the aim of the figurative design tradition is to restore this lost meaning through the reintroduction of recognisable figures. Norberg-Schulz furthers that without the figure, the richness of experience associated with representational art and architecture is lost.12 He states that figures are required in art and architecture to give it meaning: “figures constitute a language, which, if it is used with understanding, may make our environment meaningful. And meaning is the primary human need.”13 This shows the power of representational figures - they allow users to make associations with the world that they perceive around them.14 Philip Goad describes ARM’s work as a “direct borrowing and manipulation of known imagery”.15 In Storey Hall, the firm revitalises the memory of the cultural history and significance of the site by its use of representational symbols and forms. Its green and purple entrance makes reference to the colours of Hibernian Irish Catholic community and the Women’s Political Association, who previously occupied the building.16 Goad also identifies insertions of
fragmented references to Melbourne’s recognised monuments, such as The Griffins’ Capitol Theatre ceiling in the upper level foyer. 17 The referential figures allude to the history of Melbourne city and add meaning to ARM’s architecture. Storey Hall’s function is also referenced through the figurative - The overlapping pentagons and decagons of the Penrose tile, as identified by Charles Jenks, form visual beats.18 The musical forms that the geometries create imply their appropriateness within the auditorium19 as they directly reference the building’s current function: a musical hall. The inclusion of recognisable figures that are directly related to the history and use of the project reiterates NorbergSchulz’s conclusion that meaning is satisfied by effective use of figures.20Similarly, Lyons’ pixelated cloud façade of the Plumbing Training Facilities at Victoria’s University of Technology references something Husserl would describe as belonging to the “everyday lifeworld”21. On the work, Lyons writes: “[We] Thought of it as the background to the billboard – the empty space of sky and clouds.”22 Unlike some minimalised modernist skins that are void of meaning and reference,23 the recognised symbol of the cloud references the vast landscape upon which the building sits. This reference to its context makes the figure of the cloud recognisable and gives the pixelated image meaning through its direct association to its surroundings. By associating symbols and their representations to their context, the figurative design tradition continues in Lyons work. Alongside the revival of meaning in architecture, Venturi’s theory of the decorated shed and the duck are pivotal aspects in the discourse of the figurative design tradition.24 Venturi introduced the building typologies in 1972 as a reflection of his studies on the built language of the Las Angeles Strip. He notes: “The duck is the special building that is the symbol; the decorated shed is the conventional shelter that applies symbols.”25. The duck is a sculptural architecture that fits program and structure into a moulded “symbolic form”, whilst the decorated shed describes a service and program driven form which is embellished with symbolic ornament. The graphic treatment of The Plumbing Training Facilities’ façade echoes Venturi’s decorated shed building typology. Sandra Kaji-O’Grady affirms this. She describes the architecture as “a three-sided billboard grafted onto a shed whose program is incidental.”26 She notes the decorative quality of the image on the “shed”, which is the typology that houses the internal function. The subject matter of the skin does not reflect the function within the building, yet the program of the building dictates the form of the architecture. Venturi acknowledges this contrast
1
2
Fig. 1: Ashton Raggatt McDougall, Storey Hall, Melbourne, 1995, Entrance with Penrose tile detail. Fig. 2: Lyons, Plumbing and Training Facilities, Victorian University of Technology, 1997, facade.
Sadina Tursunovic, z3461731
-1-
Assignment 2, Architectural History and Theory 3, Arch1322, Semester 2, 2015
3
between the symbolic and programmatic, highlighting that image is of chief concern.27 As the Training and Plumbing Facilities primary audience is identified as the “mobile, distant and anonymous” traveller on the adjacent highway, 28 the representation of the function is suggested to be secondary to the creation a symbolic image for the audience. Lyons’ reference Venturi’s theory on the communication system of symbols along highways,29 and reiterate the form of Venturis decorated shed as a valid symbolic symbol in current architecture. Storey Hall on the other hand is less easily classified by either typology. The use of the aforementioned Penrose tile in the auditorium suggests a duck typology. Described by Jenks: “The auditorium ceiling erupts overhead …reptilian and cave like”30. The words “erupt” and “cave like,” suggest a deliberate use of form to create symbolism within the space. Also, Norman Day in reference to the theatre foyer notes the form’s compressive qualities that “squeeze people together”.31 His expressive description suggests that the Penrose form had prevalence in the design. However, the drawn floor plans suggest the reverse. As seen in Figure 5, the plan reveals that the tile is arranged to conform to the volumetric bounds of the original layout, penetrating only through existing halls and openings. This suggests a stronger reference to the addition of ornament linked to Venturi’s “decorated shed” theory. ARM interplays the symbolic elements with the structure in a non-traditional way, morphing Venturi’s typologies to a singular experience. It is also noted that firms use computer-aided design to create the aforesaid architecture. Goad identifies how the architects exploit the figurative tradition beyond its conservative application through the manipulation and creation of digitally processed images.32
4
5
6
Fig. 3: Robert Venturi, Drawing of “duck” and “decorated shed” theory. Fig. 4: Ashton Raggatt McDougall, Storey Hall, Melbourne,1995, Penrose tile in audotoriu. Fig. 5: Ashton Raggatt McDougall, Storey Hall, Melbourne,1995, plan of auditorium. Fig. 6: Lyons, Plumbing and Training Facilities, Victorian University of Technology, 1997, visual approach from highway.
Sadina Tursunovic, z3461731
-2-
Assignment 2, Architectural History and Theory 3, Arch1322, Semester 2, 2015
In his 1966 theory of complexity in architecture, Venturi wrote: “through unconventional organisation of conventional parts he [the architect] is able to create new meanings within the whole”33. By manipulating conventional building materials in innovative ways, architects can create symbolic meaning that the material conventionally lacks. Goad echoes this, noting the progression of theory in architecture despite almost unchanged building technology.34 In the works of Lyons, Andrew Nimmo identifies how computers are used as tools for conceptualisation - tools that can allow them to reinterpret modular building materials with digital images. 35 Their reinterpretation of the naturally occurring cloud as a set of colorbond pixels results in a “highly artificial and perceptually elusive image”.36 The manipulation of the geometry, colour and transparency of the colorbond allows the symbolically void material to gain significance. Also, Peter Raisebeck identifies ARM’s use computer-aided design for collaging and form generation.37 He recognises the digitally derived volumes of Storey Hall38, which Jenks reiterates are derived from the complexity theory and Penrose tile geometry.39 The manipulation of the Penrose pattern into computer-generated forms allows the tile to be reimagined beyond its conventional application, creating a meaningful, and symbolically rich architecture as has been demonstrated earlier. Computer-aided design allows the architects to re-envision the traditions in ways that previous technology did not allow. The aim of the figurative was to restore symbolic meaning and form to architecture. Venturi, Norberg-Schulz and Goad contributed to its discourse, recognising either the position of the figure in architecture or the firms that practiced and continued the tradition. Venturi’s investigation of the representational architecture of Las Vegas, and the theories that developed, are fundamental in the reintroduction of symbolic and representational figures in architecture. Computer-aided design allows firms who are identified as followers of the figurative tradition, such as Lyons and ARM, to develop and reinterpret the tradition.
Endnotes: 1.Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour, Learning from Las Vegas (MIT Press, 1977), 87. 2. Christian Norberg-Schulz, “On the Way to Figurative Architecture,” Places 4, no.1 (1987): 18. 3. Norberg-Schulz, “On the Way to Figurative Architecture,” 18. 4. Philip Goad, New Directions in Australian Architecture, ed. Patrick Bingham-Hall (Balmain, NSW: Periplus, 2005), 45. 5. Goad, New Directions in Australian Architecture, 48. 6. Norberg-Schulz, “On the Way to Figurative Architecture,” 18. 7. Giedion in Norberg-Shulz, “On the Way to Figurative Architecture,”18. 8. Norberg-Schulz, “On the Way to Figurative Architecture,” 18. 9. Husserl in Norberg-Shulz, “On the Way to Figurative Architecture,”18. 10. Venturi, Learning from Las Vegas, 7-8, 87. 11. Venturi, Learning from Las Vegas, 7-8, 87. 12. Norberg-Schulz, “On the Way to Figurative Architecture,” 18. 13. Ibid., 20. 14. Ibid.,18. 15. Goad, New Directions in Australian Architecture, 75. 16. Goad, New Directions in Australian Architecture, 76; Charles Jencks, The Architecture of the Jumping Universe: A Polemic : how Complexity Science is Changing Architecture and Culture (Academy Editions, 1997), 178. 17.Goad, New Directions in Australian Architecture, 76. 18. Jencks, The Architecture of the Jumping Universe, 181. 19. Ibid. 20. Norberg-Schulz, “On the Way to Figurative Architecture,” 20. 21. Husserl in Norberg-Shulz, “On the Way to Figurative Architecture,”18. 22. Justine Clark and Lyons, More: The Architecture of Lyons 1996-2011 (Thames & Hudson Australia, 2012), 69. 23. Sandra Kaji-O’Grady, “Decoration and Artifice,” Architecture Australia 90, no. 4 (July-August 2001): 72. 24. Venturi, Learning from Las Vegas, 90. 25. Ibid., 87. 26. Kaji O’Grady, “Decoration and Artifice,” 72. 27. Venturi, Learning from Las Vegas, 87. 28. Kaji O’Grady, “Decoration and Artifice,” 72. 29. Venturi, Learning from Las Vegas, 8-9. 30. Jencks, The Architecture of the Jumping Universe, 181. 31. Day, “Storey Hall,” 37. 32. Goad, New Directions in Australian Architecture, 48. 33. Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (The Museum of Modern Art, 1966), 50. 34. Goad, New directions in Australian architecture, 45. 35. Andrew Nimmo, “Lyons: The Pursuit of Ideas,” Architecture Australia 94, no. 5 (September-October 2005): 98. 36. Kaji-OGrady, “Decoration and Artifice,” 72. 37. Peter Raisbeck, “Ashton Raggatt McDougall,” in The Encyclopedia of Australian Architecture Ed. Goad, Philip and Julie Willis (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 47. 38. Ibid. 39. Jencks, The Architecture of the Jumping Universe, 181.
Sadina Tursunovic, z3461731
-3-
Image Credits: Figure 1 Source: “Panoramio,” http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/51892544.jpg. Figure 2 Source: Justine Clark and Lyons, More: The Architecture of Lyons 1996-2011, (Thames & Hudson Australia, 2012), 68. Figure 3: Source: “Duck and Decorated Shed, Complexity and Contradiction - Robert Venturi,” http://sskypathawee. blogspot.com.au/2013/02/duck-and-decorated-shed-complexity-and.html. Figure 4 Source: John Gollings in “Local Heroes: Australian-ness in Melbourne,” http://www.uncubemagazine.com/ blog/14817757 Figure 5 Source: “Storey Hall,” https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plan_drawing_of_Storey_Hall.jpg Figure 6 Source: Justine Clark and Lyons, More: The Architecture of Lyons 1996-2011, (Thames & Hudson Australia, 2012), 74.
Assignment 2, Architectural History and Theory 3, Arch1322, Semester 2, 2015