Santiago Cuenca Palacios_ ARCHITECTURE REVIEW

ETSAB - MASTER MBArch - 2016-2017 CONTEMPORARY PROJECT

ESSAY

Is it necessary to have a style in architecture, or this is a consequence of a series of decision without any control?

Img.01

Img.02

According with Vidler, this big question about the style always appears in the search for an authoritative modernity in the first quarter of the twentieth century, historians played a decisive role in the definition of forms, programs, and styles that might be seen to unify an apparently fragmented and linguistically broken field. First understanding the style as “a way of doing something, especially one that is typical of a person, group of people, place, or period” we can say that it always had been present in architecture along the time, for example is very easy to find the difference and recognize the “style” between architects like Antony Gaudi (Img.01) and Mies Van der Rohe (Img.02). But if we are analyzing strictly if the style is necessary, I think is not; because the main goal of architecture is give a place for the things happens and the human can be comfortable in that space. So the Architecture not depend about if we are living in a house with various slops in the roof or if we are living in a house with a flat roof, the essence is the same, and the family can develop their activities in each case.

Img.01: “Casa Batló’ Antonio Gaudi Img.02: “Casa Farnsworth” Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe

Img.03

Img.04

Img.05

So the soul of architecture is always the same and when the architects understand it, they began to put in that soul their own thoughts, their own body. Step by step the buildings are having their particular character until you can identify the style. It don’t have another way to control as the own mind of the architects, because they are putting in the architecture the way of how they are looking the word and the ideas that they think is correct. This style in architects can evolve, mix or change, for example we can see the evolution of the style in the architecture of Le Corbusier between Villa Berque (Img.03), Villa Savoye (Img.04) and Ronchamp Church (Img.05).

The ornament always appears in the discussion about the style as a result of this aspect is always important for define it, Karl Gross´s article reveals a qualifying factor in Werkbund discussions that may be no more than a verbal quibble, or may be the touchstone that distinguishes justifiable ornament from superfluous ornament. But what is justifiable? The style depends also of the period of time according with Loos’s view of the evolution of ornament and culture in the search of an undecorated style. For him the freedom from ornament is the symbol of an uncorrupted mind.

Because the style depends of the context and the technology that each architect have in that determinate period of time, for example the project who develop architects like, Mies, Gaudi, Wright obviously can be different if they are developing it nowadays also we don’t know if their style could be the same if they are projecting at this time.

Img.03: “Villa Berque” Le Corbusier Img.04: “Villa Savoye” Le Corbusier Img.05: “Ronchmap Church” Le Corbusier

Do we have to think architecture in terms of beauty? Where would lies beauty in architecture? Can we explain a building trough this point of view? Or we have to think architecture in terms of social compromise, far from of questions of fashion? But how we express this new architecture in real terms, in a building for example? Can be possible to consider both?

Img.06

Understanding beauty as “the quality of being pleasing, especially to look at, or someone or something that gives great pleasure, especially when you look at it”. This is generally its meaning, but if we think this concept in architecture, this can be ambiguous because some building can be beautiful for some people and ugly for others for example The Guggenheim of Bilbao (Img.06).

The beauty in the architecture and art always preserve this ambiguity and the both are always connected for example when the cubist artist try to express the beauty even in the same style the main masters had different ideas and criteria, for example there exist two important wings in cubism and the both work to eliminate the distinction between pictures and subject matter, but in opposite directions. In that period of time the important characteristics, were first: Economy, the separation of techniques and aesthetics, the dominance of simple geometry. Also in the Purism, the authors state, desires to go beyond the purely ornamental pleasures of abstract art. That is why purism begins with elements chosen from existing objects, extracting their most specific forms, in this manner we can see how the beauty was interpreting in art that influence the modern movement in architecture under its main principles.

Img.06: “Guggenheim Bilbao’ Frank Gehry

Img.07

So generally the beauty in architecture can exist in a plan, perfectly solving the circulation areas and all the necessary for the people can develop their necessities with normally, also can be exist looking nearest the architectural details, we can enjoy the beauty of a building for this main façade or shape, angles, glass, simplicity or complexity depends of ayes of who is looking. For these reasons we can’t explain a building just saying if it is beautiful or not. It’s necessary to explain the reasons why we like it, because it is the sum of various facts as I mentioned before, considering that a building can had a beautiful façade and being destroy inside, so the architecture is just the façade?

Nowadays generally we are living crisis times where doesn’t exist so much resources for new buildings and actually the architecture is focused in social compromise for example architects are constructive systems in order to preserve our planet, this example of actual problems are linked than obviously can stay together, we can develop quality projects of social housing for poor people (Img.07) or communities who lose their houses in natural disasters, so the architecture as an art

Img.07: “Casa Convento’ Enrique Mora

REFERENCES

Collings, P. (1965). Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture 1750- 1950. London: London Press Banham, R. (1960). Theory and Design in the First Age of Machine. London: Architectural Press.

Collings, P. (1965). Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture 1750- 1950. London: London Press Ventury, R. (1965). Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. New York: The Museum of Modern Art. Vidler, A. (2008). Histories of the Immediate Present: Inventing Architectural Modernism, 19301975. Cambridge: MIT Press Cambridge.

German Samper. (2011). En D. Samper. Colombia: Diego Samper Ediciones.

Schlogel, K. (2007). En el Espacio Leemos el Tiempo. Madrid: Ciruela.

Zumthor, Peter. (2010). Pensar la Arquitectura. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili epdlp. (2016, Diembre 29). Obtenido de http://www.epdlp.com/escritor.php?id=5584 Dossier de Arte. (2016, Diciembre 26). Obtenido de https://dossierdearte.wordpress. com/2011/01/09/el-cubismo-y-la-arquitectura/ EPDLP. (2016, Diciembre 30). Obtenido de http://epdlp.com/pintor.php?id=23 Paul Rudolph Fundation. (2017, Enero 3). Obtenido de http://www.paulrudolph.org/6 Cambridge Dictionary. (2017, Enero 2). Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ Revista ARQHYS.com. (2017, Enero 4). Obtenido de http://www.arqhys.com/arquitectura-futurista.html

BY SANTIAGO CUENCA PALACIOS srcp@live.com