There is an excellent discussion on the state of contemporary architecture (even worse than a cynic like myself imagined it seems) going on at both The Measures Taken (big sister site to Sit Down Man) and Entschwindet und vergeht. If I think of anything intelligent to say on the topic (and not for instance about obscure fatal accidents) I will try and post something up this week.
My one comment for now would be that Owen's conception of Googie architecture (the flamboyant camp of American roadside buildings - think a drive thru' 1950's McDonalds) as a precursor of today's decon lite (think Make's St Paul's kiosk) is a useful way to prick the bubble of pomposity of such architecture. Googie is also a lot better in my view - at least for its honest exuberance and a certain hard headed commercialism - than a lot of contemporary architecture that appropriates the empty radicalism of decon. Although that might be the effects of period charm creeping in to....
I do worry though about the neat structuralism of an argument that equates flimsy cladding panels with flimsy social policy or, alternatively, heavy draconian pediments with Thatcherite economic policies. It all seems a bit too neat. Its possible to fall into the same trap that the architects claim for their own work - i.e. transparent buildings that echo transparent social structures. Yeeeees, and no. This problem seems to be highlighted neatly by EandV when they recognise that the Lloyds building can be both radical as architecture and hugely conservative as social structure at one and the same time. Some American post modernism after all (and I am thinking of Venturi Scott Brown and Charles Moore for instance) explored a subtler relationship between conservatism and radicalism. I'm thinking particularly of VSBA's community based planning projects and anaylisis of populare housing typologies here.
Put another way, the formalist wing of the (relatively) recent architectural avant garde has always been apolitical.
Anyway, more considered responses to come.....
My one comment for now would be that Owen's conception of Googie architecture (the flamboyant camp of American roadside buildings - think a drive thru' 1950's McDonalds) as a precursor of today's decon lite (think Make's St Paul's kiosk) is a useful way to prick the bubble of pomposity of such architecture. Googie is also a lot better in my view - at least for its honest exuberance and a certain hard headed commercialism - than a lot of contemporary architecture that appropriates the empty radicalism of decon. Although that might be the effects of period charm creeping in to....
I do worry though about the neat structuralism of an argument that equates flimsy cladding panels with flimsy social policy or, alternatively, heavy draconian pediments with Thatcherite economic policies. It all seems a bit too neat. Its possible to fall into the same trap that the architects claim for their own work - i.e. transparent buildings that echo transparent social structures. Yeeeees, and no. This problem seems to be highlighted neatly by EandV when they recognise that the Lloyds building can be both radical as architecture and hugely conservative as social structure at one and the same time. Some American post modernism after all (and I am thinking of Venturi Scott Brown and Charles Moore for instance) explored a subtler relationship between conservatism and radicalism. I'm thinking particularly of VSBA's community based planning projects and anaylisis of populare housing typologies here.
Put another way, the formalist wing of the (relatively) recent architectural avant garde has always been apolitical.
Anyway, more considered responses to come.....
4 comments:
Yes, thanks for that, I was also planning to mention that the FBI headquarters in the US is brutalist, for example...
But it is still the case that conservative forces (both individual agents and general tendencies) sought to demonise Modernism as some kind of 'totalitarian socialist' depravity.
Looking forward to your thoughts...
Also looking forward to any thoughts - one thing off top of head on form/content question.
I suppose there are, as with Modernism, very different ways of doing the pomo thing, and Venturi&S-B may be one that is more subtle (frankly, in terms of architecture as opposed to criticism I'm not qualified to comment - the only thing I know well is the National Gallery Extension, and surely the less said about that the better), but there's definitely a major strain of overwhelming Stalinist crassness.
The E&V point about the original humanitarianism of Modernism coming from a disdain for grandiose facades hiding squalor (in Berlin, Vienna etc, all those Mietskaserne with their baroque ornament and lack of inside toilets) is a really good one, and it's especially interesting that it was reversed by much pomo, even its most leftwing, Social Democratic version: the estates of Bofill & the Taller in France, which are known to be poky and run-down inside, but on the surface are quite astonishing (also, this is an approach quite akin to the Soviet 30s-50s, Stalinallee, Schchusev etc).
Anyway, exact, watertight links between style and politics always fall apart, but I still think that in terms of general trends this holds. But I'd like to be argued with on it, as the risk of lazy thinking is pretty huge on this issue...
Thoughts to come....although I have to say I actually like the National Gallery Extension!
Ah, I was worried that might be the case!
Post a Comment