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.....
