Copy, Paste

Submitted by takers on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 02:28
Change Your Thinking, Not Aesthetics
In light of forward thinking, twenty-first century design, there is an obvious restlessness and a need for change in the way we design space. In The Geography of Nowhere, by James Howard Kunstler, the problem is embedded into capitalist society and thus urban development as an expression of misguided philosophies. As much as this is true, however, the continual repetition of a nostalgic sense of place begins to be detrimental to progressive rethinking and solutions to our loss of sense of place. Speaking directly to Modernism, (in Kunstler’s eyes a disillusioned reaction to suburban failure) Kunstsler denounced it as a “barbarous movement” dedicated to “the worship of machines, to sweeping away all architectural history, all romantic impulses, and to jamming all human aspiration into a plain box” (Kunstler 57).

While conceding that there is a problem with the lack of humanistic elements in modern design, it would be naive to not contend that the clean, modern buildings of this century are devoid of any allegiance to the aspirations of man. It is utterly backwards to ascribe the solution of such a large, wholescale problem of our societal “placelessness” on regression to past ideals when man, the creator of the machine, has nothing to feel but awe at the wonder of his creation. Icons of the progressive nature of humans, the iron and steel form-follows-function structures of the twenty-first century are inspiring in their own right, celebrating the triumph of scientific understanding of the intimate workings of the laws of gravity and physics. In this sense, man is present, and modern design is inspirational, and does the opposite of jamming all human aspiration into a plain box, as Kunstler states. It is therefore the problem of society as a whole, then, to change the point of view that America as a capitalist society has on the world, not an aesthetic one. If that were the case we would be back to copying and pasting greek columns onto the outside of our “modern” building to cling to a grandeur of the past.

In the picture included above, Zaha Hadid, one of the premier architects of this century, proposes a design for the Performing Arts Centre in Abu Dhabi. Truly expressive of Sullivan’s watchword, the outer look of Hadid’s work expresses its inner structure, and similar to Frank Gehry’s designs, one of which is the Guggenheim in New York City, her work is far from drab, synthetic, and placeless. An icon itself, the work does laud progress, but different from Kunstler’s point of view, progress is not a bad thing. It is the redesign of how to build, and when to build. Which is worse? Choosing to bury one’s head in the past and long for what was “lost”? Or pasting, as Sullivan did, “so many of the classical devices—columns, arches, pillars, domes” on a building that celebrates the knowledge and success of mankind (Kunstler 66)? Again, the contention is this: a change in thinking is needed, not a change in aesthetics. 

Photo credit: http://www.yankodesign.com/2007/02/02/abu-dhabi-performing-arts-centre-by-zaha-hadid/
(Image Source)
mbraf's picture

——

Submitted by mbraf on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 14:18.
I think you raise some really important and often overlooked points about the state of modern architecture. It's crucial that architects do something new that reflects the present time and place of the building, rather than try and mimic the past like some sort of theme park of the past. The architecture that we consider beautiful and historic today was at the time on the forefront of structural innovation, and like today, many opposed it for lacking taste. A good building doesn't just blend with its surroundings, but starts a sort of dialogue with the other buildings. I would actually argue that the work of Zaha Hadid is rather placeless. She works with interesting forms and her assymetrical designs show a level of higher order thinking, but one doesn't need to look any further than her proposal for the High Line  than to see an example of an architect who really hasn't understood the place she is designing for. I recently read an article in New York Magazine about the architect Bjarke Ingels and his new building at w. 57street. The building is an incredible and stunning example of architecture responding to the current changes in society while planting itself firmly in a gridded neighborhood. I like to call this, responsive architecture. Another interesting thing, Ingels won the commission by walking up to the developer and asking: “Why do all your buildings look like buildings?”
admin's picture

Sense of place and nostalgia

Submitted by admin on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 14:54.
While I don't know what Kunstler would have to say about Hadid's performing arts center—it's not exactly an example of the kind of modernist box that he hates—I do know he's no fan of Gehry, as this post indicates.   You make a really excellent point about the way a yearning for a sense of place can be seen as a nostalgia for the traditional markers of community and place—like those classical devices of columns and domes.  In fact, "sense of place" is often used as a marketing device for developers selling neo-traditional, New Urbanist, planned communities, which harken back to the classical 19th-century American town.  But I don't think Kunstler is advocating this sort of crass nostalgia thing, even though he is sometimes associated with New Urbanism.  Anyway, I doubt he would share your optimistic faith in science and technological progress—he's all doom and gloom about the future, and he thinks the future may look a lot like the past—way past, like a primitive past, a world, as he says, "made by hand."