week 3, 13 to go!
Response paper week 2
In the article “The Architecture of Bureaucracy and the architecture of Genius” Henry-Russell Hitchcock classifies the tendency of architecture towards bureaucratic or genius architecture.
The author accredits the emergence of bureaucratic architecture to the intensified teamwork in planning and designing of the buildings, in conjecture with a strong tendency towards industrialization.
In his description one of the most important denominators, for this bureaucratic architecture, is the large bulk of employees within the architectural firm.
These bureaucratic companies do not have hierarchical designs processes, but rather utilize a partitioned way of work. Every firm-member has their own task and thus his chunk of input in the overall project; collectively all these individuals output one consistent and organized project. The individual as practitioner is eliminated with this method. Extrapolating, as a result of this intensified teamwork the architectural work within this type will not allow for personal expression. This previous statement is brought forward by Hitchcock and appears to be one of deductive reasoning. The author links architecture, personal expression – one of the characteristics of man as an individual, an anthropomorphism – and group of individuals, the employees. Logically speaking, a group of individuals will not have a common personal expression; because of the simple fact it’s a personal matter. Yet, at the same time there should be no apparent reason for this statement to be projected onto architecture. The only basis of this argumentation lies within the multi-individual effort towards this common architectural goal – the physical building.
Thus it would be better to acknowledge architecture itself as an individual (-object), possessing its own personal expression – on its own conditions resides within the architectural discourse.
With the previous questing arises towards what this personal expression is and how could be perceived. The author does seem to describe what a personal expression in architecture could possibly be. “[…] overall fusion of the plan and construction into a vehicle of personal expression”.
I believe Hitchcock tries to point to a more ambiguous even indefinite term like a concept rather than personal expression. This concept should echo through all the scales of the project, offering the building meaning and resonance. Rather, Hitchcock exclusively preserves this notion for genius architecture – not per se a genius in the broad sense but rather the creative individual. This type of genius architect orchestrates the whole of the project in each and every aspect, as an individual. His scope allows him to contribute on all the scales, from the concept to the finest detail. This affirmation leads us back to the notion of personal expression in architecture. Now, to argue that personal expression is the result to of person seems very likely. Indeed, it is one person and the expression is his body of thought, yet the impediment lies within the translation from the personal expression to the metaphysical realm of architecture. The persona and the architecture are not per se the same matter, therefore they cannot be equated. How would the layman even know where the real persona was translated into this architectural so-called genius?
Rather I am inclined to state the author is linking the inner workings of capitalism to the realm of architecture. This economy driven beast is powered by the logics of rationalism, functionalism and standardization. These are the leading principles of industrialism - here time and efficiency rule. The group of individuals – referring back to the bureaucratic architectural organization - is in this case capitalism orientated. What enables them to work together is a common state of mind. Acknowledgement of the industrialism has proven to be very potent; these firms quickly adopted their modus operandi to this growing capitalist mindset. Here, architecture is produced as is the skillfully assembled machine, the product of technical minds. First and foremost purpose driven, comparable to the hinges of a door. The aesthetical seem to be of less concern; the architecture is assembled with quality and functionality in mind. Resulting in a sterile and perhaps even serene architecture, portraying nothing is more than it needs to be. Here, the author remarks the work has no soul. Exactlyhow this soul should or can be interpreted is a matter of debate to which I will not divert. The fact is the bureaucracy’s architecture is what it is because of the powerful capitalist influence. Therefore, the stride of architecture – in these bureaucratic firms - that could possibly embody something like a personal expression is set aside, not because it is impossible, but because it is unwise in the capitalist mind.
Response paper week 1
Text Sullivan on Tall Office Building Artistically Considered.
Louis Sullivan is seen as the father of modernism (Chambers Harrap, 2007) and often referred to as the father of the skyscraper. In his literary work “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered” (1896) he explains the schism in his architecture between the poetics of the architectural ornament and the pragmatics of his architectural designs. When Sullivan’s vision on the architectural problem and its solution is compared to the overall body of modernistic work there seems to be a discrepancy. In general modernism is characterized by the simplification of form and discarding of the ornament. Also, the functionalism of the building as socio-cultural architectural problem is placed on the foreground. Adolf Loos, with his essay Ornament and Crime, even proclaimed that adding ornamentation is just a waste of time; because adding ornamentation would cause the object to go out of style quickly.
Therefore, in this light the works of Sullivan are interesting and relevant for the development of the international modernistic style. One of the reasons Sullivan is placed amongst the early modernist is the renowned phrase ‘form follows function’. This soon became one of the leading notions within the modernism. Yet, this citation seems to have been reframed by later modernist practitioners in a more formal and pragmatic sense. Here, the most radical adaptation has surely been made by Corbusier. He deconstructed each ‘function’ to its minimal trying to convey the beauty within. His most famous phrase is the following; ‘a house is a machine for living’. The formalism of function and form has been extrapolated to its limits, thus also the notion form follows function.
Sullivan in his text tries to appeal to the metaphysical way of practicing architecture. He constantly makes reference to nature and the eloquent use of words seems in stride with his view on what great architecture should entitle. This is especially true in the second part of the essay; even more so in his essay “On Style”. Sullivan does not try to seek out new conditions or possibilities for the Tall Office Building, instead he tries to persuade towards a given plot or storyboard. This programmatic assembly of parts is seen as a given and not to be questioned. This plot, which he rigorously describes with the five points, is to be the basis wherein the architect his style can be and should be cultivated. The essay on style anchors his view on the interlocking character between nature, architecture and beauty.
This all leads to an interesting point which is the clash between function and ornament in the architectural discourse. Sullivan seems to be regarded as father of modernism because of the first part of his essay on the office building. This pragmatic and functional description between outside-inside and layering of the building, appealed to the early modernist. The second part of the text, although, seems to be disregarded by theorist and even forgotten. Here the clash between the decoration (and ornamentation) is explained by Sullivan the same way style should be cultivated in his eyes. The high-rise is an object which should portray an emotional aspect. “We must now heed the imperative voice of emotion” (Sullivan 1896). For Sullivan stirring a chord of emotion was of great importance in architecture. It was seen as yet another function which architecture should adopt. Here the use of metaphors is striking compared to the overall modernist-thought, where logics and reasoning prevailed.
The designs of Sullivan therefor have been probably been interpreted differently during the early years. Modernist use of ornamentation could be justified by adoption of a function, for example an entrance or escape route. By extrapolating this, the designs of Sullivan could have been seen as an exterior expression of the interior. The ground floor had a public and open character, which extended to the façade by grand geometry and illustrious shapes. The floors above, which are iterations and multiplications of a standard unit, also exhibited their function towards the outside envelope. The whole building was to be understood from the outside by the composition of the façade. Thus concluding, Sullivan seems to be a protagonist of the modernism but in his own way interpolating with nature.
