Modernism is more than just aesthetics, it's a philosophy. Or at least it started out that way. In order to engage the industrialized world and allow society to advance the philosophy advocated a break with tradition. In order to harness the power of mass production, which could bring a better quality of life to a great many people, it was deemed necessary to work with technology and not against it. The question then arose: how does one make architecture out of the new materials and methods available? In a world made by hand detail abounds, yet in the factory high levels of detail are expensive to make, difficult to produce, and always seem lacking when compared to the real thing. This was the dilemma facing architects at the advent of Modernism. The resulting designs played the curve and did their best to take advantage of the materials and associated shapes available to them. The clean, crisp lines of early modernist buildings were borne out of necessity. The tooling of the time did not allow for a great amount of design flexibility if they were to remain cost effective. Extrusions were therefore round or rectangular. This limitation became a badge of honor for the modernists who began to question why ornate detail was needed in the first place. Their aim to provide an architecture for the masses, as opposed to just for the privileged class, led them to align with other popular philosophies of the day in support of the common man. Thus, the ornate detailing typical of classical and vernacular architecture was derided. Adolf Loos quipped "the evolution of culture marches with the elimination of ornament from useful objects" in his provocatively titled Ornament and Crime. From the starting point of engaging new materials and methods the modern movement led to the establishment of a new aesthetic that was then tied to a political belief system. In order to gain acceptance the moderns had to make the case to their clients, choosing to align themselves with the political class that was then on the rise. The populace, as well, had to be convinced that this new architecture was a sign of progress. That its beauty came from what the buildings represent. That it was honest and incorruptible. In making the case for the modern they also were making their case against the traditional. Everything modernism was, ipso facto, traditionalism wasn't. What started out as a political expedient became a rallying cry.
"Less is more."
"Form follows function."
The pointed attacks on traditional architecture led to its demonization within the halls of academia. This sentiment still lingers today.
However, time and technology have changed. Today it is entirely possible to build traditional using the very best of modern technology and manufacturing processes. The advances in tooling and machining allow great flexibility to today's architects. Intricate details of traditional and classical architecture can be manufactured cost effectively, if so desired. It is equally possible to create non-standard details that don't have to follow the round or rectangular extrusions of the proto-modernists. In every respect, except for how it looks, the resulting structure would be a thoroughly modern building. Yet this building would be frowned upon by modernists as being regressive. Their only complaint must be based on aesthetic preference as opposed to philosophical differences. Evidently to the adherents it is more important for a building to look Modern than to be modern. Ironically, the expense of building modern has kept the masses from being able to afford these structures. Save for a few dalliances into the realm of manufactured housing and the epic failures of social housing, modern architecture has become the exclusive realm of the mighty. With the mandate of providing design for the masses now expunged from modern practice the simple forms devoid of ornament have been cast aside. The wild shapes and wilder budgets of today show modernism to have entered its Baroque period. Hence, modernism has devolved from a philosophy to an aesthetic. So, in effect, there may really be no underlying philosophy guiding the current crop of moderns. If that is indeed the case then in truth they cease to be modern. The promise of the modern philosophy advocating design for the masses is being realized every day in other areas of practice. From tea pots to untensils, autos to iPhones, consumer goods that transcend from the merely utilitarian to the level of art abound. This success has not been shared in the world of architecture. The largest sector of the construction industry has rejected the offerings of the aesthetes. Therefore aestheticism is preventing the philosophy of modernism from gaining more traction in this realm. This does not constitute a rejection of modernism wholesale per the examples listed above, it points to the need to re-form the aesthetic to realize the promise.
No comments:
Post a Comment