4 Essays

final his/5/Assignment5.docx

Modern Architecture

The aftermath of world war two opened the door a the different type of architecture and ideology it led to a new sense of development and historical restoration of different volume. There was a choice of rebuilding or repairing what was availed and thus a window into the actual struggle of the common people into understanding wealth, economy and business. It is that became easier to understand the idea of freedom in expression. There was string want to shift from the aristocratic rule and an almost a new urge to rebel against anything that symbolized. This led to the evolution of architecture with more focus on the interest aspect that the beauty of the structure. In this way, modern architecture became more symbolic and functional spec as it shifted to go higher and higher to capacity every economic situation of the people. As result, there is a sudden change from the more concentration of artist in design, art pieces and curves in building to a sound structure and strength that was evident from the change. The strength of change was fast that growth has been fast over the years and shifted more and more in the utilization of small spaces in design elements and a lack of luster in terms of the visual presentation.

Sometimes the level of design is an element that should be considered relative as it implies what preference are the more best elements that the other. In this way, there cannot be a comparison of old and new architecture. Therefore, everything remains in its place and at its time that best in quality depending on the moment of its existences. As result, there cannot be any piece that is looked down upon nor considered to be of more importance than the rest and in this way, the concern will be in cherishing of the development in value and in consideration of elemental needs (Venturi, 1966). Hence a more competitive at the present age to outdo the other within its capacity leading to more superior consideration of the time that may leave a legacy for the continuation within the next decade or timeline.

Therefore, defining the culture of architecture will not be based on the human growth and evolution element rather than the type of function of structure and the advancement in terms of the application of elements that define the building. It will speak more of the science and art of architecture rather than representation of a group of people existing at the time. However, it is hard to consider this, but slow globalization of the economy and the community at large is making it possible with the fact that there is a need for purpose rather than flourish. This need will, therefore, lead to focus on spate pieces that become more of the outspoken prowess of time keeping architecture a science and art that does not conform to the norm hence scarcity will provide into rarity of pieces and hence a cherishing of the luxury and efforts towards its construction and advancements.

Robert Venturi’s position in Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (1966), points to modern architecture as being mature in a position to validate the self-actualization of people who live in it. This idea limits the fact that there is a considerable outlook in term of what is being prioritized over the other. The fact that the author suggests an understanding of the complexity in simple terms with modern architecture shows a rather lack of understanding of the idea of structure and art. The venture has only looked form the perspective of functional space and the value that is put in space as a commodity failing to understand the implication of design in the most basic way. There is no growth without understanding that a gap must be there to be filled. Agreeing that modern architecture is the epitome of design would mean that there is no growth, or the expected result would be deterioration of standard. In optimal use of space, there is the technological component and the material of building that is taken it on the account. However, there is more responsibility that is laid to the people living within it and a booming interior design living part of the responsibility to the user if space (Johnson, 1955).

In a way this only shifts the definitive aspect of architecture to people who have no expertise or a coordination to understand the value of that spec in architectural components. This means that within one building, there is versatility of taste that makes it easier to grasp the whole concept. It paves the way to a complexity of the nature of the design and an almost confused sense of what it really means. While I agree simplicity has made it much easier to use space, there has been a few aspects that have been lost in terms of the power of the architect-designer giving rise onto a market that aims to fulfill it. This slowly takes away the beauty of the study and separates it into components which while they grow, it is no longer with the same structure as the foundation of architecture (Johnson, 1955).

Therefore, calling this aspect as maturity shows a lack of understanding of the dimension in looking at art from another perspective. In modern architecture, the functional aspect has been made a focal point of prioritization that it has become almost clinical. This can be seen with institutions in which there is strict rule sin lace to ensure that there’s efficiency. One consideration is building in school in which the beauty is no longer a factor and what is concentrated on is the idea of movement from one place to another. The idea of the vicinity of utilities such that the kitchen cannot be far from the dining room, the toilets cannot be far from the classroom space and definitively the security would not be hidden but rather easy to access.

Value is placed in the use of less time without considering that sometimes, it loses the aesthetics of development prompting the teachers to fill these need with numerous pictures and art pieces in the halls, hallway and in offices. This takes away the structural flow of the architectural design to concentrate more on the individual taste. It, therefore, looks like architecture has only shacked it responsibilities by delegating the duty as the building looks incompletes when done (Venturi, 1966). This goes to show that instead of becoming more competent and adding onto the growth, architecture is taken apart to comprise another aspect and a displacement of the value in priority, quality and value that diminishes with a minimalistic society that fails to recognize the additional expense that is placed to compensate for lack of expression.

Consumerism has certainly boosted this aspect as more people move towards cities requiring more space hence a need for even more minimization of the design aspect. Somebody said that people are now living in boxes which do not define who they are and what they represent hence a loss in recognition of the artistic view in architecture meaning that there is the soul that it lost. It appears to be very true as the more identify that is given is consideration of the economic value of the space lives hence the idea of status based on a more self-pronunciation culture. It is because architecture is tied directly to the cultural development that there seems to be a deterioration of purpose. This goes to support the idea discussed earlier on that there needs to be a differentiation of culture and design as an aspect of science to allow room for expression and growth in architecture.

Considering all these elements, there is indeed a systematic definition of modern architecture based on the seven crutches of architecture that seem to hinder development. The crutch if history, pretty drawing, utility, saving the cent, cheapness, comfort, and structure. There is no foundation of what was there and what had been rather a more personal interest that considers history almost redundant to the point that there isn’t futuristic planning and longevity further that the purpose of the building. In the aspect, therefore, there are so many common and similar building that is mostly because the idea of common become what the trend develops and what the consumers of space requirements. Therefore, uniqueness disappears instead to be replaced with an overwhelming uniformity of structure. It brings in the aspect of trend and tested which is clinical in that the people are more concerned with what worked in the first consideration leading to a lack of creativity and room for growth (Johnson, 1955). This has been enabling with the focus of economy hence a need for reassurance in return of investment hence focus on the aspect of the now and quickness to put up. There is a complete disregard for the investment of time into designing making it a strictly business as firm and construction companies are delegated with the duty to oversee everything.

In addition, a concentration on comfortability of space and in personal initiative including the aspect of environmental concern has reduced the focus on the aesthetic value. Which leads the development of aspects that only are necessary, which has limited architecture is limited to only it is usefulness. In this way, a more appealing outlook is not a consideration as beauty is defined in the way space is moveable rather than how it moves. In this way, modern architecture has shifted to the basic of angled design rather than curvature that would tend to make it more uncomfortable for placement of utilities. This makes it easier to understand why that architecture has shifted to budgetary constraint. In eco-friendly economy, it is much expensive to consider the long-term involvement and viability which makes economic returns a much nor concern (Johnson, 1955). Therefore, the focus has been on whether the building would be able to bring in income and thus consideration of inclusion of value in term of the entrepreneurship aspect of the building rather than its architecture value. This explains the consideration of the use of cheap material and less investment in time for income generation.

However, the blame cannot be put on the economic development alone as there is evidence in place of the institutionalization of architecture that has made it a commodity. Architecture is an art and understanding that art is almost intrinsic. Therefore, teaching about architecture a science is taking away the freedom to express how to would flow. There is certain element yes that is teachable, but theoretical understanding, which the focus in modern teaching it makes it a hard concept to grasp (Venturi, 1966). Therefore, commercialization becomes the only way since it will provide an avenue for learning by experience. This creates a shortage in the capacity with time and therefore, a run with time. In addition, employment with corporations has made it a business venture taking away the artistic power from the designer and thus an introduction of clinical implementation. The control is in the management rather than eth owner of the building and the artist in place. In this way, there is ‘rushness’ added to the fact that as a commodity, both the art and the person a veto be in line with certain regulation d rules.

The idea of the strict measure has, therefore, made it hard for the flexibility created in letting idea flow and allowing change as time goes on. There is a sense of exactness that has been placed as the responsibility of the architect making it almost impossible to voice any other changes. Therefore, a limitation in the power of the person intended to be creative starting at the level of the institution to the practical experience makes it hard to see a change and observe evolution. It would explain why the experimental design often must be self-funded or funded for a purpose of expressivity (Venturi, 1966). In this way, when power is taken away in any form in term of artistic value, there is an element of unappreciation which acts as demotivation making the artist limit their growth to only what is expected.

Conclusion

Through understanding the variable that defines the more recent modern architecture, complexity is evident in its idea of simplistic implementation. It appears that the tearing apart of the component of architecture has made it impersonal and contradictory in the sense that oversimplification has made it more formal a subject contributing to the disconnectedness in the experience of the art and science if architecture space. There is no progress that has been made and as result, a complete shift from the tradition with a wrong trajectory. There is no sense of ownership in the design as more and more economization of the field has made time to be of essence more than the drawing and bringing to life the plans in place. This makes the implication that architecture has reached its maturation a joke.

Work Cited

Johnson, P. (1955). The Seven Crutches of Modern Architecture. 190-192.

Venturi, R. (1966). Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. 22-27.