Your blog comments will
be due on Thursday, June 6th by 10:00 am. Blog comments should be roughly
250-500 words in length and contain at least one quote from the text. You
may use the questions below for inspiration or develop your own response if you
wish.
1) In “Problems in the Form of a Conclusion,”
Tafuri outlines what he perceives as a “crisis” in modern architecture. What, according to Tafuri, is that
crisis? Do you agree or disagree with
Tafuri’s assessment? In what ways might
we apply his critique of modern architecture to the utopias presented in Wright
and Le Corbusier’s essays? Tafuri states
at the end of his essay, “The principal task of ideological criticism is to do
away with impotent and ineffectual myths, which so often serve as illusions
that permit the survival of anachronistic ‘hopes in design’” (367). Do you agree with Tafuri? Why or why not? If not, how might we reimagine the idea of “hope”
in design in our own age? How might
Jameson answer this question? How might
you in your own work? Make sure you provide examples from these texts to
support your answers.
2) Jameson
writes in “Architecture and the Critique of Ideology” that Tafuri is oblivious to
“the dawning of some new postmodernist movement or even ‘age’” (56). How
does Jameson characterize postmodernism?
How would you characterize
postmodernism? How does this “age”
inform your architectural work, or do you see your work as a departure from
what Jameson articulates in his essay? Make sure you provide examples from these
texts to support your answers.
3) Jameson
offers Antonio Gramsci’s ideas of “enclave theory” as an alternative to Tafuri’s
pessimism. What does “enclave theory” entail,
according to Jameson? Conduct a little internet research on Gramsci. What other Gramscian philosophies (such as
hegemony, counterhegemony, and the subaltern) might be useful to architecture? Make
sure you provide examples from these texts to support your answers.
Describe Frank Lloyd Wright’s Broadacre City and Le Corbusier's ideal city and compare and contrast. Is this a feasible city? What kind of issues would one run into whilst implementing this ideal into a city?
ReplyDelete“Personal freedom and dignity through land ownership was the way to guarantee social harmony and avoid class struggle.” (Wright 345).
Frank Lloyd Wrights Broadacre City was to express the grand notion of radical individualism. It was a “response to the decline of american popular culture as a result of the “‘mobocracy’ and to the unprincipled bankers and politicians who served its interest” (Wright 344). Wright became a social revolutionary, not socialist left, but sought out to restore the Emersonian and Jeffersonian virtues. Broadacre City is the “physical embodiment of that utopian vision...” (Wright 344). As for the implementation of the city, every citizen would be given a minimum of one acre of land. The government is to be reduced to nothing more than a county architect who would take charge of land allotments. Wright believed that any form of regiment is a form of death, except for when it applied to planting and cultivation. There were 3 major inventions that caused severe exploitation to the United States:
a.
the motor car
b.
Radio, telephone, and telegraph
c.
Standardized machine shop production
These tools are critical to Wright’s Broadacre City, but must follow Wrights three inherent rights: 1) “His social right to a direct medium of exchange in place of gold as a commodity: some form of social credit,” 2) “His social right to his place on the ground as he had it in the sun and air; land to be held only by use and improvements,” and lastly “His social right to the ideas by which and for which he lives: public ownership of invention and scientific discovers that concern the life of the people” (Wright 346). With these fresh in thought, the government functions include: administration, patrol, fire, post, banking, license, and record. This ideal supposedly was to end unemployment and gave significantly more power to the county elected architect. This occurs because each architect is to design his county, created a creative, colorful sense of individualism in each county.
Le Corbusier focused more on the skyscraper for he believed that it is a wonderful concept that is misused today. Each employee was to be given a minimum of ten square yards of work area. With the city planned the way it is in drawings, there is no limit to the number of vehicles in the city. Corbusier described the typical worker as someone who works on some unruly high level of a building with his/her back to the view. “In New York 20,000 people invade a narrow street at practically one moment, and the result is complete chaos; all fast traffic is paralyzed and the idea for which the skyscraper stands is robbed of all significance. Created for the purpose of decongestion...” (Le Corbusier, 183). If one climbs a mountain, one feels a euphoric feeling, one should feel this atop a skyscraper. Le Corbusier describes the Ideal city as; “that the city which can achieve speed will achieve success” (Le Corbusier, 190-91).
ReplyDeleteCorbusier and Wright have totally different styles of work, yet they both utilized the automobile as a key to their ideal cities. They both introduce the idea of a train or railway of sorts for public transportation. Wright has always steered clear from the cities, as Corbusier designed skyscrapers. These projects sound feasible with a little bit more give and take. I feel that Wright's design for the city would have to be more controlled, as opposed to his anarchist way of life. He simply allots land to an individual, the architect designs the home or buildings, and the humans are to live as they would like to live. I enjoy the idea of the fill stations, but one would need to regulate the citizens lifestyles way more. Le Corbusier seems to be fitting a typical city today but would have to tear up streets to put the railway in. The idea is wonderful, but zoning would have to be completely destroyed and he seems to assume that all people will be working in urban environments. He does not speak of those who live in the country.
As a whole, I thoroughly enjoyed reading these texts. I was astounded at Broadacre City and how Frank Lloyd Wrights ego emanates through. He puts virtually all city planning, land allotment, and city designing in the hands of one man or woman. I feel that he through in the ‘elected’ portion to come off with a bit more humility. His description of current government seemed a bit harsh as well.
P.S. My write up is split into two posts for it was too long for one publication. Thanks!
“Postmodernism is not the cultural dominant of a wholly new social order..., but only the reflex and the concomitant of yet another systemic modification of capitalism itself"
ReplyDeleteJameson identifies postmodernism as an expression of late capitalism in which it serves as a means of commodification of the individual. Capitalism of the last century infers individuality as that of a consumer giving way to disintegration of cultural norms regulating behavior, thought, and social relationships. This “late” capitalism, as Jameson suggests, “triggers various new forms of struggle and resistance…accompanied by the mood of pessimism and hopelessness.” The aesthetics of postmodernism perpetuates these ideologies of capitalism as lacking feeling and impersonality. Postmodernism takes a cue from the architectural ornamentations of the past and repackages them in a contemporary form which lacks depth and offers no substance. Architecture’s organic connection to history and past events is thus lost.
I perceive postmodernism as a reintroduction of various architectural styles set within the scales of a consumer driven society. However, I find that the ideals of a utopian society are far reaching at best and thus architecture cannot be endowed to resolve these looming issues associated with politics and various ideologies.
First, I would like to define my current (and ever-adaptable) understanding of Modernism and Postmodernism in architectural terms.
ReplyDeleteModernism: A strong and sophisticated style of architecture that eliminates the unnecessary and utilizes decades of growing technology to accomplish an artistic “perfection.” There is an emphasis on clean lines which could be classified as conservative, however, not classical. There are formulas, grid systems, and rigid proportions stake claim on any decision. Modernism offers a coherent and logical ideal of a utopia.
Postmodernism: Architectural Postmodernism is an application of all the aforementioned qualities of modernism with unruly results. I hope the use of the word unruly is not knighted with negative connotations here. There clearly is a place for this style, as it has enveloped today’s starchitects’ drafting/design boards and computer screens. There is an intellectual study of structure, foundation, and embellished with strong graphic statements and gestures. Rarely are there questions like what is it, what does that building look like, or even what inspired it, that go unanswered. Inspiration and interpretation have significant roles to play in postmodernism.
To offer a comparison: “what inspired Salt Lake City’s new court house and office building?” (which is smattered with classical columns and perfectly engineered stone facade, pasted together with modern glazing) and “what was the inspiration behind Zaha Hadid’s Beko Complex in Belgrade, Serbia?” (which is an amorphous multi-purpose slew of buildings that are physically separated, however, suggest literal connections).
The initial question is a much harder one to answer.
Manfredo Tafuri notes in Problems in the Form of a Conclusion, “The fact is that, for architects, the discovery of their decline as active ideologists, the awareness of the enormous technological possibilities available for rationalizing cities and territories, coupled with the daily spectacle of their waste, and the fact that specific design methods become outdated even before it is possible to verify their underlying hypotheses in reality, all create an atmosphere of anxiety.” This excerpt, I surprisingly find, is directly applicable to postmodernism. Anxious architects work feverishly to apply different, new, and cutting edge technologies to create different, new, and cutting edge structures. Beauty comes second to shock. Homo sapiens can easily read and understand beautiful, utopian architecture (at the very least, believe they can) but the shock and vivaciousness of the postmodern is unparalleled. It is a struggling attempt to make a point and be heard.
As Fredric Jameson remarkably comes to a close of his critique of Tafuri’s concept of the death of ideology and his stasis dialectical histories, a glimmer of his own characterization of postmodernism is revealed: “It [postmodernism] may no longer embody the utopian ideology of high modernism...while still...remaining in some kind of parasitical relationship with the extinct high modernism it repudiates,” but even more directly defines postmodernism as a, “whole new aesthetic...distinct from that of the previous era” (83-86). While Tafuri may have placed a pessimistic cloud over the idea of a new style, I believe both he and Jameson highlight aspects of what postmodernism is. It may be as Jameson argues an opportunity for self-critique and judgement (because the aesthetic is actually at part of us), but the result of those efforts may resolve Tafuri’s argument that, “no ‘salvation’ is any longer to be found within it.”
Postmodern architecture is a controversial topic because some find significant value in the corresponding designs, however, many believe the design choices are poorly supported and absent of critical purpose.
Apparently my clock is off, because it is definitely 6:00 and not 4:00.
ReplyDeleteTafuri believes that there is a crisis in modern architecture. According to Tafuri, today’s world is skeptical about architect’s ideology. The ideology of the architects is now less important because the mass and the bourgeoisie today feel disconnected to Architects and their utopians’ believes. In Tafuri’s point of view, technology and people’s believe should be privileged. People are not interested in rationalization of buildings anymore. In fact, modern architecture creates more ambiguity and confusion among the society.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Tafuri because in order to evolve a society needs to have a vision. For instance, any society needs an urban planning and only great thinkers and architects can help develop it. Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier are great example of architects who had good ideas of what architecture should be in a society. Frank Lloyd Wright for instance proposed in the “Broadacre City: A New community Plan” that each county should have its own architect in order to create harmony in the society. Both Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier had many great futuristic ideas of how an advanced city should be. However, Tafuri criticizes it, his argument is that people are more “aware of technology than ever; therefore, they can rationalize cities and territories without the help of architects.” On top of that, the architects’ futuristic “design methods tend to be outdated even before it is possible to verify them.”
I disagree with Tafuri’s perspective on negatively criticize the world of architecture. Tafuri with his critics tend to stop creativity. I believe the world in general was built and developed by utopians like Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier. Utopian ideas help to keep order and hope in this world. In other words, if architects are not involved in the decision-making and leave the work to the untrained people, I believe the result would be chaotic. Jameson believes Tafuri’s critics are pessimistic and Tafuri tends to generalize. He also believes that Tafuri’s approach is another type of ideology. According to Jameson, Tafuri might be a postmodernism ideologist, who wants to bring about change in the world architecture.
Jameson believes Tafuri is oblivious to “ dawning of some new postmodernist movement.” According to Jameson, Tafuri believes that global revolution is the sole solution for a change in Architecture. Jameson agrees that there is a need for change but there is no need for a global revolution nor a failure of capitalism” for architecture to improve. Jameson defines postmodernism as “the fatal collapse of aesthetic utopianism in its confrontation with material conditions.”
I would define postmodernism as the idea of being skeptical and less optimistic about today’s Architecture. In my work, I would like to use different type of materials, especially materials that are indigenous to a specific place. The aesthetic of the building and the types of materials to be used in architecture are the main topic of debate between modernist and postmodernist ideologists.
Thank you,
Edgar Irakiza