Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
2013.01.25Rem Koolhaas has stated: “Fundamentals will be a Biennale about architecture, not architects. After several Biennales dedicated to the celebration of the contemporary, Fundamentals will focus on histories – on the inevitable elements of all architecture used by any architect, anywhere, anytime (the door, the floor, the ceiling etc.) and on the evolution of national architectures in the last 100 years. In three complementary manifestations – taking place in the Central Pavilion, the Arsenale, and the National Pavilions – this retrospective will generate a fresh understanding of the richness of architecture’s fundamental repertoire, apparently so exhausted today.In 1914, it made sense to talk about a “Chinese” architecture, a “Swiss” architecture, an “Indian” architecture. One hundred years later, under the influence of wars, diverse political regimes, different states of development, national and international architectural movements, individual talents, friendships, random personal trajectories and technological developments, architectures that were once specific and local have become interchangeable and global. National identity has seemingly been sacrificed to modernity. ..."
And not Koolhaas:2001.01.26I'm trying to come to grips with the notion of why European colonials didn't simply accept the architectures that were indigenous to the lands that they (the Europeans) colonized. I see this as a negative action because I think a case can be made that many of this planets indigenous architectures are now virtually extinct because of Western colonialism/imperialism. During the first half of the 20th century, while large parts of the world were still colonies of Europe, Western modern architecture or the International Style (again a term used more for convenience) continued the global domination of Western style and furthered the extinction of indigenous architectures.
As much as I like Classical Greek and Roman architecture and Modern architecture, I nonetheless see it as a tremendous lose to architecture in general that these styles are now so global at what seems to be the expense of so many other architectures.
2003.09.01...may indeed be right about there being a lack in architectural history when it comes to explaining shifts from style to style (and this interests me greatly), but I'm not convinced so far that evolutionary theory (which ever one that may be) is the best(?) way to explain shifts from style to style.
Up until (more or less) the "International Style", architectures where very much linked to geography/locale and the politics(/religion) that comes with geography. Of course, European colonialism can be seen as an "internationalization" (or is it "globalization"?) of European/Western architecture precursing the "International Style," as well as the beginning of the eradication of many indigenous architectural styles throughout the world. Is this history best explained as evolutionary? Is the shift from Mayan architecture to Baroque architecture in Mexico, for example, something evolutionary? Not exactly survival of the fittest; more like survival of the one's with the guns and the greed, and, oh yes, the holy mission to spread the Christian faith.
Personally, I sometimes wonder whether Mayan architecture may have sometime/somehow played an influencing/inspiring role in terms of (particularly) Spanish Renaissance and Baroque architecture.
2005.12.02I agree that there is a kind of hegemony operating within architecture today (and definitely since the Modern Movement/International Style), but architecture wasn't always that way. Most of architectures' histories are like languages' histories in that they were all tied/related to specific places on the planet and reflected the culture of those places.
Reflecting on what presently constitutes architectural "history," perhaps architecture is now a world trade commodity more than anything else.
Is the next big thing to mix up the fashion brands? Wear your Foster pants with Woods belt over Eisenman panties?
Check out 1914.
And regarding architecture's "Fundamentals," compare and contrast Hamlin's Forms & Functions of 20th Century Architecture, volume 1 (1952). Chapters:1. The Elements of Building: Introduction2. The Use Elements of Building: Rooms for Public Use3. The Use Elements of Building: Rooms for Private Use4. The Use Elements of Building: Service Areas5. The Use Elements of Building: Horizontal Circulation6. The Use Elements of Building: Vertical Circulation7. Mechanical Equipment8. The Use Elements of Structure: Bearing Walls9. The Use Elements of Structure: Non-Bearing Walls10 The Use Elements of Structure: Doors and Doorways11. The Use Elements of Structure: Windows12. The Use Elements of Structure: Columns and Piers13. The Use Elements of Structure: Beams, Girders, Ceilings, and Floors14. Arches and Vaults I: Arches15. Arches and Vaults II: Vaults16. Roofs, Gutters, and Flashing17. The Site in Relation to Building18. Gardens and Buildings19. Elements of the Modern Interior20. Ornament
I'm interested to see if and/or how 'Ornament' will be present[ed] in 2014.
Man the lifeboats.
Hey Jaffe, ever notice that all you ever do is repeat virtually the same exact thing over and over and over again? Do you think your meter is stuck, or is it perhaps all you're actually capable of?
ok what do you expect from someone who states, in his profile section:
"Architecture is a harmonious composition of five elements: space, light, materials, connections and concept."
as if architecture need be harmonious
as if composition of connections means anything (or anything but everything...therefore, means nothing)
as if concepts were on-par with materials as part of a compostion (thus assuming a qualitative and quantitative equivalence and compatibility between those parts)
tammuz, seems that you are so indoctrinated with bullshit that you can't understand English. I'd suggest some basic lessons in reading comprehension. And rereading (or maybe reading for the first time) The Architecture of Humanism.
history repeating itself, Thanks for pointing out the broken meter. I guess it just couldn't handle the volume of bullshit here. I'll try to find another one.
In my opinion, those that choose only to be cynical and constantly state how wrong the profession is or how awful it is to work in architecture do nothing but a disservice to all of us. Of course it has its trials and tribulations, but what profession doesn't? Of course it could be better. Work towards making it better, not just moaning about it on a computer screen where it can possibly dissuade the next generation from following their dreams.
A former professor of mine gave me the best advice regarding these the ones who hate architecture: Don't believe their bullshit. I love what I do. I would say I love my job, but it isn't just a job, it's my passion.
In September 2001, while seeing a display of quartz crystals (each labeled as to its geographic origin) compiled over 100 years ago, I thought it would be cool if the buildings of any global location started to match the formations of the local quartz. It was after seeing Harz Mountain quartz that the idea crystallized.