DEFINITIONS AND BOUNDARIES OF MODERNISM DIVERSE ARCHITECTURAL ATTITUDES IN EARLY 20TH CENTURY ARCHITECTURE
Journal Name:
- Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi
Author Name |
---|
Abstract (2. Language):
An interpretation of modernism is to return to the lost values of one time, to
revitalize them once more, just as Renaissance looked back to Vitruvius or to
the Classical Age. Another way is to see modernism not as "rebirth" as in
Renaissance, but as "birth", ie. to form the present and future values from scratch.
This was the attitude common among the avant-garde movements of early 20th
century: Italian Futurism (its other name being Antipassatismo), Suprematism,
Neo-Plasticism and Constructivism demanded complete break with the past, the
last three turning to total abstraction of objects which was another aspect of
20th century Modernism.
Avant-garde attitudes in the first quarter of the century demanded a new
environment which would be dominated by industry, machine, abstraction,
simplicity and scientific thinking. Nature and rural life were rejected because
of their past implications, but urban life, created by the new technology was
accepted, just as in A.Sant' Elia's multi-level future city imagined as a gigantic
machine.
The beginnings of Modern Architecture have been extended back to different
periods; in the widest sense, the Modern Period begins with the termination of
the Medieval Age and the birth of Humanism. It has been traced back to mid-
18th century, ie. to the Age of Reason, to the beginning of Industrial Revolution,
or to William Morris; but the general tendency has been to define Modern
Architecture as the architecture that is growing up with this century. Charles
Jencks rightly thinks that Modern Architecture is a broad term that embraces diverse developments of 20th century architecture and he differentiates six distinct
movements between 1920 and 1970.
Within this plurality of expressions, the first and the most distinct movement
among others, that comes to one's mind when Modern Architecture is mentioned,
is the functional, rational International Style known as Neue Sachtichkeit (New
Objectivity) active between the years 1922-32. This movement, which introduced
strict formal, social and technical principles based on objective values, aimed
at reshaping the human environment with an Utopian attitude. Supported by
congresses, exhibitions, publications, and defended by historian-critics such as
N.Pevsner, J.M.Richards and S.Giedion, the movement became so influential
and, regardless of regional and national differences, changed so much the face
of world architecture towards a singleness of style that, it came to be identified
with Modern Architecture. Its foremost exponents were Walter Gropius, Mies
van der Rohe, Le Corbusier and J.J.P.Oud.
Despite its dominance, it is possible to talk about different and subjective
approaches, too: Scandinavian Empiricism, Frank Lloyd Wright's Organic
Architecture, Dutch and German Expressionists, classical tradition within Purism,
Romantic Classicism of Mies, MIAR group in Italy which tried to merge tradition
with rationalism, diverse minds even within CIAM and Neo-Classic reactions to
Neue Sachtichkeit İn Germany, Italy and Russia.
This diversity is best witnessed within avant-garde circles in Germany: the
functional-rational wing vs. the emotional Expressionists. This separation of
approaches showed itself early before the War in the Deutsche Werkbund, with
one group defending objectivity, collective work and Typisierung, while the
opposing group believed in Kunstwollen, i.e. creativity, imagination, subjectivity.
German architects were torn between these two trends shifting from one to the
other; those, like Bruno Taut, Ludwig Hilberseimer, Hans Poelzig and even Eric
Mendelsohn, involved in Expressionism, moved to the rational side after the war;
while Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe, leaders and among the founders
of strict principles of Neue Sachlichkeit, for a short while surrendered to the
powerful attraction of the expressionist Glass Chain Group.
The Bauhaus has also been accepted as the symbol of Modernism, just as the
Neue Sachlichkeit has been by those who tend to view modern architecture within
a limited frame. But in the foundation principles of the Bauhaus one can find
the remnants of the past: the acceptance of William Morris' ideal to revitalize
the medieval guild tradition and the unity of arts and crafts. Walter Gropius called
architects to unite forces with artists and craftsmen in order to realize the creative
cathedral (Zukunftskathedrale) of the future. The word Bauhaus was chosen
purposefully, because it came from Bauhütte which meant "masons'lodge" in
the Middle Ages. The title page of the Weimar Programme was designed by the
expressionistic leanings of the School in its foundation period. Julius Posener
called this tendency of the Bauhaus, "Medieval Expressionism". Individual
creativity and "building in imagination, unconcerned about technical difficulties"
were among the guiding principles of early Bauhaus until 1923. Later, with the
emphasis given to the collaboration with industry, objective thinking and teamwork
took over.
Mies van der Rohe, who defended. anonymous but good architecture, refused
to recognize problems of form saying that form was not the aim of his work but
only the result. But in his short expressionistic period between 1919-23, Mies
designed two glass skyscraper projects with a formalistie attitude. These projects
show his affinity with the Glass Chain Group and their spiritual leader Paul
Scheerbart. Furthermore, Mies reacted to some of the Neue Sachlichkeit principles
by rejecting the "form follows function" slogan and mass production.
Le Corbusier had a short visionary period of glass in 1920 when he designed his
glass skyscrapers for "The City of Three Million Inhabitants". Glass was a material
alien to his conception of concrete architecture. In Le Corbusier's career, there
is a clear separation of attitudes; his early purist period with a right-angled
geometry was dominated by objective, universal sensations as he called it, and
in his later phase, after the Second World War, he turned to individualism and
to freedom of forms dominated by secondary, emotional sensations. Here is
another instance of the two opposing attitudes: objectiveness and subjectivity.
In Ronchamps, he was contradicting his early "five principles" in architecture.
While earlier, he called the house a machine, later he defined architecture as
"a thing of art to move us" and that "which goes beyond utilitarian needs".
MODERNtZMtN TANIMI, SINIRLARI, ERKEN YÎRMÎNCİ YÜZYIL MİMARLIĞI (ODTÜ MFD 1988) 65
Contradictions dominated Le Corbusier's life as an architect. His attacks on Ecole
des Beaux-Arts were contradicting his respect for Classicism in certain instances.
Le Corbusier was one of the architects reponsible in setting the principles of the
Neue Sachlichkeit, yet he was the first to liquidate them.
In short, seeing the little-known faces of some of the leading architects of the
"New Objectivity" period proves that it is not enough to see developments from
a single viewpoint, but a comprehensive survey with all the contrasting and complex
aspects will lead to a more complete story.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF):
- 1
59-66