Bauhaus in America - summations

Having just returned from a rather archi-centric evening I am eager to get the last vestiges of discussion off my chest. There were so many issues raised by this rather interesting exposition of thetranslation of the Bauhaus pedagogy to American society that it is hard to rationalize on where to begin.

The movie itself was rather interesting. Granted, from a film perspective, the 90's techniques of video documentary shows rather evidently however the subject matter, already having evolved into what some would name a 'post-modern' movement seems rather timeless. Concentrating primarily on how the main educators of the Bauhaus in Dessau translated their work to American educational institutions (IIT, Harvard, Yale, Black Mountain) and into work that somehow became synonymous with a mythical 'international' style. Historically it was a nice traipse down memory lane for fans of Mies, Albers, Rohe, Breuer and of course Gropius.

For fans of the Bauhaus model it was a jarring experience when one starts to relate to modern design schools. There seems to be a lack of willingness to allow the exploration of the idea, the investigation of the intent to be paramount. One asked at the discussion afterwards about current Bauhaus type schools to little response. I would offer the Rural Studio and Jersey Devil design/build as two such programs where the exploration into the materiality and social concern is paramount.

Which of course leads to my question of concern for the evening. If the Bauhaus was founded with the hope of maximizing recent industrial innovations to further production and therefore mixing design with purity could be argued as paramount then what is to occur as schools move to concentrate on theoretical design, computer renderings and sections that further remove the understanding of space and texture from the curriculum. It seems architecture is becoming more graphic design than more having anything to do with the insides of a building or space. (Feel free to argue with me on that one, it could turn out rather well).

I am willing to accept that computer renderings are shiny and new and possibly as a school preparing students to produce the very objects that firms want most to attract perspective clients is nice, but I would very vehemently argue that unless the student knows how to think, collect and express an idea then all the pretty pictures are meaningless rubbish that detract from what architectural design really is.

While the jury is out on the Breuer building and whether or not the connection to the Bauhaus is enough to rally the creative design of Cleveland to stand up for it the individual film/discussion was a resounding success and I would like to thank Christopher Diehl, Peter van Dijk and Carol Salus for spending the afternoon/evening with us and with Susan Miller for putting this thing together.

Don't forget that the next one "Green building and modernism: are they antithetical?" with Carl Stein will be next Wednesday, Novemeber 28th, 6.00pm at Judson Manor.
Greening the Modern Preservation Movement

Cleveland Went Modern

Last night's "Cleveland Goes Modern: building modern from a client's perspective" seminar nicely tied up the recent "Cleveland Goes Modern" exhibit with a panel discussion moderated by Nina Gibans which included first and second generation clients of some of the modern homes shown in the exhibition. We were treated to a remembrance of what it was like dealing with the architect, living and growing up in an unconventional home, and maintaining the homes as they aged.

I am saddened that the exhibition with close a chapter of conversation which had some rather interesting repercussions. What happened to the modern movement in Cleveland? Did it taper off, are there still some real hidden jewels nestled among us? Did the market prove unsubstantial? Were we not ready for the innovation, intellectually or emotionally? Is there a new vanguard? Who are the contemporaries? What do they have to show us?

The exhibition did open my eyes. I also had the opportunity to meet some extremely wonderful people. Caretakers of artifacts, collectors of knowledge, teachers, practitioners, students all hungry to share and explore design and the theory of living in design. While the exhibit is winding down (officially closing the 24th at the CAF) there are rumors that it may resurface in a new format. Something that can be shared and taught to the younger generation. There is great potential there. Potential that can be cultivated and focused if presented properly. Luckily someone is already taking the steps to create those tools.

Architecture of Cleveland

Architecture embraces so many disciplines that it begs to be used as a core for teaching. What people experience daily in their private homes and public spaces—banks, religious institutions, libraries--is always the result of an amalgamation of skills involving math, science, social studies, language arts, and, of course art. In Cleveland, in the 70s, a group of us were working with teachers in a course called Education for Aesthetic Awareness that included Architecture. It was obvious that more could and should be developed for students in our schools. In 2002, The Chicago Architecture Foundation published Schoolyards to Skyscrapers, a monumental prizewinning book developed for teaching with architecture. There it is-- the teaching tool with ideas for every city, every teacher, every grade level. We are indebted to Jennifer Masengarb who worked with Jean Linsner and dozens of teachers through the possible ideas to the usable formats. Several chapters of the American Institute of Architects – notably in Michigan, Boston and Cincinnati – have created materials for classrooms.

Cleveland is not Chicago with its examples of major internationally recognized architecture. But we have elegant historic buildings, honored architects, and skilled craftspersons of all kinds. And, the earlier students understand what it takes to produce good looking buildings like many around us, the better we are prepared to consider other basics: how we use our land, restore deteriorating buildings, use old and new technologies, consider careers that may have an impact on the look of our city.

We ask teachers of all disciplines -- math, science, social studies, language arts, and, of course art -- to consider where they can use materials taken right from this website that match their grade level needs and infuse exciting ways to meet the requirements that we know they face.

Cleveland Goes Modern Lecture Reminder

Building Modern from the Client's Standpoint
Thursday, November 15th
6pm
Cleveland Artists Foundation
17801 Detroit Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio

Just a reminder that tonight will be the last 'Third Thursday' seminar of the "Cleveland Goes Modern" exhibition. Tonight's talk will focus on how the intent of these buildings was achieved, how they got the local review boards to allow them to be built and hopefully some discussion on how they have held up.

Practice, preach, see who pays attention.

I suppose when asked to sum up in one thought the recent Bruce Mau lecture at Kent State University (which I hope to expound upon later) I would simply reiterate the idea of the vast potential that each singular problem presents itself. With a local consideration (beyond the centralized assimilation of Arnold Toynbee's views on the welfare of mankind which leads to the inclusion of the the local placement of the Tonybee Tiles) one could argue that the multiple instances of singular obstacles are created within the urban environment could actually be manipulated to create an interesting dialogue either resulting in an event or an icon.

Just as a quick and simple example I would like to mention some of the changes made to New York construction sites in order to make them more interesting and to offer something back to their location besides acting as an impediment.

Recently the Cuyahoga County Office of Sustainability has attempted to raise awareness of the County's mission to create an environmentally progressive community although some may argue that the construction fence around the Ameritrust Tower would be an inappropriate location for a campaign entitled "Preserve Conserve". While I applaud the County attempting to showcase an initiative that speaks to their environmental goals I would like to point out that one must be careful of the medium as well as the message (which includes location).

Perhaps with a little creative thinking Cleveland/Cuyahoga County can capitalize on our construction, make our spaces beautiful and interesting instead of looking constantly torn up and create temporary spaces that are worth remembering.

You can also design your own poster and leave comments for the County's Office of Sustainability.

GCRTA budget adjustments may affect Cleveland commute patterns

Yesterday the RTA Board Committee met, presented the 2008 budget and discussed upcoming service changes. Some issues discussed included the ECTP (Euclid Corridor Transportation Project) work milestones (Public Square to be completed 'within the week', scheduling for the utility work around the Cleveland Clinic area and the $5.3 million shortfall of the GCRTA budget.

There is currently a discussion to poise the GCRTA in preparation for the inevitable fuel cost increases which will have a direct effect upon the GCRTA's budget by "consolidating" routes. This "consolidation" includes utilizing transit nodules for maximum efficiency by rescheduling and rerouting bus routes to coincide with the Rapid Transit lines. In essence direct bus routes from the outer laying suburbs to downtown may be rerouted to converge upon suburban Rapid Stations.

With ridership currently on the rise (total ridership up about 4% (560,000 rides) and weekday ridership up about 4.4% (about 20,000 rides)) one has to wonder how an adjustment of this nature will affect the image of public transportation as being a convenient way to get from the suburbs to downtown. One would also wonder if the fuel increase wouldn't directly increase ridership resulting in more earnings driving down the current deficit.

I suppose that speculation may have to be put on hold until and re-evaluated when the ECTP starts running it's Public Square to East Cleveland routes to decide whether or not a change in route patterns would be effective. As I stood on the full Rapid on the way in this morning I wondered if perhaps adding more riders to an already seemingly crowded line was a good idea. Would more train cars or more runs be added to the Rapid to offset commuter population gains? Would the answer lay in more careful planning and staggering of route departures to maximize Rapid comfort and efficiency?

There is a very careful line to be aware of. Public transportation already has to overcome a perceived (incorrectly) stigma by constantly and consistently being cheaper, quicker and more convenient then an automotive commute. Once deviation from that formula (or the interjection of a less successful pattern) is achieved the GCRTA may find itself in a very uncomfortable situation. While I would love to argue that the GCRTA should immediately counter the deficit by increasing routes, serving more people and becoming 'super-convenient' the plan must be fiscally sound to be successful. There are already multiple Rapid upgrades already occurring whose affects have yet to be empirically measured who may play a large role in reconceiving GCRTA's image. I am extremely curious (and concerned) to see what develops.

Resources: RTA Board Committee Highlights

Bruce Mau - Kent 'Design Practice' Lecture

Bruce Mau DesignTuesday, November 13th, 2007
University Auditorium, Cartwright Hall
Kent State University
7pm

Lots of good lectures and events are happening this month. It is wonderfully overwhelming.

Criticism and Critique - The necessity and the fine line

After Jane Weinzapfel's 'Made to Measure' lecture and her comments upon the sporadic and segmented creative community of Cleveland I found myself wondering more then usual about how creative disciplines have become disjointed, arguing over fiefdoms and markets instead of creating a sort of standard with which to use as a base for acceptable design. I understand to a certain extent the hesitation with taking a stand upon a specific topic. On one hand unpopular opinion may result in a loss of credibility or perhaps even patronage. On the other creating a stir may spur an attempt of improvement instead of a careful plodding along an already tiresome path. I would argue that unpopular opinion spurs discussion more then a popular one and that repercussions would only be felt if there was either a sense of dangerous truth to the opinion and/or if the awarding of commissions were not based solely on merit.

When then is it proper to criticize and in what way is criticism actually useful? Well, now this is the crux of the argument. In some way criticism is only given to show an unfavorable reaction and in a way I am slightly insulted by this. It is rather simple to say something is boorish and ugly without any real offerings of better solutions. Perhaps this is a major concern, that criticism is offered not only in solely a negative capacity but with no attempt to correct the mistakes being made. Comments of this nature are easy to dismiss and do nothing to contribute to a possible dialogue about how something(the critiqued object/act) could be better achieved. Granted, criticising something with an actual attempt to understand or to offer alternative solutions takes not only time, but a grasp of what the original undertaking was meaning to accomplish and to some extent (granted not much) the limitations placed upon the artist in the first place.

I would also offer that perhaps there is a hidden code of ethics, that publicly stating an opinion on a contemporary's work somehow diminishes not only their attempt but also your own credibility. Again I would suggest that this is due mostly to the depth of the criticism. If grounded in intelligent and logical foundations then it should be easy to ascertain that the criticism is in no way a personal attack but rather a reaction to a specific problem's solution. I would also offer that without a set of standards, base minimums, that design (specifically architectural) should achieve then it becomes increasingly difficult to educate the public about design and/or hold architects to a set of standards. I am not in any way suggesting that a specific rule set be created for what is considered 'beauty' but rather that it become acceptable to point out a proposed project as one that does not achieve a certain level of aesthetics regardless of the school of thought that the design is grounded in.

At some point criticism should lead into discourse and investigation to possible design solutions that would respond to relevant and informed design reviews and would further make it possible for designers to not only inform their clients but also each other. There would have to exist a level of respect. Not so much as personal validation, but from the critic to the designer to make a comment that exemplified study and investigation, and from the designer to the critic to actually consider the comment. The worst critiques I had ever received are tied between two statements. One was a dismissal of a design based upon an inferred set of arbitrary standards ("It's ugly") and the other was approval for the same reason ("That's perfect"). Nothing led me to understand what about the project was creating the reaction and nothing helped inform me as to what the end goal was supposed to be. Both cases are of unhelpful, useless and dismissible criticism that I fear is too easy and vapid to completely avoid. However, by including observations in the critique (not guidelines or answer) as to how possible solutions could be realized one can earn not only the designers respect but also allow them to revisualize the problem and possibly solve it in a manner that the critic couldn't even foresee.

There is indeed an art to critique, one that I am sometimes guilty of ignoring, that I hope to usefully and successfully master in order to further creative discussions in this town.