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
Thanks Dru. I really wanted to have time to get your response to the question about remediation, restoration and reuse as part and parcel of the young architect's portfolio. Since it seems that we all are enamored with the ego stroking, iconic isolated buildings by starchitects, what intrigues me more are the way's in which architects have restored, added to and transformed existing buildings. I was intrigued by Pete's suggestion of regionalism as a concern and I want to mention that we will have a huge waste of materials (natural resources) if we go about willy nilly razing buildings to build new green ones. The client's needs and desires clearly weigh in here as well. The CHUH Library is a case in point. Two existing buildings finally connected with a work of art (even if it is superfluous to the program of the space). The buildings were not lost to expand the program if the space -- nor were homes adjacent to the location. It was a long road to expel the very bad first suggestions of a bridge across the street, but ultimately the client got what he wanted and the city got a lovely piece of public art. When might we see this sort of creativity as a gold star in the portfolio of an architect?
ReplyDeleteWhat follows the rococo postmodern in architecture? What are we rebelling against and/or reacting to as far as social concern, client demand now? How can artist architects subtly inform their clients of the best possible solution for their needs and the needs of the planet/community?
The Bauhaus gave us a look inside -- the teachers in many disciplines responding to the zeitgeist of internal personal consideration. I was thrilled to get the connection of the work as performance since my background is dance and this is what Merce Cunningham, my mentor advocated. Rauschenberg traveled with him building sets from found objects for a period. The whole idea of working in a collage of the here and now materials is a culture I was raised in in the dance world. Does this translate into architecture?
Pretty open ended questions I know for Sunday morning musings, but since I am not an architect, I am curious as to the zeitgeist in the architectural community at this time?