Personal Design Style

As an architecture student, my own personal design style is constantly developing.  I really don’t feel as though I even know what my style is. Our ideas about design and our design tendencies are influenced by our experiences with the world around us. Every field study, lecture, and studio project I have ever encountered has, in one or another, shaped my design ability. I do not believe that design style is something that ever stops changing. The development of an architect’s design style is similar to human development, as infants and young children learn and grow exponentially in comparison to adults. The same is true of architecture students and experienced architects.

Even as a third year student, I am still discovering my own design style. Not only is it still rapidly developing, but I don’t even know my creativity well enough to completely understand what my style is yet. Even though this may be my first time really attempting to dissect and analyze my design style, I feel that if I had done this before, my previous design style would be unrecognizably different. Perhaps one day, my early designs will hold small clues and gestures that appear as fledgling creative trademarks, but for now, I feel as though all of my studio projects have been very different from each other. Comparing them side by side may indicate a similar simplicity or character, but this may just be exemplifying my lack of knowledge and design experience. After all, the finished products of my designs are not exactly what I would describe as perfections of the extents of my knowledge at that time.

Having said all this, I think that if anything can be said for my design style at this point in my life, I think it would be that I tend to approach design with a complex design-thinking. When I am giving 100% to the design, I prefer to spend a lot of time in the design phase of the project. I take a lot of care in the movement, concept, and experience of space. As an interruption, an example of just how fresh these thoughts are in my mind, I suddenly realized in writing that last sentence that my favorite designs have been those that create unique sensory experiences. Here are two that come to mind: a visitor center for the Rocky Mountain National Park wrapped with a screen of tubes that interact with the wind to create a buzzing sound, in order to hear the wind; and a design for a church in which the interior space is sculpted to carry the sound from inside the church to the outside of the building.

I realize this is a characteristic for my design concepts, and not really for the visual appearance of my designs, but this is reflective of the current level of my designing skill in that I struggle coming up with what the building should look like. I normally focus on the experiences of the building and become frustrated when trying to figure out what I want it to look like. As I said before, my design skills are still developing, and this may be something I’ll discover as I improve my designing skills.

The Open Plan: Le Corbusier and Alvar Aalto

Le Corbusier is known to many as the father of modern architecture. He was famous for his influence on the Bauhaus movement and developed a theory called the five points of architecture. These five points were: freestanding support pillars, open floor plan independent from the supports, vertical facade that is free from the supports, long horizontal sliding windows, and roof gardens.

His idea for the open plan was an attempt to open up the space inside. This method made use of outlying structure with the façade pulled away from the structure. Le Corbusier believed in the sacridity of space, and called his open plan buildings “pure prisms.” Many of his five points of architecture contributed to the purity of his buildings, but the open plan was an integral part. Take, for example, Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye. This project is Le Corbusier’s idea for a “living machine” rather than the typical house. Where a house contains a collection of closed-off spaces, Le Corbusier’s open plan allows for more open spaces, centered around a common living area. This function is important to the way Le Corbusier believed the occupants of the home should be encouraged to meander through spaces.

Another architect who implemented the open plan was Alvar Aalto. Aalto implemented the open plan in a very different way than Le Corbusier. While Le Corbusier was mostly concerned with the social spatial experience that the open plan provided, Aalto used the open plan for improved climate control over the building. His use with the open plan allowed for optimal conditions to enhance air flow through the building. In his work, Aalto was very interested in creating interior spaces as climatic paradises—spaces that would use technology to become climatically inviting.

Both architects were great facilitators in the development of modern architecture, whose open plans influenced the imaginations of architects to come. Though their ideals and goals with the urban plan may have differed, there is a definite resemblance in their appreciation for the aesthetic that the open plan provides.

Kroll, Andrew. “AD Classics: Villa Savoye / Le Corbusier.” (2010). Arch Daily. Retrieved from http://www.archdaily.com/84524/ad-classics-villa-savoye-le-corbusier/

Passe, Ulrike. “Alvar Aalto’s open plan architecture as an environmental technology device.” (2012). Alvar Aalto Museo. Retrieved from http://www.alvaraaltoresearch.fi/articles/alvar-aaltos-open-plan-architecture-environmental-technology/#.UVtT9BzqljZ

Russian Constructivism

So far in our journey back into the history of modern architecture, nothing has shocked me more than the planned construction of the Palace of the Soviets—an overpowering monument that if it had not been hindered by the German Invasion in Russia, would have been the tallest tower of its time.

This building was shocking to me because it is just so ridiculous in how literal it is in its intention of superiority. Other than being extremely massive, the building is built up like a ziggurat, a place dedicated to honoring and worshiping the government. This sort of literal representation of the government’s attitude in dominating its people is very telling in the design. The building was meant to be intimidating to all, challenging of all, and it had to be the most, the best, and the greatest. Not just in this building, but also in the other buildings of the Russian Constructivism movement.

Another example of architecture literally posing a challenge can be seen in Vladimir Tatlin’s design for his challenge against the Eiffel Tower, so modestly named, Tatlin’s Tower. The Eiffel tower, at the time of its erection, was a controversial move. This exploration with then-innovative materials resulted in something that was much different from anything that had come out of Paris before—but it was a success. The Eiffel tower was a big deal, whether you loved it or despised it. It became a symbol that elevated France in world powers—something that Russia may have been very jealous of. I use the word jealously playfully, but honestly, it holds some truth. If a single person had designed the Palace of the Soviets for themselves would have been regarded as someone competitive and insecure in the strength of their power. This was the attitude of Russia at this time, striving to be the best of everything. This is also why when Vladimir Tatlin was “inspired” by the Eiffel tower, he didn't just let it influence his design, rather, the Eiffel Tower was something for Tatlin’s design to conquer. Not surprisingly, the resulting design was as loud and eccentric as would be expected. And of course, it was a little bit taller than the Eiffel tower.

This was the Russian Constructivist movement. Things had to be bigger and better—and by a mile, not an inch. This new step in design required a great technical understanding of materials, in order to appear innovative and knowledgeable The designs of this movement also shied away from ornamentation. Perhaps this was because ornamentation was considered by some to be “not architecture,” but just additions to architecture that falls short. Ornamentation can also be seen as feminine and weak, while industrial features and strong verticality can be seen as masculine and powerful. These are all ideas that personify the power-hungry attitudes of the time when Russia was to become a communist society.

Victor Horta and Art Nouveau

In this post, I’d like to discuss the work of Victor Horta, an architect in the late 19^th century. Horta designed in the art nouveau style, which was a movement grown out of the arts and crafts style, but embraced the advances in the industrial revolution going on at the time. The arts and crafts movement was in response to saving the craftsmanship and design that was feared to become lost in the influence of industrial mass production.  Architecture theorist and arts and crafts idealist John Ruskin believed that the purpose of arts and crafts was to save what may become lost with the use of machines. The oncoming artists of art nouveau, such as Victor Horta also believed in the importance of craftsmanship, however they realized that industry could have a place in the process of craftsmanship. This notion goes against Ruskin, who may not have agreed that true artistry could emerge without the blood, sweat, and tears of the craftsman’s hand. The truth was, new forms became possible because of the advancement in technology of the industrial age.

Still along arts and crafts ideals, art nouveau valued craftsmanship, detail, and ornamentation. However, the design of the ornamentation at this time was different than what had been seen in the past. Earlier ornamentation featured patterns of geometric and natural symbols. Unlike the flowers and vines used in past design, art nouveau embraced nature with an influence from organic forms, rather than depicting actual nature carved into the artwork.

The emergence of these new forms in design was partly made possible by the technological advances brought on by the industrial revolution. The elegant forms of the metalwork in Horta’s Tassle Hotel are telling of this. To achieve these forms shows an understanding of materials and the intelligence of the designer—a Le Duc ideal. Also in-line with Le Duc’s thinking, Horta believed in the use of modern materials. His work shows the dare of pushing a material to its potential—past its potential, to discover the possible beauty of materials.

The forms in Horta’s work could not have been created so magnificently without the combined expertise of both the craftsmen and the designer. The only difference is between the craftsmen during the industrial revolution and during Ruskin’s time was that the craftsman was now skilled in the use of new tools. Machinery did not hinder the art; it was a new tool for the craftsman.

In a sense, Horta carried on the ideals of both Ruskin and Le Duc in their most contrasting ideals: Ruskin’s belief that beauty and architecture came from the skill of the craftsman, while Le Duc believed that it came from the intelligence of the designer. The further advancement of technology, of what technology allowed us to begin to do with materials, is what brought machinery-built forms back up to par with “hand-made” pieces.

Architect: Victor Horta. (2012). Great Buildings. Retrieved from http://www.greatbuildings.com/

architects/Victor_Horta.html

Greenhalgh, Paul. A New Style for a New Age. (2000). National Gallery of Art: Anatomy of an Exhibition. Retrieved from http://www.nga.gov/feature/nouveau/exhibit_intro.shtm

Ruskin, Viollette-Le-Duc, and Semper

Art through history develops upon the ideas of people. The ideas that influence art of the period can depend on anything, from society’s present view on history to its view on current events. Art of the time expresses what we want to say, what we think is important, and how we interpret our world. Several contrasting opinions can exist at the same time, and those who express their opinions often lead reform and the directions of art. In the 19^th century, modern architecture was shaped by three especially important reformers: John Ruskin, Gottfried Semper, and Viollet-le-Duc.

With the oncoming of the industrial age and the huge urban transformation, there was little place for classicism or other past forms of architecture. Factories left architects confused as this was a new type of architecture and they weren't sure yet what it was supposed to look like. Meanwhile, John Ruskin was troubled by the emerging replacement of craftsmen ship by the machine. He believed that the beauty of architecture came from the skill of the builder, as the craftsman shaped the emotion of the space. He also believed that restoration of buildings was a bad thing, as this process destroys the original character of the architecture and wastes the strength and craftsmanship of the details toiled by the builder. Ruskin is famous for his “7 Lamps of Architecture,” the seven values, such as truth in materials and memory, that which are most important to architecture.  Ruskin would later inspire architects and art reformers such as Frank Lloyd Wright and William Morris. His upholding of the craftsman ideal can be seen in the fine details of William Morris’s residence, the Red House, designed by Philip Webb.

image source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Red_House,_Bexleyheath.JPG

On this thought of the hallowing of the craftsmen, Viollette-le-Duc contrasted with Ruskin. Le-Duc believed that the architect was higher than the builder. While Le-Duc agreed with Ruskin on the importance of truth in materials, he was more concerned with understanding style and the intelligence of the designer. He believed in rationalism and that architecture could be seen as a science. He created theories for architects and those who wanted to study to become architects, and created a method for designing “good” architecture. Le-Duc’s ideals can be seen in the work of Frank Gehry. Gehry related to Le-Duc in that elements of a design do not need to be uniform (as seen in the windows of his project below, the Lou Ruvo Center). He also likened with Le-Duc in the embracing of modern materials. De-Luc believed that if the Roman architects of the past had had modern materials such as steel, they would have used them.

image source: http://www.highsnobiety.com/2010/06/17/lou-ruvo-center-for-brain-health-by-frank-gehry/

Another modern reformer, Gottfried Semper, was also concerned like Viollet-le-Duc with the style of architecture. Semper admired the forms and ornamentation of renaissance architecture. He too believed that architecture could be logistically broken down. For Semper, the formulaic pieces of style came from a multiplication of forms around the world. His goal was to create a taxonomy of forms that could be plugged into an equation. In his theoretical equation, the result of a building came from the function of interacting components such as materials, techniques, and regional and cultural influences.  Semper’s ideals can be seen in his School and Opera House. His love for Renaissance architecture shows through the design, but the resulting building carries influences by such components as time, place, availability of materials, building techniques, function, and culture.

image source: http://www.europeancastlestours.com/tours/berlin-gallery.htm

Works Cited

Hvattum, M. (2006). Gottfried semper and the problem of historicism. Journal of the Society of

Architectural Historians, 65(1), 136-139.

Pevsner, N. Ruskin and  Viollet-le-Duc: Englishness and Frenchness in the appreciation of gothic

architecture. (pp. 6-43). London: Thames and Hudson.

Summerson, J. (1904). Viollet-le-duc and the rationl point of view. Heavenly Mansions, 135-144.