Committee on Design

 View Only
  • 1.  Tara and Modern

    Posted 08-02-2011 11:30 AM
    Among the many definitions of modern architecture, three seem appropriate here. 1. Any house with a flat roof, silly, but, at least in my case, it's a marker that always elicits a second glance. 2. A term of art describing one of many passing architectural styles or fashions. 3. Used in a more general sense, meaning to be of it's time, to be inspired by the, both temporally and spatially, culture of which it is a part. I misspoke if I equated architecture and excellence with modernism. See definition 2 above. I think the closest we've come to establishing the boundary between building and architecture is the presence of a parti, architectural excellence then being about the strengths of the parti. ------------------------------------------- Mike Mense FAIA mmenseArchitects Anchorage AK -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE:Tara and Modern

    Posted 08-03-2011 05:01 AM
    Thanks, Mike, for your response.  (I sent you a private message, not sure if it went through to you as I see no record of it).


    I need to correct my earlier post regarding my mention of Zaha Hadid's ski resort project- it was actually a series of 4 funicular railways in Innsbruck, Austria, not Switzerland.  Here's a video (sorry for the somewhat annoying background music- otherwise, it's good). 

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6cIT8LQ674

    And especially enlightening for women in architecture, I found this video interview of Zaha Hadid on the challenges of architecture:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcdvMm6c-fU&feature=related

    On that note, i think I'll retire from posting for a while.  I need to re-learn the art of googling before I post, check facts first.

    Regards,
    Tara

    -------------------------------------------
    Tara Imani AIA
    Principal
    Tara Imani Designs, LLC
    Houston TX
    -------------------------------------------








  • 3.  RE:Tara and Modern

    Posted 08-03-2011 05:26 AM

    One more edit: Santiago Calatrava. (no "i" on the end)

    Here's a fantastic video interview with Mr. Calatrava on major public infrastructure projects, how to save our architectural heritage, etc. 

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2sOMdilDWU&feature=related


    As for my criticism of the Pompidou Centre, my apologies.


    Have a great rest of the summer everybody.


    -------------------------------------------
    Tara Imani AIA
    Principal
    Tara Imani Designs, LLC
    Houston TX
    -------------------------------------------








  • 4.  RE:Tara and Modern

    Posted 08-03-2011 11:44 AM
    I'll be happy to give my take on modernism, since it's literally the love of my life.

    As some great modernists taught me, modernism is about an obligation to the profession. And that obligation is to move us forward with new ideas.  To contribute.  If you don't add a new idea of value, you have contributed nothing.  An old idea is not a modern idea.  A modern idea represents a discovery.  That is why art is a critical part of architecture, because art is 100% pure bred originality [pick your favortie adjective: discovery, unique, interesting, beautiful, stunning, innovative . . . ]. Without discovery, there literally is no art.

    Remember, our minds are uniqueness seeking organs. We literally cannot think in pure repetition. The only way our repetitive thoughts will make any sense at all, is to throw in unique experiences as a backdrop.  Our learning and advancement is the context to our sanity - literally. If you don't believe me, lock yourself in a room for a month, doing the exact same thing every day and see what happens.

    That doesn't mean I don't love to study Michelangelo, within his own context and time - where he was a radical modernist - a wild man. He broke rules at will. We can learn modernism from any time period, as all greats of all time periods are modernists.  A modernist is an innovator within their time, and that's that. Roman ruins intrigue me more than anything I have ever seen because I see the incredible modernism architecture must have produced back in their day. I can't even begin to imagine the architectural magic that must have happened for those who lived in that world, in that time period. We are arguably complete wimps in comparison, by some definitions.

    Any musician (song writer) has the same obligation to music. When a new song comes out on the radio, the measurement of success is the originality and intrigue of the new idea. A cheap copy of old ideas will get you nowhere in the music world. We all judge the new sounds by the newness of the experience they offer, if that makes any sense. Our minds seek that naturally. Like a drug, we don't seek the repetition. We seek the discovery. The repetition we live in is simply the comfort blanket we use as a safe vantage point to interpreting the incomprehensible.

    There are some philosophical terms for these building blocks of discovery. Sometimes, an idea comes along that others can continue to build upon. I would not call this copying. It more like one artist coming up with some really cool thing, that is worthy of more exploration by others.  So like a theme and variations, others will continue to take that idea and see what else can be done with it. Musicians do this with each other all the time - constantly reacting to each others discoveries and ideas. All artists do this. Keith Richards used to say that all musicians are working on the same song. He was referring to this very concept that they are all listening to each other, borrowing ideas, and trying to add something new to the big picture. This is the kind of obligation to our profession - an obligation of discovery - that each architect needs to stand accountable for. If all you do is copy the past to meet your client's preconceived notion of some old worn out idea, then fine, maybe you made your client happy in some odd way and got paid, but you have contributed nothing to architecture. By Eisenman's definition, you are not even an architect. 

    A point comes when a particular idea has been pretty much milked of all it can offer. That's when the idea becomes "manifest." That's when we need to leave it alone and move on to something else. You do not copy it, because if you do, you are copying. That's when the disco music finally reaches its death. Its contribution is done, and if you continue to copy it, you are simply reliving a worn out idea.  You are no longer discovering, you are no longer adding anything of value, therefore, it is no longer modern. It's literally too famliar and too predictable for anybody to care anymore. When some new musician remakes a copy of an old song, and it comes out worse than the original, then it was truly a wasted effort. I know we have all seen that happen countless times. There is zero modernism where there is zero discovery. 

    A historicist reminds me of a person who wants to go see a concert of an old group, playing old songs, that have been heard for 30 years over and over again. It might be ok, but like a drug addict seeking a losing proposition, the fulfillment will never match the original high.  The real magic that same group produced back in 1968 is gone. Mick Jagger can never sing "Satisfaction" with the same magic now, that it once was, no matter how hard he tries. Wish it all you want, he can't do it. All discoveries fade. Elvis got fat.

    A poor designer will often begin a design with some preconcieved notions (historical notions) of how a form should begin, that will often trap them in the past. They don't realize how quickly they are limiting their options. That's one of the problems with hyper-symmetry, to take an extreme example. A real modernist creates form through a process that keeps his options open, allowing the flexibility to find originality, variation, and discovery in the process. Doesn't matter if the roof is flat or not.

    That's why I love Eric Owen Moss's work on context.  He is even willing to step into the most mundane of suburban neighborhoods, and seek original expression within that language. (look up his Petal House). He take the dull, and finds new excitement, making no apologies in the process. I appreciate his boldness towards modernism. He shows us that we don't even have to be standing in a modern environment to be modern. You can be modern any place, any time, anywhere.  All you have to do is produce something worthy, from where you stand. Maybe it's beautiful, maybe it's interesting, maybe it's magically simple, or maybe it will scare a small child. Who knows. But in the end, it's artistic definitions will determine if anybody else is going to give a damn about what you did.

    -------------------------------------------
    Rich Farris AIA
    Architect
    Dallas TX
    -------------------------------------------




  • 5.  RE:Tara and Modern

    Posted 08-04-2011 12:05 PM
    I just happened upon this conversation and would like to share a recent post I contributed to the AIA Colorado Emerging Professionals blog.  This is just my personal view of modernism based on a very insightful panel discussion that recently took place here in Denver entitled "Manifestos on Modernism".  As you will see from the comments others have differing definitions.  We would love to hear your thoughts, so if you are inclined to do so please leave a comment!

    Here is the link:
    http://aiacoloradoep.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/my-take-on-manifestos-on-modernism/

    -------------------------------------------
    Adam Hillhouse AIA
    President
    Hillhouse Architects, Inc.
    Broomfield CO
    -------------------------------------------