Katie

Umenthum Codification of the Modern Movement

March 27, 2012

The discussion of codification of the Modern Movement seems questionable in the sense that it presupposes the movement can be planned and a historian is capable of cutting out their own bias of the time period. From Henry-Russell Hitchcock the International Style begins to take an identity and he lists the changing focuses in Architecture. Hitchcocks writings seem to attempt to be most objective and many of his points carry through to today: minimal decoration, emphasis of horizontality, monumental architecture, etc. It is interesting that these are still the points discussed in studio: architecture as volume (not mass), regularity as a means of ordering design, and no more arbitrarily applied decoration. But I believe his attempt at objectivity cuts out some of the historic context that is necessary for understanding the phenomenological aspects of architecture during its time. Manfredo Tafuri takes a less objective stance. He challenges the effectiveness of architecture saying, The struggle for a liberated society goes before the search for architecture of the society, architecture occurs ex post facto as more or less consequence of the change. Tafuri is full of convoluted sayings. And its much harder to justify his abrupt comments. Hitchcock makes it much easier to understand with a singular stance but history cant be contained in a singular point of view. Tafuri better captures the current modern movement of architecture in his writings. His conflicting statements reflect a zeitgeist in the praxis of modern architecture. Architects were as he says, acting apart from the rest of the world in the spirit of fun. Thus, the resulting buildings did not change anything beyond expressing their own likes and partiality. Architects were becoming objective to their own time period. I dont think we should be able to be impartial to our own period of history. Tafuri seems extremely adamant and passionate about the rottenness of architecture to the core because for so long it has only reflected on the past (imitating Greek Parthenon and Roman columns, etc.) and romanticized its connection through Neo-Platonism. Neo-Platonism was an idea of society, and the architecture of public buildings and rich residencies stemmed from it as Tafuri says. I would argue with this because I believe there have been many styles born since the Renaissance. Tarfuri dismissed the phenomena of experiences that make us partial to our own time in history, similar to the theory of regionalism. For him, science is the only possible means of objective, concrete knowledge of reality for producing space and Architecture. But there is a quality of life and culture that the architect must be able to grasp. We discussed in class how phenomena could be discovered by everyone: art happens everywhere, in every time, and every place. These phenomena are as much a part of history as the facts and we all look to this overwhelming information to find a sense of truth. Hitchcock, in his idealistic objectivism, risks cutting out the experiential quality that he can contribute to history. His partiality in writing is our connection to the emotions and feelings of a building at the time it was built. He may be perfecting history but he is denying future generations of the architectural phenomena/bias/arbitrary qualities that

Katie Umenthum Codification of the Modern Movement

March 27, 2012

cant be measured 100 years later because they are strongest when society first reacts to its contemporary architecture. It is interesting to me that so much of this discussion expands beyond architecture and Ive appreciated that diversity. When applying a critique to a critique of history, it begins to define personal beliefs or agenda. I agree with something said in class, that we are looking back at history now and deciding what best is applicable for our future. I think this especially applies to the restructuring of the home around technology and media. When looking to the new layouts of the places we live, the central focus is moving from the hearth and kitchen to the TV and living room. But will that last and what is best for maintaining a strong family culture, if that is valued? If architecture is just an institution that fulfills the ideology then it doesnt make much sense to discuss these things because it presupposes we cannot make any difference. I think the architect does have a hand in change if they choose to be aware of themselves as a part of history. And it is no longer a local change, it can be changing a society across the world, but that brings in the question of globalism, and well be talking of that more another day.