The Strive for Modern Housing

                Adolf Loos was a major contributor to the modern style and was a visionary. He looked at the process of designing a home in a very different light which ultimately lead to changes in architecture as well as “influence on the succeeding generation of architects, particularly Le Corbusier” (Colquhoun, 73). Many try to reinterpret his style which has been the cause for many of his ideas being present in the work of today’s architects. One characteristic of his life that lead to the development of his style, among many, was his fascination with everyday objects. He looked at many of the objects in contrast to, “the pretentious inventions of much self-conscious art” (Curtis, 69). It was been understood, or perceived by many that Loos’s designs were just simply white cubes that did not display any ornament and seemed to just have windows cut out with a template. Loos felt as though ornament may not be necessary to the design of a building. One might very well draw these same conclusions upon first glance at the Rufer House built in Vienna, Austria in 1922.

                Not only is the house simple from the exterior but is also simple in structure much like that of the Josef Frank house that was constructed during the Weissenhofsiedlung in Stuttgart, Germany 1927. Both of the houses seem to rely on exterior walls as load bearing structural support for the buildings. It is clear in the Rufer House by Loos that the exterior walls along with the central column are the basic structure. The benefit for Loos in the decision to move the loadbearing walls to the outer reaches of the building was that he was then able to be flexible with the interior walls which allowed him to define a path for the users. On the other hand, Frank’s floor plans seemed to be a little more open on the upper floors of the building.

                In addition to the exterior loadbearing walls, bother of these architects seemed as thought they had similar views on ornament. Much like the first image, Rufer House,  the image of the Josef Frank show the plain, white stucco exterior. This was a common feauture of the Weissenhofsiedlung mainly because the material was very new at the time.  Where Josef differents from Loos is the amount of windows. It is very clear in the elevation of the Frank house that having natural light in the building was important in the design. In contrast, the small and mimimal amount of windows that Loos includes on the façade suggests that Loos what people to focus more on the interior. Although Loos had a method which was similar to that of Baumeister in Hoffmann’s story Councillor Krespel, in which, “the square plan and its random windows which obey the secret rule of interior (Colquhoun, 82).

             The approch that Loos took in designing this house also made for the different in the layout between the Rufer House and the house by Josef Frank.( It is important to note at this point that the building by Frank was not a single residence but a duplex.) The duplex by Josef was very symmetrical in the layout of the floor plan as well as the placement of exterior elements such as the window and balconies. Adlofs plan was clearly not symmetrical and different in layout on every floor where as on the floors on Franks building there was remnents of the previous floor.

                Maybe this then presents the idea that even though each of the buildings had exterior load bearing walls, each architect made the decision for different reasons. Adolf,  in my opion, did this so that he could then have freedom with the interior walls and partions. Frank may have created the strong exterior walls as a boudry for the layout of the interior spaces.

                Many of the ideas present in this text goes to show how to individuals can set out in the same time period, with the same tools at their disposal, be striving for a similar successful residental building, and end up with different buildings that are looked at today for different reasons. Even though the buildings had many similarites, the role of that building and their work play a different role in the development of modern architecture and design practices today.  

Art Nouveau

Viollet-le-Duc Sketch

                Art Nouveau, in terms of architecture, is something that can be described as organic and ornamental with its use of undulating, asymmetrical lines which were often are an imitation of plants, flowers, and the like. Along with the elaborate ornament, Art Nouveau had a way of creating unity between the aesthetics of a design and structure, much like the style of Viollet-le-Duc. Many figures from the Art Nouveau period as well as the period itself are important to the creation of Modern Architecture because it gave rise to a new form of thinking. This new form of thinking during the Art Nouveau can be linked to the attempt to replace classical architecture. There were a number of people that fell into the Art Nouveau style and pushed boundaries and ideas, but, three figures that not only did just this but also paved the road into the Modern Architecture style are Hector Guimard, Hand Van der Veld, and Victor Horta.

                Victor Horta is the first of outstanding architects from the Art Nouveau period and happens to hail from the birth place of Art Nouveau itself, Belgium. Curtis wrote in Modern Architecture: Since 1900 that, “…the architecture of Victor Horta, which seemed a three-dimensional equivalent to the painters’ two-dimensional linear inventiveness."  Horta, who studied under a neoclassical architect, went on to explore the relationship between the natural world and architecture as a whole. It showed in many of Horta’s designs from the exterior to the interior. An example of this which shows Horta’s involvement in the Art Nouveau period and his exploration with organic forms and structure is his first major work, the Tassel House in Brussels.

Tassel House - Horta

Staircase of Tassel House

       

Although Horta’s style seems very free and organic, there is always a sense of formal order in his plans that can be found. Victor’s experimentation with from, structure, and most of all the use of steel is one reason he can be considered as a precedent for the Modern style.

Garden in Kalmhout- Van de Velde

           Next, is Henry Van De Velde who is not only known as an architect but also a painter. Having a background in painting, with nature as the subject of many of his works, it was natural for Henry to fall into the Art Nouveau category. Van De Velde got his start in architecture by designing a house for himself near Brussels. Not only did Van De Velde paint and design buildings, but he also designed furniture. It was his furniture designs for Paris art galleries that are responsible for bringing Art Nouveau to France (all-art.org). Van De Velde’s major contributions to modern style were through his teachings in Germany as well as his depth in interior and furniture designs at Boekentornen University Library in Antwerp.

Banquette - Van de Velde

Boekentoren University Library - Van de Velde

Last but certainly not least, Hector Guimard was part of the French Art Nouveau movement. Much like the two designers mentioned before, Guimard paid special attention to the organic form and the ornament in his designs. In comparison to Horta, Guimard was a pioneer of the Art Nouveau style in France and got inspiration from Viollet-le-Duc.  If fact, as Colquhoun states in his text, “… his allegiance to Viollet-le-Duc was even stronger than that of Horta.” Some of Hector’s earlier works were based off of illustrations made by Viollet-le-Duc.  Also, Guimard designed and was well known for the entrances of the Paris Metro. It is evident in this designs that Hector was making a strong analogy between metal structure and plant form.

Paris Metro - Guimard

It was not long before the time of Hector Guimard, Henry Van de Velde, and Victor Horta that many aspects of a building such as structure, ornament, furniture, and even interior design were considered to be separate parts of a design. In many cases, different ideas were used in the design of each, but, the Art Nouveau movement which was defined by the style and thinking of these designers brought all of these aspects together into a single philosophy. The idea of using structure and ornament together or even using structure as ornament is a characteristic of the Modern style and is seen time and again. It goes without saying that these men were design pioneers of their time and may have been the same for the future.

    

                 

Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-le-Duc

Modern Architecture is a subject that is the most difficult to understand in terms of style and design. Many architects during the 19^th Century struggled to become original in their styles as well as the meaning and thoughts behind the architecture. There are three significant individuals from this time period who had understanding and ideologies that were similar in some aspects but different in others about architecture and the course it would take in the future. John Ruskin, Eugene Viollet-le-Duc, and Gottfried Semper, the main subject of this blog post, all published ideas throughout their lives which are still significant in today’s academic world when try to understand Modern Architecture. The simple reason for this is that their very ideas paved the path into Modern Architecture and a new era of thought and creativity. For the remainder of this post I plan to compare and contrast the beliefs and ideas of Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-le-Duc on the broad subject of Architecture.

Semper, unlike Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc who admired Gothic style architecture, took interest in Greek architecture. During the Greek period, many of the buildings were designed to fit the needs of people during the time which is why Semper took an interest in Greek architecture.  Semper was an advocate of function in a building which is clearly represented in his book, “The Four Elements of Architecture”. The book shares his belief that all buildings should integrate the four elements (hearth, substructure, roof, and enclosure) in order to be functional and fit the needs of people.  Much like Viollet-le-Duc, Semper takes the rational approach to design which differs greatly from the emotional view Ruskin takes on architecture. Semper focuses on structural technology when designing. This does not mean that ornament was foreign in his style.  Semper clearly believed in eclecticism which is evident in his design of the Semper Opera House.

http://travel.roro44.com/europe/germany/Semper_Opera_Dresden_Germany.jpg

As stated before, Ruskin’s preferred choice in architectural style was Gothic which may be one of the only common factors between himself and Viollet-le-Duc. The understanding and reasons that each individual admired the Gothic style was one of the major differences that lead both Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc down separate paths. Viollet-le-Duc admired Gothic architecture for the structural technology which can be considered a rational approach as opposed to Ruskin’s emotional approach. Ruskin credited the ornament and the craftsmanship of the Gothic style as evidence that it can be considered architecture.

Being interest in the structure of the Gothic style, it is easy to see that Viollet-le-Duc was very interested in steel and iron and how it could be incorporated into his designs and restorations. These major two defining characteristics of Viollet-le-Duc are two major subjects that Ruskin opposed greatly. Ruskin believed in stone as the only suitable building material along with a few native materials such as plaster. Material was something that Semper and Ruskin had common beliefs about. Each of them believed that material should always be displayed in its true form and the materials should not be mimicked. Finally, Ruskin, Semper, and Viollet-le-Duc each had different opinions of restoration. Viollet-le-Duc clearly thought that it was a good thing; he felt it was a way to bring part of present day into history. Viollet-le-Duc’s work was mainly restoration and he did not try to restore buildings to their original state, rather he redesigned the parts of the buildings that were lost. Ruskin’s beliefs were simply this, restoring a building is one of the worst forms of devastation a building may encounter. Semper, lastly, lands somewhere in the middle in his approach to restoration. Semper simply tries to bring the building back to life with the same amount of passion and style with minimal change even though there is some occasionally.    

  

Introduction

The purpose of this blog is to discuss ideas presented by authors regarding modern architecture. The readings are a part of the Arch 329 course at Ball State University, History of Architecture II: Modern Architecture 1830-Present. I am currently a 3rd year architecture student at the College of Architecture and Planning. Comments are welcome, thanks.