Modern Architectural Movements and Materiality

The development I want to trace through the emergence of modern architecture is materials.  The advancement in technologies and new materials led to new abilities to create larger spans and different forms.  Different materials led to varying characteristics between styles, resulting in a strong contrast between 1880 and 1930.  The difference is design comparing before and after steel was easily accessible is amazing to study.  Within these modern architecture movements, materiality is one of the main contributors to change.

Beginning in the Arts and Crafts movement, wood was dominant. Everything was detailed in decorated hand crafted wood.  The ideology behind the Arts and Crafts movement did not allow for the advancement and use of new technologies.  The acceptance of industrialization being evil prevented this movement from carrying into the future.  I think there are a lot of sound ideas from this movement, but its inability to adapt new technologies limits it.  If this movement carried the same concepts with the new materials, I think there would have been a lot of promise for the movement.  Imagine what hand crafted steel or concrete could look like.  It is hard to even visualize because we are so used to the machine made materials.  We know of some examples of how flexible concrete can be.  Maybe with some effort, a same methodology can be achieved with steel.  For the Arts and Crafts movement, I feel the ideology is strong but it is limited by the material strictness.

 http://www.achome.co.uk/architecture/pictures/wm1.jpg

The thought I had above about the Arts and Crafts movement can start being seen in the Art Nouveau movement.  The use of iron metal work is roughly what I was describing was missing from the Arts and Crafts movement.  By accepting industrial methods of production, the Art Nouveau movement was able to create more unique shapes that could be mass produced.  This allowed the iron forms to be used more frequently during the time period.  Back to my idea of the materials being what created new architectural movements; I believe the characteristics of metal are what defined this movement.  The ability to create thin, flowing, and nature inspired forms allowed the characteristics of the Art Nouveau movement to be shown.  This movement would not have been the same using wood or concrete.  I believe the movement was brought about and accepted due to the characteristics of the metal used.

http://urban.csuohio.edu/~sanda/pic/travel/belgium/brussels/brus01/an/horta/907brushorta901.jpg

The Amsterdam Expressionism movement was also based around a material.  The strongest characteristic of this movement is the way it used brick in a fluid or plastic way.  This façade method characterized the entire movement.  Again, like the other movements already discussed, this characteristic only works with brick.  The modularity of brick allows for infinite number of small changes creating a large effect on the façade.  Other materials at the time would not allow for the plasticity that brick provided.  Thus again, the materials used defined the characteristics of a movement.

http://www.iamsterdam.com/~/media/Oud/Amsterdam_School.jpg?mw=510&crop=1

The next movement that falls into my idea of materials defining movements is the Bauhaus movement.  This movement was all about transparency, clean and simple forms, and structure being expressed.  These characteristics are all accomplished with the use of steel and glass.  Transparency can be created with the less massive steel structure with glass fitting between the columns.  Simple forms are created with the grid work needed to make steel structure most successful.  Steel structure is also one of the easiest structures to architecturally express within the design.  No other material has all of these characteristics the way steel does.

http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/80/flashcards/1506080/jpeg/dessau_05-0041335843454386.jpeg

From all of the examples I discussed above, I go back to my idea of movements came about because of new materials.  I don’t think materials were chosen based on the characteristics desired, but rather the other way around.  The materials chosen defined the modern architectural movements.  Movements died out once the next material was available to be used for production.  Once iron was controllable, wood was no longer as desirable due to the forms iron could make.  When brick was able to be used to make these plastic forms, iron was no longer as useful or special so architecture went to the plastic brick.  The same is true for once steel was understood and available.  No one needed plastic brick forms once steel forms were available.  This method of advancement from one movement to the next makes me believe material choice is the main decider in the characteristics and ideology behind that movement.

This makes me wonder what the next movement might be.  What material can come around that can trump what steel currently does for us.  Maybe it is a new use of steel.  We discussed in class the use of digital fabrication.  This allows for all sorts of new materials to be created to serve basics functions called for by digitally fabricated forms.  

Antoni Gaudi

Antoni Gaudi was an architect from the late 19^th century carrying into the 20^th century working primarily in Spain.  His architectural style varied from those that came before him mainly in the plasticity of his work.  Gaudi took traditional stone materials and used them in a new plastic way to create forms not used before with those materials.  Movement is created in his buildings by using flowing forms rather than hard, flat surfaces.

In Antoni Gaudi’s design of Park Guell many examples of using stone as a plastic element can be seen.  Benches, bridge supports, building facades, and ornamentation are all decorated stone objects in plastic forms.  Gaudi also was a firm believer in the use of color with these decorative forms.  He used color to make the ornamentation stand out and grab attention.  The use of forms and color make the park a much expressed space.  Every person who enters the park can experience it a different way. 

http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/jpgs/barcelona/parc_guell_gaudi_6.jpg

http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/Park_Guell.html/cid_park_guell_skm_002.html

The buildings Gaudi designed also express the new style of designing. Inspired by the arts and crafts movement, Gaudi’s buildings had an individual hand crafted feel to them.  Forms in his buildings, just as in Park Guell, used stone in a plastic way.  Facades appear to be waves of stone flowing across the building.  This can be seen in his building Casa Mila in Barcelona, Spain. 

http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/Casa_Mila.html/cid_aj1076_b.html

These forms display Gaudi’s interest in keeping the spirit of the building alive.  This can be related back to the arts and crafts movement, specifically to Ruskin from the earlier 19^th century.  Ruskin was a strong believer in the spirit of the building as well.  His mentality kept the craftsmen as the most important aspect of the design.  To Ruskin, the beauty of a design could be found in the details of how the architecture is put together.  This definitely relates to Gaudi’s work as well.  His design process did not typically involve a floor plan until late into the project allowing him the freedom to focus on the details without restrictions.  Both of these designers had the philosophy of creating spaces that create emotion among the occupants. 

It is no surprise these two designers were so similar.  Gaudi followed Ruskin’s philosophy and just, in my opinion, improved upon it.  While Ruskin put more emphasis on ornamentation within the structure, Gaudi focused on using the structure as the ornamentation. The way in which Gaudi formed his columns, walls, and ceilings allowed the details to be expressed within the structure and building without having to  add extra ornamentation.  Ruskin differs in this area as he would add to a space leaving the structure of the building rather simple other than where people could interact with it. 

After studying both Ruskin and Gaudi, I can appreciate the groundwork Ruskin did to allow Gaudi to have the success that he did.  Antoni Gaudi’s designs are very similar to Ruskin’s designs when placed side by side as seen below.

http://bored-bored.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/antoni-gaudi-architecture-building.jpg

http://venice.umwblogs.org/files/2008/12/ruskin-41.jpg

The difference between the two comes when Gaudi takes Ruskin’s ideas to the next level by using the very detailed approach into the structure of the forms.  By using plastic forms in his designs, Gaudi separated himself from Ruskin by adding an extra element to his approach.  I don’t think Gaudi could have done this as successfully if Ruskin had not laid down the groundwork earlier in that century.  Ruskin’s philosophy on architecture must have impacted Gaudi and helped him with his designs.

In today’s world we view Gaudi’s work as iconic.  His designs are some of the most visited in the world.  I think they are so well respected because of the amount of detail involved in the designs.  The more we moved away from this style, the less attention we give to the use of structure as an expression of detail.  We don’t design thinking of what forms stones can take and how that can enhance a space when put together, but rather we design with a mentality that resonates more with Ruskin in that we decide what detail we can add to a simple structural system. 

After studying Gaudi, I think architects can take more away from his approach for the buildings of today.  Just as Gaudi applied curves to stonework, architects today could explore what forms more modern materials can take.  We could replace Gaudi’s stone with steel, concrete, or even wood structures.  Who knows what we could find if we explored the expression of a material the way Gaudi did.  Using materials in new ways is a great opportunity to discover a new style to apply to architecture and I for one plan to attempt this in my studio work.