When talking about modernism, form is a secondary thought when designing a building because functionality is key. Aesthetic appeal is not important in the eyes of a “pure” modernist architect because functionality is the way of the future. Ornate architecture is the thing of the past because obviously the past didn’t work, otherwise we wouldn’t have had the great war. Stirling explains to us the idea of modernism “In the U.S.A., functionalism now means the adaptation to building of industrial processes and products, but in Europe it remains the essentially humanist method of designing to a specific use.” Out of the three buildings: Mies Van der Rohe’s Farnsworth house; Le Corbusier’s Notre Dame du Haute; Alvar Aalto’s Säynätsalo Town Hall, I think that Alvar Aalto’s building has the greatest influence over modern architecture.
“The chapel by Le Corbusier may possibly be the most plastic building ever erected in the name of modern architecture.” Stirling’s opinion of the Notre Dame du Haute is quite just because it is not modern as its form does not follow the function as is seen in most of Le Corbusier’s modern architecture. It is too ornate to be a modernistic building, he generated the form of the roof from the shell of a crab. He is being hypocritical and going against all his past strict guidelines to what a building should be.
Stirling criticises Corbusier’s placement of windows as he thinks they were not well thought out and were erratic. “The scattered openings on the chapel walls may recall de Stijl but a similar expression is also commonplace in the farm buildings of Provence” Whereas Van der Rohe’s building uses modern techniques, like those that should be used in modernism, to create a complete glass facade to emphasise the beautiful views of the whole site. Aalto’s town hall is well thought out though, it has specifically placed openings in the wall to emphasise views and to allow light to enter the building.
The Farnsworth house was a pursuit of an ideal, a pursuit of a minimalistic and functional building. It does this well in the manner that Mies Van der Rohe has successfully expressed his structural columns that support the two planar elements, the floor and roof, just as he did in the Barcelona pavilion. He uses modern techniques, in his joint detailing of the steel columns and beams, of welding the precast beams and welding them down to give them a flush finish. It is ambiguous as to what is load bearing and a viewer of the building may be tricked into thinking that the slender glass elements were supporting the roof. This is unlike the Notre Dame du Haute where one is deceived into thinking that the walls are huge load bearing masonry but in fact the main structure consists of columns which can be seen in the gap between the wall and roof. This was not the only time in the building that Le Corbusier favoured an ornate choice over a functional design, as Stirling reinforces. “These handrails, which appear to be cut-offs from an extruded section of rolled steel joist, are in fact specially cast and the top flange is set at an acute angle to the web. The movable louvre is a logical development in resisting intense sunlight and it is surprising to find them above two of the entrances to the chapel; howewer, a closer inspection reveals that they are 4-inch static concrete fins set at arbitrary angles, suggesting movability.”
The reason that the Farnsworth house cannot be a great influence over modern architecture is because even though it is well thought out and completely modern for its era, it is really not functional. It is built on a flood plain and every year the house is flooded and is not suitable to live in. In contrast Säynätsalo is a very functional building, it is easily segregated into three distinct areas and the different heights of the buildings easily define the different spaces. The functionality of the building is split but it effectively works together to create a community environment. It has the very civic entrance from the north-east but it has a more naturalistic entrance from the south-west. This helps to portray the two sides of the building, the well structured civic part and the more free community areas. “Säynätsalo was a casual building with just a hint of ritual; it was civic without being monumental, and lived between urban and rural worlds.” (Curtis 2010)
Curtis, Willian J. R., Modern Architecture since 1900, London, 2010
Stirling, James, RONCHAMP. Le Corbusier's Chapel and the crisis of rationalism, Architectural Review, 1956
No comments:
Post a Comment