autonomous ARTkitecture
I enjoy art quite a bit, and it is interesting, and not unusual to draw comparisons between architecture and art, as they are both a creative endeavor. However, the discussion of autonomous and projective architecture is one that I find quite easy to parallel to the art world. Many people find Modern expressionist art to be "something their kid could do" or "a cat threw up on the canvas" while art lovers adore the streaks of color, paint, and splotch on the floor and wall, and seek to find meaning in a specific shade of red against a tiny spot of blue in one corner.
When we view a Kandinsky painting, or a Pollock it is hard not to project our own emotions onto the canvas with the paint, and attempt to find meaning in what we see, but in reality, very little of what we see has anything to do with what the artist may, or may not have intended. (In fact, most of these paintings that we see and enjoy, including the two above are titled "untitled" this shows what the artist was truly thinking of their work) This in my mind is very similar to the work of an autonomous architect.
Specifically during our discussion on Tuesday, when the Jewish Museum Berlin was brought up several people had interpreted that the gashes in the facade were reminiscent of the scars on the Jewish people, and how inside of the space there is but a sliver of light entering through these gashes, "such that even in the darkest moments where you feel like you will never escape, a small trace of light restores hope." (Evan Pavka archdaily).Yet in Liebeskind's own description of the project, there is no description of this, in fact all that we get is a cold geometric description of the spaces and axial relationships.
I have no preference between autonomous and projective architecture, but my point is simply this if a building is designed, then reasons must be there for its appearance, or reasons will be made for its appearance. people like logic that they can understand, maybe that is the true beauty behind autonomous architecture, it gives its viewers the opportunity to determine its purpose, and spares the architect the trouble of creating it.
When we view a Kandinsky painting, or a Pollock it is hard not to project our own emotions onto the canvas with the paint, and attempt to find meaning in what we see, but in reality, very little of what we see has anything to do with what the artist may, or may not have intended. (In fact, most of these paintings that we see and enjoy, including the two above are titled "untitled" this shows what the artist was truly thinking of their work) This in my mind is very similar to the work of an autonomous architect.
Specifically during our discussion on Tuesday, when the Jewish Museum Berlin was brought up several people had interpreted that the gashes in the facade were reminiscent of the scars on the Jewish people, and how inside of the space there is but a sliver of light entering through these gashes, "such that even in the darkest moments where you feel like you will never escape, a small trace of light restores hope." (Evan Pavka archdaily).Yet in Liebeskind's own description of the project, there is no description of this, in fact all that we get is a cold geometric description of the spaces and axial relationships.
I have no preference between autonomous and projective architecture, but my point is simply this if a building is designed, then reasons must be there for its appearance, or reasons will be made for its appearance. people like logic that they can understand, maybe that is the true beauty behind autonomous architecture, it gives its viewers the opportunity to determine its purpose, and spares the architect the trouble of creating it.
Well said - the parallel between art and architecture when it comes to "autonomous" vs. "projective" is applicable. I always find it fascinating to read the description next to paintings in the museums to understand the artist's rationale, which is often quite brilliant.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right on when you state autonomous architecture gives the viewer the opportunity to determine its purpose. I (as most know) am a Daniel Libeskind FREAK and have spent some time studying his buildings (a majority which are museums or memorials... a story telling art to begin with) and I wanted to pull in a quote which is on the walls in the Jewish Museum from Libeskind himself to tie in your statement about
ReplyDeleteautonomous architecture: "What is important is the experience you get from it. The interpretation is open."
I have to disagree that the indeterminate aspect of autonomous architecture is a positive. I don't believe that the architect is 'giving' any opportunities to the users, but rather, requiring that the user attempts to make sense of a non-existent rationale. To your point of modern art, and 'something [a] kid could do': I'm reminded of Picasso's early work. He was extremely talented as a young teen, when he produced many beautiful paintings. But then cubism happened... Yes, he was still the same talented artist, but that does not mean that the work he produced later in life was of equal quality.
ReplyDeleteI never really considered this parallel between art and architecture. It is true that both art forms have an ability to transcend emotions and interpretations, more so in the post-modern era. Do you consider this to be a strength or just simply the way it is? Personally I think that open interpretations have their challenges, sometimes people might take an interpretation that you either weren't considering or maybe not knowingly executing, sometimes these can be negative connotations. I was surprised, then later not, to discover that this building had less intention on experience and more on a rigor to a form and structure. I think the experience is a produce of the rigor, I haven't been able to experience this building though so I am going based on other's comments as well as photos I've seen.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a great point. I think a lot us in class, including myself, were too quick to dismiss autonomous architecture as an arbitrary method of creating complex forms. We overlooked a lot of the value that it has as a interpretive form for its different users
ReplyDelete