Ruminations on Postmodernism in A minor

Full disclosure, this has nothing to do with music and the title is misleading--Despite the picture that gets painted by the readings and conversations in this class, I can still really only guess at the full context behind the conception and perpetuation of some particular postmodernist approaches to architecture (specifically referring to those which are geometrically driven like the Wexner Center). I am neither in complete support of it, nor fully against it, but am interested in it mainly to understand where it came from and why it seemed so appealing to architects and clients alike. I am intrigued simply by knowing it happened at a large scale, am highly critical of the functional and aesthetic qualities of the buildings it produced, and yet hold slight regard for the success of formal application of architecturally contrived principles that were deployed to bring these buildings into existence. I mean “success” here in the selling of ideas and principles and turning them into a building. Bringing buildings to fruition has to be immensely more challenging than we ever seem to give it credit for, and this seems to be a point of view almost always overlooked in the critiques of buildings. So let’s not discount the skill, confidence, and competence of the postmodern architects in their ability to manifest their visions (for better or worse).

To crudely relate it to contemporary conversations-- there are many clients who fail to see the necessity of energy efficiency and low-carbon construction methods today despite our dire need to mitigate carbon emissions. To them, the notion of spending thousands more for alternative “greener” buildings may seem as absurd as the extreme cantilevers of the Denver Art Museum or the firm adherence to the orthogonal expression in the Wexner Center. How is it then, did the arguments of postmodernism gain such a strong bearing on the architectural industry while ecologically sensitive design and high performance standards still waver in uncertainty, doomed to forever be determined of their significance on a project by project basis?


Perhaps herein lies the significance of form. While form following function is thoroughly debunked, to believe in its free-flowing nature to the extent of the extreme postmodernists is very novel, although unrealistic for scalable changes in the urban fabric. What lacks form is arguments for performance, “green” building techniques, and an objective desire to diminish the carbon footprint of buildings while maintaining functional and aesthetically pleasing space. Without form these arguments are implicit. Without form many of these arguments become diminished and many fall flat. We are entering a paradigm shift in which our visioning of form is perhaps changing, departing from the physical in totality, while also taking on a set of criteria that are somewhat ethereal and intangible by nature. How, as architects, do we reconcile these--how do we re-establish a significance of form? Perhaps criticality should not be in power, projectivity should be more bounded, and the physical making of the building and the performance is manifested in more benign and less-objectionable forms (think in terms of relating new forms to vernacular precedents). But I’m not sure. But I do believe that having criticality not with our designs, but as Whiting says, from within the architectural field is the key to moving forward. Something must be defined and made very specific to have an impact, which is what needs to be done with our arguments on form. Having an attitude as a designer which allows active engagement with the world rather than the attitude of permanent resistance will be paramount moving forward. We have established that our diagrams are excellent tools for specifying what it is we care about in architecture. For the contemporary architect, they are the weapons of choice. Perhaps the next question is deciding what it is we collectively choose to point our diagrams at.