Architecture: A Conversation Between Past and Present

    Architecture has never existed in a vacuum. While architectural thinkers like Eisenman have participated in architectural experimentation in paper architecture, their ideas are not generated without prior context, critiques, or dialogues. Architecture has and always will be a subject of conversation with both the past and the present. Throughout history, most forms of architecture have been generated as either complements or critiques of past works. Whether it's the craftsmen vs. the machine, historicism vs. modernism, or the duck vs. the decorated shed, architecture arises from the juxtapositions of these different architectural approaches. 

    One of the most significant forces of contention in architecture is how to create meaning. The approach depends on the architect's philosophy and beliefs about the world. Tafuri hits on this point: 

"Today, he who wishes to make architecture speak is thus forced to resort to materials devoid of all meaning; he is forced to reduce to degree zero every ideology, every dream of social function, every utopian residue. In his hands, the elements of the modern architectural tradition are all at once reduced to enigmatic fragments—to mute signals of a language whose code has been lost—shoved away haphazardly in the desert of history" (Tafuri 148)."

Historically, architecture has relied on materials to convey emotion and feelings. Materials play a significant role in the image that the architect is trying to create. I am not sure I am convinced by Tafuri's critique of modern architecture. I understand his point to the extent that materials used to be linked to specific places. For example, wood and log cabin construction is native to the Appalachian region, while red brick is more customary to the neighborhoods of Boston. An architect most likely would not place a log cabin in the streets of a city because it does not respond to the history and meaning of the place. However, successful cases can be made where the purposeful juxtaposition of local materials speaks much louder than conforming to the local history and landscape.

The Jewish Museum Berlin by Daniel Libeskind

    The Jewish Museum in Berlin is a prime example of a modern approach to speaking volumes about an important historical subject. The materials of the Jewish Museum certainly are not conventional in terms of the local history, but the history is not lost in this building. Libeskind creates a sensory experience that conveys the emotions of a solemn subject. He purposefully creates a cold and uncomfortable space to relay his message without the need for language. It is easy to see how this building responds to Tafuri's own thinking, proving that modern materials have not destroyed architectural tradition but have enhanced and created new and evolving approaches to architecture.