Abstracting the Hell out of Architecture


The palpable juxtaposition between Denise Scott Brown’s review of Las Vegas and Rem Koolhass’s evaluation of New York City converges in a moment of expected insanity.  Their non-critical approach to architecture tore down any remaining barrier preventing the master craftsman from devolving into absurdity.  It stands to reason that the reluctant-to-be-named ‘Post Modernist’ chose Las Vegas, the love child of that fantastically terrible philosophy, as the archeological dig site of her non-critical approach.  Sin City, proven popular by the parading masses, demonstrates that a caricature of the old order may suffice, and surpass the base desires of the populous.  By treating the Neon Capital of the World with the utmost seriousness, Denise Scott Brown abstracted that symbolism, rather than form, would rule the day.  

Koolhaas begins at a much different place, but reaches the same conclusion.  Embracing Post Modernism much more readily, he uses lessons learned from the congestion of New York to flip barriers of program on its head.  Rather than containing abstract programs within custom building forms, he materializes program itself while at the same time removing all formal methods for ordering them.  What remains is an unrecognizable and inhuman blob of materials seemingly mixed together at random.  Observers would not be able to tell the difference between a Rem Koolhaas building and a pile of refuse.  Interestingly enough, Koolhaas admits this himself in his article Junkspace stating that, “Junkspace is the sum total of our current achievement…It was a mistake to invent modern architecture for the twentieth century. Architecture disappeared in the twentieth century.” Now all that remains is ugliness and a couple of Roman Columns.



Comments

  1. Sean,
    I greatly appreciate your juxtaposition of these images. I'm unable to view buildings like the Taipei Performing Arts Center as beautiful. There is something unnatural about the form and proportions of the building as if it is ignoring the human scale and gravity. The angled columns holding up the sphere greatly take away from the beauty in the form and reveal how architecture cannot deny gravity. These columns do not look designed, but installed. In comparison, the buildings of ancient Rome use human scale and gravity to enhance the design. What are the odds that this sphere is still suspended in 1,000+ years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comment! I 100% agree with everything you said. Emily and I pointed out the very same columns holding up the sphere.

      Delete
    2. So I usually agree with most of what you and Taylor have said. I'm all for architecture that considers human scale and being realistic with gravity, not just designing something to look cool. So I'm shocked that I'm actually going to play devil's advocate for this building. In class, it was mentioned that the program of the sphere, IMAX, needed to have a spherical shape. I think it's interesting that they actually kept it as such rather than covering it up with just another cube. Had they just made another cube box we couldn't even be roasting this building today.

      Delete
    3. That's a great point about it's function! And I totally agree with the proposition that a IMAX theater (or similar program) may want to creatively express the form of its program. I think my issue with this particular form is that the composition is itself off-putting. I think its interesting in the same way that looking at a car wreck is interesting....you cannot help but stare no matter how awful it looks. Like a child banging disharmonious notes on a piano, this building screams "look at me, I'm here and I defy all rules of harmony, proportion, and common sense." To your point, I totally think that a spherical program form could exist. Just offhand, I'm thinking of the Buckminster Fuller inspired designs, but I see something very different in Rem's design.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts