"Hot" or "Cold"; Warmer, Warmer, Cooler!
It comes as no surprise when I say architecture comes in many variations. Modernism, deconstructivism, and projectivism have been the focus of discussion. Each presents a path forward for architecture, but each is flawed in application. Modernism (critical architecture) has utopic dreams that ultimately distance the occupant from the rest of society. Deconstructivism withdraws from thinking of the user, and instead, thinks about the formal relationship and geometry as an architectural language. This of course neglects the user’s experience. Projectivism realizes the potential in context (municipalities, budget, client, etc.) but exists within them instead of intervening to provide a better solution. As explained in Notes around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism by Robert Somol and Sarah Whiting, critical architecture in many cases is considered “hot” in that it aims to be different, and strong in presence, for example, Wright’s Usonian houses. “Cool” architecture, on the other hand, presents a reserved, contextual approach with intricacy and intentionality to program organization, for example, Koolhaas’s Casa da Música. Like the children’s game of Warmer, Cooler, I wonder if the profession of architecture is warmer or cooler to finding a thoughtful approach within the profession of architecture when it is practicing a more “hot” or “cool” architecture?
I couldn't help but think of the Katy Perry song, "Hot & Cold" when I read this.....nothing quite commits in a way that is entirely satisfying I agree with your critique of Modernism, Deconstructivism, and Projectivism. I find it interesting that all three believe that there is an ultimate answer to a problem, and they feel very strongly that such a problem can only be solved by tearing down what came before them. This as opposed to pre-modern architecture which continued to build upon each previous form/discipline of architecture. Reminds me of a pendulum, when one method is working, they quickly turn 180 to self-correct.
ReplyDeleteI find myself wondering why the terms of "hot" and "cold" architecture exist. The idea of using them to categorize seems simple as in "this is hot or this is cold" but the reasoning is so much deeper. At this time and age you cant just look at a building and see if its hot or not because of the way contemporary architecture is heading. I think of the Seattle Public Library by Koolhaas and from an exterior you would think this is something very outward for the sake of outwardness but when you actually look into the programatic design and reasoning, the project is very user based. The line between the two terms is becoming more and more blurry with every passing day.
ReplyDelete