Postmodernism - the DUCK and Decorated Shed

Robert Venturi was the architect who redefined the renowned phrase “less is more” into “less is a bore”. I think it is a refreshing breakout from the era of modernist praise of repetitive glass boxes. His theory of the duck and decorated shed is very valid. The duck form does its function well, very straightforwardly tells you that the construction involves ducks or more frankly sells ducks. Whereas, in the case of the decorated shed, we cannot visualize its function from looking at the building alone. The function of the building is defined by the activity inside but indistinguishable from the outside, so there’s a sign that directly states its function, e.g. eatery. Venturi seemed to be declaring war against modernism; his works all seemed to contradict the rules of modernism. This was clearly visible in the Vanna Venturi House, a house he made for his mother, with elements such as the arch and beam situated above the entrance, which structurally doesn’t support any load but functions as a symbol that signifies an opening, or a chimney that is not in the centre but shifted to the left, or a cut through the gable arch and beam, or windows that are not on the same horizontal plane. Venturi adores ambiguity and I agree with him that everything doesn’t have to be functional structurally; an element can be “both” an ornament “and” be functional, unlike modernist buildings that can only be “either/or”.

Big Donut Drive-in sign in a "decorated shed" - without the sign is it impossible to figure out that the building is a donut drive-through from the exterior

Airspace, Tokyo - "decorated shed"

 Buildings nowadays are mostly decorated shed, containing complicated facades that contradict with simple and factory-like interior because they are built economically, therefore follows Venturi’s idea in being both complicated and contradictory. For example, Airspace in Tokyo, the exterior is a spectacular, complicated, voronoi system of façade, but the inside is a cheap and mundane structure that is used in every building, therefore it is emblematic of Venturi’s decorated shed idea.

In my opinion, his ideas do resonate the idea of ‘erotic’ architecture, because the notion of contradiction teases people with expectancies and luring them in with the attraction of beautiful facades.

Expressionism VS the International Style

As witnessed from the film Playtime by Jacques Tati, modernism had issued the problem of mass-production and an ignorance of traditions and monuments (neo-classicism). A result is a cultural shock, as seen Monsieur Hulot in Playtime, a befuddled Frenchman lost in the new modernity of Paris, which is more repetitive, boring and duller than ever. 

However, the expressionists depart from the International Style. As its name implies it is the art of “expressing”, its form and architecture are very expressive, not static but contains movement and momentum, created by deep voids and curvature. It’s a compromise, containing the essence of pure and simplified modernist forms, but also embraces the past (as a ruin). Unlike the International Style it is ‘not’ starting from zero, rather recreates the architecture of the past, the making of new ‘old’ buildings. For example, the recreation of the Pyramids in the Trenton Bath House in 1954. Not only are they expressive but they can also be functional. Like the auditorium of Alvar Aalto’s Vyborg Library with its waved wood ceiling, both expressionistic and functional, constructed from the woods from the forest seen through the windows of the auditorium, in angulation which serves its acoustics. At times, expressionism might even be more functional than the modernist deals of glass boxes, especially in India where Louis Kahn had built the National Assembly Building. The climate in India really allowed for those simplified buildings with no windows, it was clearly functional. Additionally, the cut sphere was able to express the function of the staircase. On the contrary, the glass box Crown Hall of Mies van der Rohe’s wasn’t suited to the cold climate of Chicago, which created an ice laminated granite floor that is too slippery to walk on. 

Expressionists have a smart approach to functionality and can simultaneously preserve the simplicity and traditions (not denying the past). While in the process they are able to create a more energetic and dynamic architecture than that of the modernists, which is also aesthetically beautiful.

Trenton Bath House in 1954

Alvar Aalto's Vyborg Library auditorium

Mies van der Rohe's Crown Hall, Chicago

Louis Kahn's National Assembly Building, Dhaka, India

Towards a New Architecture & Playtime

an image captured from the film, Playtime by Jacques Tati

Le Corbusier’s Towards a New Architecture

Playtime, a film by Jacques Tati

response

After having read Le Corbusier’s Towards a New Architecture, his architecture, intentions and principles made more sense to me. His forms (mass, surface and plan) are true expressions of functions. His use of primary and simple forms makes his architecture easily beautiful and appreciative. His words are very convincing, as everything seems extremely logical and rational, also in his writing. Even the title of the book itself is persuasive; the word ‘towards’ implies movement, which urged people to open up for a new change. Him having changed his name to Le Corbusier or ‘the module’ also seems to suggest that he’s ‘the standard’ and is encouraging people to copy him. So he showed everyone his ‘spirit of order’ and ‘equality’ in all, or shall we call it mass production. The notion that everyone can be equal because there’s uniform in production, whether for the rich or the poor, is in itself intriguing.

However, the film Playtime by Jacques Tati has brought up a different perspective. I viewed it as an experiment of mass-production of the modernist world. The tone of the film gives a nostalgic sense, because even though it was filmed in colour it looked as though it was a black and white film. It is the same feeling I get towards this new architecture in the film, I am nostalgic towards the old, classic traditions and cultures of Paris. I could not have imagined myself in those scenes, so systematic and machine-like, so dull and boring. Everyone is dressed the same way, look the same way, and act the same way. The same chairs seen everywhere, the posters of different location showed the same building. Even worse, people were referred to by numbers.

Even though the idea of equality is compelling, a mass-produced crowd does not seem like a pleasant society. Everyone and every building shouldn’t lack character and their sense of place. Anyhow, a film is a film, with an exaggeration of this and that particularly in a comedy. Despite Le Corbusier’s ideals of standards and mass production, as seen from his pattern of use of pilotis, flat roof, horizontal windows and free façade on the exterior of his buildings, the interior is an open, free plan – unconventional – unlike what was shown in the film.

ornament of function?

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's Seagram building, 375 Park Avenue, New York City

Seagram building - truely modernist or not? 

Adolf Loos and Mies van der Rohe are true practitioners in modernist architecture. They are engaged in the non-bourgeois ideology, “less is more”, but are not so fond of ornaments (especially Adolf Loos in the book Ornament and Crime that I have responded to in the previous post). Work after work, Mies van der Rohe had been able to successfully execute his intentions into his buildings, whether it is the Farnsworth House in 1951 or the Crown Hall of his modernist institute in Chicago. The true nature of structure and material are always expressed. However, Mies’ Seagram Building is a conflict of his ideals. Mies obviously wanted to stay true to his principles; evidently the Seagram building was probably the only building, which pertained its flat planes without any indentation unlike others in New York, going to the extent of making the window blinds uniform by allowing them at only 3 positions, and adding non-structural I-beams on the outside of the building to show off the hidden. However, those I-beams are dishonest; they are an exaggeration of structure, which are not supposed to be visible on the exterior as bided by the American building codes. This means that the beams are just ornaments, though they look functional, they are not. But like Adolf Loos has mentioned, ornaments are not part of the modernist ideals, why are they there if they cannot function? Can we still say the skyscraper is still a true modernist building? Instead, it might have become more bourgeois than ever.