Adolf Loos and Weissenhofsiedlung Exhibit

This blog will contrast the development of an Adolf Loos project and a Peter Behren project from the Weissenhofsiedlung exhibiton. Both of whom influenced the modernist movement greatly.

Adolf Loos preferred the use of rectilinear and volumetric designs and was little affected by Art Nouveau. Loos admired simple, direct architecture of modern engineering. “He declared: ‘To seek beauty not only in form and not in ornament is the goal to which all humanity is striving” (Curtis, 70). Many believed that Adolf’s works were merely white cubes with simple cutouts in them for windows (which is evident in the picture below). He believed that ornament should be done away with and that the architectural qualities were allowed to emerge unadorned. Loos was fascinated with everyday objects and he used those to influence his architecture.

The Villa Muller was designed in Prague in 1930 exemplifies best his application of his “Raumplan,” or spatial planning.  This planning placed rooms at different levels to create unique diagonal views that can be framed with openings placed in the walls.

Circulation in Villa Muller

Mies van der Rohe was asked by the Deutscher Werkbund to oversee a design on a brow overlooking Stuttgart. Mies also got help from Walter Gropius, Victor Bourgeois, and Le Corbusier. He was to design a major exhibition in which his overall site plan represented the form of the terrain with laid out blocks of different sizes.

Weissenhofsiedlung

The work of Peter Behren was similar to Loos’ in that he often used a more geometrical design, although he tried to stay more universal in his design. Visually they were also similar in their plain colors and limited cut outs. Although in Behren’s work in the Weissenhofsiedlung exhibition, he contrasts Loos by using similar floors, rather than the split-level plans. Not only does Peter make use of geometric shapes as an overall design for the building, but he also incorporates it into the floor plans.

Terrassenhaus- Peter Behrens

Both architects imply the use of little ornament and attempt to present form and function as an ornament in itself. I believe both are successful in doing so by creating their spaces around the specific functions of the house. The abstract uses of volumes certainly influence many of architects today.

Curtis, William J.R. Modern Architecture Since 1900. 3rd ed. New York: Phaidon, 2011. Print. 

Images courtesy of Google Images

Art Nouveau

Art Nouveau

Appearing in the early 1880s, Art Nouveau was a response to the technological advances following the Industrial Revolution and the radical changes caused by the rapid urban growth. It was said that Art Nouveau was actually considered the first stage of the development of modern architecture in Europe. This movement strongly reacted against the Beaux-Arts classicism movement. The intentions of the Art Nouveau artists was to capture and combine the airiness and lightness of glass and metal construction, along with environmental inspirations. Most believe that Art Nouveau first began with graphics and decorative arts. The most prevalent architects that helped sculpt the new movement and familiarize others to this new art were Victor Horta, Henry Van der Velde, and Hector Guimard.

Interior View of Hotel Tassel

Victor Horta made his architecture known as a three-dimensional equivalent to the painters’ two-dimensional linear creativity. Horta began his career by studying both art and architecture at his local academy in Belgium. His first projects included house designs in Brussels. He then constructed the Hotel Tassel in 1892, which was known for its “synthesis of architecture and the decorative arts and it declaration of new formal principles.”

Like Viollet-le-Duc, Horta was inspired by natural forms in which he used for metal ornament, while also emphasizing direct use of modern materials. He sensed his feelings of natural forms along with foreign and fresh ideas.

As Victor Horta grew older, he rarely achieved his freshness. This made an opening for the introduction of another Belgian artist to continue the style into the twentieth century. Henry Van der Velde carried on this new movement with his more theoretical turn of mind. Before architecture, Van der Velde was a painter and was influenced by Impressionists, social-realism imagery, and the paintings of Gauguin. He believed that Art Nouveau designers aim for their projects to be “the total work of art,” meaning that everything in the building would have the same visual characteristics as the building itself.

Castel Beranger- Gate Detail

As the word of the new movement spread, it finally made its way to France where Hector Guimard introduced designs for the Paris Metro in 1900. He used natural forms to create arches and iron furnishings, much like Viollet-le-Duc’s Gothic Rationalism. Guimard attempted to reinterpret this movement in his own personal way. In the Paris Metro he made use of delightful curvature of naturalistic forms for the entrance. He first experimented the new style in his design of the Castel Beranger in Paris, France.

Guimard's Paris Metro

These three designers helped to make Art Nouveau more than a change in architectural dress, and more than just a system of decoration. Each artist attempted to represent a social vision and enhance the establishment he built, and builders in the future, in his own way. Architectures anatomy and spatial character was greatly transformed due to these three men.

Semper, Ruskin, Viollet-le-Duc

Semper, Ruskin, Viollet-le-Duc

Gottfried Semper, John Ruskin, and Eugene Viollet-le-Duc made use of their architectural and theoretical knowledge to introduce ideas leading to Modern Architecture in the 19^th Century.  This blog post will give insight to thoughts of Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-de-Luc. It will identify main points in each theory and discuss works created by them.

Gottfried Semper had a neutral aspect to his studies and often linked socio-political conditions to his theories. Semper believed that style be seen as a reflection of socio-political conditions. His goals about spatial configuration may be distinguished and understood by socio-political contexts and conditions. This meaning that form is persuaded by that time, as opposed to forms of the past. Through this theory, he developed  “The Four Elements of Architecture,” which aim to classify systematically architectural forms as typologies that are: “Hearth,” “Substructure,” “Roof,” and “Enclosure.” These can be classified as the social nucleus, to raise the hearth from the damp ground, to protect the fire, and to keep out the elements. Semper’s idea that the roof and its supports are a continuous element led to the design of the curtain wall. By doing this, Semper may have been trying to create a base for architectural forms to be more clearly defined into familiar styles, while also being able to give meaning to the classified groups. Gottfried Semper worked on written work for the later part of his life called, “Der Still.” The goal of this writing was to understand and clarify process. It later became mistakenly understood to advocate materialism and functionalism.

Semper Opera House

John Ruskin does not agree with Semper about forms deriving from construction. Ruskin rejected the classical tradition in architecture, similar to Semper’s, as repressive standardization lacking moral value. Rather, he emphasized the importance of a nature and natural form. His thoughts were influenced by religion, mixing aesthetics and morality. The natural forms relate to his ideas about preservation. This belief influenced the distinction between conservation and restoration of old buildings. He was against restoration because he believed the history of the building would be removed if restored. Therefore, he believed that buildings should be preserved. By restoring a buildings form, not only is the initial intent of the architect jeopardized, but also is the overall aesthetic of the building. Ruskin said, “…it is impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture.”

Eugene Viollet-le-Duc focused mainly on architectural restoration, which completely contradicted John Ruskin’s thoughts. He was often strongly criticized due to his choices of restoration.  His architecture was known to be out of character of the current styles, as he believed in creating complete form although they may have never existed. The Carcassonne restoration is considered to be interpretive and not strongly authentic. This can be considered a renewal, which contradicts to Ruskin’s idea of preserving architecture. Viollet-le-Duc’s general policy of restoration is a free interpretation of a building.

Finished reconstruction of Carcassonne by Viollet-le-Duc

After comparing Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-le-Duc, it is clearly observed that they have different thoughts and reasoning’s for architecture.