He influenced modernism’s ambivalence regarding “tradition” and contemporary practice and the importance of technology in modernist design and ideology. This ‘tradition-modernity versus identity’ challange, represents one of the most essential elements in his architectural design and theoretical background of his work. By this, he influenced future generations of architects and paved the path for influential post-war architects as Kenzo Tange, Tadao Ando, and Toyo Ito. Is evident how in Maekawa works, the architectural space and form are being created in relation to architectural identity, in his case, Japanese architectural identity. Maekawa’s interests can be analyse from two sides: firstly from the idea that the creation of a new modern nation as essential to put Japan into the twentieth century.
Venturi also touches on the concept that richness can contrast with clarity, and urges architects to leave the tenets of traditional Modernism behind in pursuit of "truth in its totality," a sort of organic messiness that he perceives as more real and useful than overly planned, hyper-logical Modernist constructions. "Complexity and Contradiction vs. Simplification or Picturesqueness" criticizes "orthodox Modern architects" and their treatment of complexity. Venturi feels that diversity in architecture represents a type of sophistication that is lost in the works of the Modernists. It is in this section that he discusses Mies ' famous lines, "less is more," which he thinks as "less is bore" criticizes for its
One possible solution is that it learned from past experiences from the failure of the excessively pretentious exhibition. Modern culture and art should have an association so that art can defend its existence. For Lyotard, the world is so diversed and fragmented that art cannot possibly claim the knowledge that Habermas suggested. Though it is not easy for the linkages between modern culture and everyday life be established, it is optimistic to have such a thought than to concur with Lyotard’s view that we have to reclaim our position despite we are in a midst of chaos. Both theories do not fight nor compete with one another.
Also, the idea of form-based codes is discussed intensely in the chapters of this book. Another highlight of the book is when the author quotes “Codes must focus on form, not use.” which gives an idea of the comparison between conventional zoning and form–based coding. The author tries to explain that “Even the best master plans are of little use without regulations”. He focuses on the fact that Use-Based Zoning does not consider the built form and every element is a function of use and thus, fail to address the newer developments and no consideration given to how it feels to inhabit these places hampering the effective growth of any
As such, the belief that comprehensible discussion and thought about art is impossible without a categorical definition of it is more or less invalid. The unifying fatal mistake made by most theories, Weitz suggests, is that they fail to recognize art as an open concept—open in the sense of being “perennially flexible”—without any necessary or sufficient conditions surrounding it. Art and its subconcepts cannot be accurately or wholly defined because their criteria must allow for the incorporation of new principles into their folds, and such newly developed principles would make the act of attempting to define their conditions betrayals of the concepts they serve as criteria for in the first place. Weitz further elucidates that although art and its subconcepts are employed for the description and evaluation of works, and those descriptions and evaluations themselves depend upon sets of criteria, that does not make such criteria necessary or sufficient. That these concepts may be used to describe and evaluate works is contingent to their integration of new cases with new properties, thus expanding the concepts
For instance, the bathroom signs that Gombrich uses, prove his point. One cannot put a bathroom sign outside his/her dining room, it won’t make sense. As Gombrich says, “the context alone can make the visual message unambiguous even without the use of words.” (p. 46). This implies that the context is a strong tool for understanding the potentialities of the images. As an interesting note, Gombrich reminds us that artists sometimes intend to convey particular message but because their work of art lacks the context, caption and code, are unable to convey it which might lead to what seems like a wrong interpretation.
Less is Bore Modernism movement had transformed with the clear ambition of improving people’s lives, however, it was in direct conflict with the spirit of 70s. For example, modernist architects aimed to find the perfect building that could serve any person, any function, and in any location. The clean lines on architecture of modernism was basically directed to be a perfectly engineered blank canvas for life. The people of the 70s, however, viewed modernist architecture as an oppressive, one-size-fits-all solution to the richly varied complexities of life. Furthermore, characteristics of modernist (rejecting historicism and ornamentation) have pushed both designers and architect to create building and design with the exact opposite characteristics which produced what we called as Postmodernism.
Modern architects were trying to create to improve people’s living quality and a better society or community however none of the utopia city was successfully built or still remain until now. The word utopia was coined by Sir Thomas More from the Greek language for his 1516 book Utopia (in Latin), describing a fictional island society in the Atlantic Ocean. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities (Anon., n.d.). Hence, in this essay I’m going to prove that modern architecture often failed to achieve utopia because it alienated the society it was designing for with analysis of buildings. The main reason why Utopian City failed because lost of freedom.
I strove to improve my skills in reading artworks and being articulate in discussing their meanings. I was drawn to the concept of how art interacted with architecture. Even though art and architecture are fundamentally based on visuals, architecture is always functional in some way, whereas art can be created simply for the sake of
Firstly it is not based on evidence from plays and secondly it is self contradictory. The inherent contradiction in Johnson’s criticism of Shakespeare’s moral aspect becomes evident. He emphasizes the role of literature to be morally instructive as it should bring positive change in man’s life. Meanwhile, he also wants the writer to present human nature vividly, truthfully and clearly. We know that life in reality gives no obvious moral lessons to the observer.