The Arts and Crafts movement counters industrialization by emphasizing the value of handmade craft. The movement is characterized by detailed craftsmanship of ordinary materials like wood. Color schemes commonly included earth tones. The exteriors typically had steep roofs, and the interiors were composed of defined rooms and fireplaces.All of these elements can be found in William Morris's Red House.
The Red House, William Morris
Personally, I disagree with the ideals of the arts and crafts movement. Rather than avoiding industrialization, I think there is a way to incorporate it into good design. Not that craftsmanship is not important, but there has to be a way to balance craftsmanship with new methods and materials. On the other hand, they have a point about the decreasing quality of goods being produced. For example, people are not willing to pay for a solid piece of hand crafted furniture, when they can get a similar piece of lesser quality for less money.
Art Nouveau (1890)
Art Nouveau opposes the arts and crafts movement by accepting industrial methods in production. Materials such as iron were mass produced and used in ornate sinuous lines inspired by forms in nature. Ornament should be subordinate to the organization of the plane surface. The object became part of a single organic entity rather than aggregate of a composition of separate parts as in classical tradition. Also, the accepted boundary between ornament and form became blurred.
Paris Metro Station, Hector Guimard
I would say that I am more for Art Nouveau than Arts and Crafts. Architecture really started to begin mixing art and architecture. They looked at ornamentation in a new way, incorporating new materials in new methods of organization.
Amsterdam Expression- Berlage (1900)
While the Arts and Crafts and Art Nouveau celebrated ornamentation, Amsterdam Expression featured severe facades with discrete ornamentation. The focus was to better society through contact with the arts stressing individuality. Buildings integrated natural and steel materials and plasticity in brick to express ideas. The plans were based on function and organized around the structure.
While I can appreciate the combination of new and old materials and idea of organizing plans around structure and function, I do not know if I agree with the driving concept of stressing individuality. Im not sure individuality is really a way to bettering society. I think collaboration is better, where the Amsterdam school advocated this individuality.
FLW (1888-1959)
Frank Lloyd Write's theory was that pure design showcased truth in materials. He focused on geometric principles. He was strongly influenced by Asian architecture. He liked to hide the entrances and strongly control views. The plans spatial organization was discrete, but private and public spcaes were well defined. Write was very detail oriented. He worked with interior wood work, stained glass, and brick and designed furniture for these spaces.
Robie House
I really enjoy Writes ideals and theories; however, I'm not sure I would like to live in his spaces. His details and use of materials make spaces seem dark and congested. Maybe it's different in real life than in the pictures or in my mind. His designs seem functional, but in a different way than what I typically imagine. I view function as open and clean, where I think Write thought about it by defining public and private and setting a mood.
Falling Water
De Stijl (1917-31)
The De Stijl movement was the first to related abstraction in art to architecture. The focus was on the internal whole and the experience in the relations of volumes of space. The grid was introduced to generate plans and elevations. The reference to natural objects that the Art Nouveau movement created, was eliminated. Instead, harmony is emphasized as well as the plasticity of interior space. Machine made materials create 3D orthogonal spaces with simple planes and no ornamentation. Architects worked with artists and strategically placed bright primary colors throughout spaces. Each facade is distinctive, because individual planes wrap to create the form of the buildings.
Reitveld
Even though many people have issues with the simplicity of the De Stijl movement, I would have to disagree. I enjoy the basic principles of the movement. I like that there is less concept involved, and that it's centered around designing space and planes rather than ornamentation. I agree with the collaboration between artists and architects as opposed to the notion that the Amsterdam school promoted.
Futurism (1909-16)
In Futurism, tradition is totally abandoned. The development of new technology plays a role in conception of architecture. Powerful futuristic buildings were the result of industrial monumentality. Like Expression and De Stijl, art and design are strongly integrated to produce a total design; however, futurism used strong ugly colors and large masses. Commonly used materials include steel, glass, reinforced concrete, fibers and other manufactured materials. The importance of the facade is diminished and everything becomes about creating architecture for a new age but changing/ revolutionizing.
Russian constructivism (1920-30'3)
Russian constructivism is all about the superiority of the nation state. Constructivism takes a revolutionary stance in concepts of art and architecture. Materials that are commonly used include glass, metal, and concrete. It is surprematist and attempts to dominate others in architectural form. Buildings have strong verticality and function to contain masses at a crowded scale. Theatre was an important spatial form along with propaganda. Because it was politically influenced, replacement of the individual identity with the utopian ideal of socialist commune state occurs.
Bauhaus (1920-36)
In Bauhaus, the larger goal is to integrate art forms with architecture. Design emerges as a concept and a way expressing a new society. Bauhaus has a utopian stance on formation with high public exposure and social encounter engineering. Steel, glass, concrete, and a restrained use of color are used to achieve a holistic conception of form viewed from the sky. Plans are organized functionally for circulation with clean simple forms and. Primary hues are used to distinguish program and functional spaces. The structure is expressed as an architectural form and is separate form the skin.
For me, Bauhaus really pulls together concept and functional design. They can comfortably use new materials and still work towards a way of expressing society. Bauhaus has a middle ground of incorporating art forms and function that I think Futurists struggled with.
Adolf Loos (1870-1933)
Adolf Loos believed that ornamentation was a crime, because it wasted time and resources. To him architecture was not art, but simple form. He believed that excess was detrimental to modern culture. He used natural materials and organic expression. Reflection and contrast are both prominent features. The interiors are clean spaces with no designed furniture. Space planning is sub divided and integrated into spatial volumes instead of placed in accordance of circulation.
Villa Muller
I find myself kind of stretched in the middle of Loos's beliefs. I appreciate simple form, but I'm not sure I feel as strongly about it as Loos. It makes me question what ornamentation really is today. To me ornamentation can blur complexity and simplicity. We can create something of simple form, but when combined with other simple forms it may become complex.
No comments:
Post a Comment