Are they really GRAY and WHITE?

 

When i think of post-modernism, it's like thinking about something that is so complex and having so many reasons in its process of thinking till it gets to the point of " complication". In its early stage basically the movement that can be called " anti modernism" where they would do anything that say " I AM NOT MODERNIST, REGARDLESS ABOUT AESTHETIC" And i found that quite ridiculous somehow.

But can we recalled movement that similar to this one " OH IT'S WHEN MODERNISTS " actually told people that they will reject anything that bourgeois or it's actually classical theme. I guess, this two movements have this extremity in common. However, i think, any movement that cause evolution is worth it for us to learn from their mistakes as well as their styles.


In my opinion, the factor that cause such a movement would be the way that we people change over time because of we love such a convenient and innovative way of lives. In this matter I want to focus on Post modernism in its contradictory to itself as well as the people that being label in this movement. As I mentioned earlier, post-modernism was form because they wanted to tell people that there are many ways to see things and they represented themselves in the early stage in order to attack Modernism on their restriction. Here's one example of Venturi's work who is famously with the quote that said " less is a bore"

vanna venturi house

 

  As we can see, that this house is having some qualities that it can be modernism but the way he put the window as well as the arc and the chimney above to make the house in the condition that it is not symmetry. In order to say that this house is not from " German architect or Modernist".



                              

detail of iconic column.<fun in post modernism>

           
       Allen Memorial Art Museum, Oberlin College


He and his wife form new vision toward architecture, the notion of, looking at architecture as a sign. They don't really want to put label on anything that they do and the goal is that they want people to use the spaces that they created as they wanted to without worrying that it is a kitchen or dining room. However, they didn't succeed to convey this notion in most of their works though. I loved that he stated in his article " complexity and contradiction in architecture that " I am for richness of meaning rather than of meaning; for the implicit as well as explicit function. I prefer "both and" to "either or", black and white and sometimes gray, to black or white. I love how he tried to expressed that his architecture concerned both aesthetic and function. He began to play between with the color in between primary pallete as well as mixing  classical and modern architecture together.

There is another group of architects, that form in late post modernism, being called, The new york five including, Peter Eisenman, Richard Mier, Michael Graves, Charles Gwathmey, and John Hejduk. They were being refer as the white because they started to study from Modernism anda common allegiance to a pure form of architecture modernity, harkening back to the work of Le Courbusier, in 1920-1930s. However, on closer examination their work was far more individual.

The New York five was being attacked by early post modernism <especially Robert Venturi> that they didn't care or pay attention to the context, users, or the functioning. And Venturi was right on all the point that he blame about their works.

The best example of the house that was created intentionally to be "a pure object" that stripped away from any definition of the "house". It's "HOUSE VI" by PETER EISENMAN. The goo lo from new york five. I believe that, he would be the one of architect that being hate as well as admire at the same time. He loves to show off that he knows best and he proves that he really knows what he's talking about. He would pick the subject that people overlook and studied thoroughly till he found the way to know best in that matter. That would be one best reason that I admired him that we can learned a lot from his love with being goo lo as well as his changes over time.

Eisenman is well-known of being talk-chitect because he talks and write a lot compare to the works that he had comission to build. He also believe that architecture can be interpretated from texts <linguistic theories>. He wrote one article called " The end of classical: The end of begining, the end of the end" which i had a really hard time to read because his way of using perfectly hard-to-get language. I mentioned this article because, it attacked on modernism as well as Post modernism < Robert Venturi>.

First get on with Modernism where he said "it is timelessness" If Adolf Loos still alive, I think they would have a big fight on this matter. He stated that the attempted that Modern was trying to say that they didn't depend on any subject that exist before wasn't true. The column is still a column, it is still bearing the weight, they just eliminate the decorative elements. They only simplified the existing objects and in that attempt they lost their identities which led them to notion of "Timelessness". Wow! Moreover, the way Modernism trying to set their goal about function is " representation". So they pretty much can't get out of what they were trying so hard to stay away from.

Second shot go to Robert VenturiDoges's palace and Sansovino's library. Ouchhhh...... the notion of the "duck" is quite famous for Venturi.

Ok, now let's focus on Eisenman architecture masterpiece, House VI.  Eisenman still treat architecture as a sign and where he wanted people to consider to use or question about the spaces that he provided. For House VI, he went so far where he went step by step translate the form from the process from his diagram then he just put the house afterward which means "FUNCTION FOLLOW FORM/ART". He didn't concern about the owners as much as his architecture so they needed to followed what they were given to live within. However, after all, the owners love the house and they are grateful to Eisenman <after all the complaint and fight> 


 
                  HOUSE VI                                         LIVING ROOM






 view between two intersection "stairs"           floating "columns" and seperate beds


In conclusion, we can see that every architecture have its own value as well as contradiction in itself so the thing that make it's famous is that they actually have "The innovative of representing themselves" as well as their identity that stripped away from the past. Or what we "EVOLUTION".