The new way of interpretation from Louis I kahn.

From what the moment i watched the movie "My architect" which was created by Kahn only son "Nathaniel Kahn" who was quite carried away or developing some feeling over what he had been through with the documentation. I was carried away by the way people reacted about "Kahn's mystery life and his dedication to his architecture". This movie is delivered so many different messages to how we should balanced all the things in our lives. It's really good documentation and we can see that Kahn would give anything up for his career and he is like the artist of his own. he didn't really pertain to choosing the side or put the "label" on his style at that time and it was big. Everybody would say he's nomad and he would spent his time in the office or out to the world, sketching exploring and seeing things and learn from the context. On one part of documentary that Nathaniel interviewed "I.M. Pie" about his opinion over Kahn and he talked about how stubborn Kahn could be with the clients and how he would be able to handle those situation better but then Nathaniel went on about how successful he is<I.M. Pie> kind of compare to Kahn and then he responed " building many buildings doesn't mean success, 4 or 5 masterpieces is better than 50-60 building" "quality not quantities". I was quite caught up with this phrase and i think it defined Kahn best where he didn't build lots of building but most of them expressed himself and his passion through people in and context. Here is the movie cover, a really good one.

So let's get to Kahn's architecture. I have to admitted that now I a really superficial information about this guy's works and i definitely dig more about this guy but after i researched a little about him we would see that he followed what was there which was " international style" and then it wasn't his best so he went to Europe and explore his interest and all the sketches that he produced were interpretated in his language, understanding at that particular places and time. I mean, when he got that sense, he developed his understanding towards what was already existed both which are classical and international style. The first major building that he had commissioned was "Yale art gallery" where he chose the material that quite heavy looking as well as wieght " brick" where modernism hates it, it could be considering as  bourgeois. however, the building was there and it responded with its context and the quality of light and how he actually having concern or treating people who use the specific space made this gallery a breakthrogh.

the sketch from europe before he built "Yale art gallery"

 

 

 

Yale art gallery

As we see the picture above we could see that how he learned from what he saw and he actually sketched what he really think was important to him because if we go to Italy we would see just the there alone in the deep shadow with not much decoration as well as the houses that plain without "ornamental or decorative elements". However, he saw that potential of lighting and the aesthatic of the classical style so he did the building that was not on either side but using both of them as a lesson or device and of course open the new way to look at architecture and for sure cause so much controversy at that time.

I personally, think that when we tried to change from one phrase to another one, we tended to denied the past or just simply forget to learn from them like modernism and post modernism where they tried to do what so called "Evolution" where they so hard to stayed from what they opposed but for Most of Kahn masterpieces kind of say hey wait a minute if we started to put things together in certain way, we can make it work as well as still pleasing the both companies satisfication which is function and aesthetic. Because for international style they trusted their research that people are all the time there is no individulities and they tried so hard to stay away from what was there before. But could they really did that, of couse not, then we have post modernism where they simply hates the way modernism just kind of being too strict with what they see. they considered architecture as one piece of art where we can see it differently and challenge people perception but let alone what is functional should be like.

However, both of this compound or movements weren't bad, it's innovative thinking but they didn't care so much with many things which make their buildings and movement significant. As a student, we have so much oppotunities to learn from them and see their flaws and think of our working process and how should we do with our project, or what should we deal or focus on at the time.