even if it's revolution, they still have their principle same as history.

As i posted earlier article about "FILIPPO BRUNELLESCHI" and how became a legend in Renaissance time by learning from history and adapting to his time. As far as we learned from history class and do some reading, I actually found out that most of renowned architects in each period or movement actually borrowed and adapted some principle from earlier period of time but they actually made it better or make it suited with their time.

So let's start with Classical to Modernism. As we all know that Modernism was all about "starting from zero" and the word "bourgeois" was so unpleasant and nobody was designing something that stripped away from classical architecture. However, Le cour busier was using the principle of "golden ratio" where he claimed that every man could live in same environment as well as same kind of units according to his theory.  Le Corbusier developed the Modular in the long tradition of Vitruvius, Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, the work of Leone Battista Alberti, and other attempts to discover mathematical proportions in the human body.As we can see, Le cour busier adapted this theory from history where they only concerned over the harmonies of space and the proportion of each unit and he took it further to suited with the time that people concerned about "Humanism".

The Modular, Vitruvius

Golden mean proportion, Palladio

golden ratio, Le Courbusier

However, in late Modernism we had Louis I Kahn who was abide with modernism's restriction until he found out that it wasn't him so he went to europe and explored about ancient architecture. He learned from history and adapted it again with his own understanding and his root which is "Modernism". As we can see that, most of Kahn work concerned about people who uses space, materials that was considered bourgeois, and how well he adapted what he learned from history to his building. He did not over used what he learned, i would say, he used its softness of materials as well as the way the pay attention to shade and shadow. So we can see that his building is not so cold and plain as modernism nor over decorated like classical architecture building. He's in between these two movement, however, it took times for people to admitted his style same as Brunelleschi at his time. So he only had a short time to created his architecture before he passed away.

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

 

Yale art gallery

In my opinion, because of the restriction of Modernism, people fed up with "Less is more" and there is a movement of "Post modernism" where in early of the movement they would just said that they are not modernism by building anything that was contradicted to the theory of modernism by using classical decorative elements. And Robert Venturi is kind of leader in this movement where he had his theory about "Both and" where he concerned over aesthetic as well as how people should be living in the building. There is also late Post modernism which people called them the White or The new york five. They learned from Modernism as well as attacked them.

The thing that I learned about this movement is that they view architecture as a sign and they based their belief by saying that architecture is contingent, it changes over time upon political views, technologies, as well as the way people lives. As i mentioned earlier, even in this movement there are two views "The gray and the white". Where one concerned about classical but mainly used it to destroyed Modernism, and another one, in particular, Eisenman tried so hard to stripped away from principles but still ending up learning and using principles from the theories that he condemned. 

vanna venturi house

House vi, Peter Eisenman.

                         

 The last one would be Post-modernism to Expressionism. Expressionism is so interesting is that for me it is a combination of modernism and post modernism. The architect that suited in this matter would be Frank Grahry whom was educated by modernist master who whole heartedly concerned over details and restriction of their own theory. However, Grahry was opposed to some subject that was too strict so he uses the expressive language of form in his architecture. We can referred this matter back to Post modernism about Venturi theory about expressive structure. Where he talked about duck building that when people passed they can recognized what kind of the building was there and it was still doing the job of "Form follow Function" . The best example of Frank Grahry building that concerned about expression of the building as well as we can still sense that his root was Modernism is "Disney music hall" where we can definately see that the form is so expressive, however, each volume of the structure is like the cube that was exploded from the tall building that surrounded his masterpeice.

disney music hall, Frank Grahry

disney music hall and surrounding.

                             

 As a result, we can see that each revolution that took place in architecture, no matter how hard they tried to denied that they got nothing from the past<history>, it was a lied. We can't stripped away from what we were, but we can learned from them and adapt to our society, technologies, and our needs.