Modern Residential Architecture: Aalto, Le Corbusier, and Van der Rohe

Le Corbusier's Domino Frame (1914)

During a time of strong architectural expression, three designers emerged bringing forth a unique perfection to new styles of residential buildings. The first is the French architect Le Corbusier who is known for his ideas that form follows function. The second architect is Mies van der Rohe, who is known for his use of abstraction within form. The last is Finnish architect Alvar Aalto who was a pioneer in creating architectural atmospheres that played with environment. Their approaches, ideas, and designs gave way to a breakthrough in the idea of “home.”

Le Corbusier saw reinforced concrete as a means towards the industrialization of the building process (Colquhoun 143). These ideas were first portrayed in the domino frame.  Le Corbusier uses this model to display architecture as a product. When observing the domino frame, one can see the influence that Le Corbusier drew from Sempre. Sempre was fascinated with the idea of showing how something worked. While Le Corbusier’s domino frame is supposed to minimize the role of tectonics within a building, it in turn shows the user exactly how the building structure works. When looking at this model, one must ask the question, “Is there a simpler way to create building structure?” These principles are shown in many of his works, particularly the Villa Savoye and the Citrohan House.

Mies van der Rohe was an architect known for his ability to reduce every problem to a kind of essential simplicity (Colquhoun 170). His constructivist projects in particular are similar in idea to that of French Le Corbusier. However, German van der Rohe had a unique take on minimal tectonics. He used load-bearing planes mixed with minimalist columns to create a structure. His works are almost translations of the ideas of Violet Le Duc and the art nouveau movement, which gave birth to the idea of ornamentating the structure. However, unlike earlier modern works, Mies accents the structural elements through materiality and not ornament. One could say this is a blend of the ideas of Art Nouveau and Adolf Loos. This can be seen in the Tugendhat House, The Barcelona Pavilion, and the Hubbe House.

Alvar Aalto's Experimental House (1953)

Alvar Aalto’s approach to modern architecture is different than that of Mies and Le Corbusier. Aalto felt that there were almost archetypal building configurations expressing the basic forms of human society (Curtis 456). These ideas are similar to the emphasis on the historic that John Ruskin believed in. Unlike Ruskin, however, Aalto wanted to translate these special principles into modern architecture. For example, Curtis points out Aalto’s emphasis on the courtyard, or “harbour.” This historical idea is translated into his residential work on the Villa Mairea. In this vacation home, Aalto experiments with brick patterns and shows the idea of the “hearth” within a three-sided courtyard.

The three architects created very different approaches to modern housing. Their works express their own individual ideas of what elements of life and architecture are important. These ideas can be found as adoptions to the writings and beliefs of previous modern figures before them. Though controversial at the time, their work still plays a major role in the design of residential environments today.

 Sources:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/h_ssan/4841412192

http://nataliamark.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/

Adolf Loos and the Werkbund

         During the time of Adolf Loos and the Werkbund movement, German, Austria, and Hungary were different nations that were on the edge of establishment as independent nations. These nations were all of which looking for a unifying identity. This is when the work of Adolf Loos and the Werkbund movement were able to capture that identity. I examined the characteristics that are common to Adolf Loos’ work, and found connections within the some of the projects of the Weissenhof Project.

         Adolf Loos strongly believed that ornament was unimportant, and coincidentally he was not the only person to perfect this idea in his work. While examining House 13 of the Weissenhof project, a popular example of Werkbund architecture, I found characteristics reminiscent of Loos’ ideas. The works of LeCorbusier and Pierre Jeanneret can be seen as almost a direct play on the paintings of Piet Mondrian, an influential artist of that time period. Related patterns and alternated modules are commonplace in the plans and elevations of this project, as are seen in Mondrian's paintings. 

Piet Mondrian's Work

         Adolf Loos tried to convey a sense of 2 dimensional appreciations in his 3 dimensional spaces, as seen in the lobby of the Michaelerplatz in Vienna. His space, while three-dimensional, engaged the viewer to see the lobby as a linear composition, much like the work of Piet Mondrian. House 13 on the other hand was almost construed as a three dimensional depiction of the work of Piet Mondrian. Its façade is a placed, albeit unorganized, collage of different elements that make a building plane. Its fenestration appears to the naked eye as an abstraction, much like its 2 dimensional painted counterpart.

Diagram Depicting the module design of House 13.

         When examining the work of Adolf Loos and the Werkbund, one must also remember the connection they have to other modern movements, such as Art Nouveau. While Loos despised the Art Nouveau movement, some of the ideas still translate into his work. For instance, many of Victor Horta’s works were devoted to creating an inwardly looking world. This is similar to the interior spaces of the Weissenhor and Adolf Loos’s projects. This idea can again be translated into LeCorbusier’s later work on Villa Savoye. The idea of an unornamented building is best displayed in the works of Mies Van Der Rohe’s Seagram building. So one can see the progression of modernist ideas spread across time. 

The Werkbund architects were focused on machine design, a new concept after Art Nouveau and Art's and Craft's aim to restore a level of craft within architecture. This can be represented in their modular designs which seem to be a very functional based design. One can start to see that spaces are taking on a minimalist approach, something that reflective of the earlier words of Semper, and the later designs of Mies Van Der Rohe. This seems an approapriate approach given the context under which they designed, trying for the first time to create a uniform industrial architecture that glorified progress and technology. 

Art Nouveau and Modern Architecture

           Art Nouveau was a period of extensive imagination in the world of art and architecture. It is unique in character even by today’s standards. At the time of Art Nouveau’s arrival, the art realm was searching for a renewal. Many artists and architects were afraid that the quality of craft was becoming phased out to make way for mass production and industry. Modern materials in architecture, such as iron, were seen with much disdain because they represented the industrial and all that was against traditional architecture. Art Nouveau developed in spite of these accusations and introduced the world to a new interpretation of modern materials, and a modern architecture.

            With the introduction of iron as a building material, architects weren’t sure how to approach it. There was a strong theme to hide the iron underneath of brick or stone cladding and other materials, shown in the Chicago Style. It was considered “Ugly.” However, the drawings and ideas of Viollet le Duc gave strong influence to the architects of the Art Nouveau Period. He portrayed iron, for the first time, as an exposed element in the architecture, despite the verbose criticism he received. During the brief decade of the Art Nouveau period, focus shifted towards an attempt to assimilate the exposure of iron into the architecture, this time using a different approach.

Paul Gauguin's Aubrey Beardsly  Salome. 1892.

             During this period, three architects emerged. Their work became well known during this period of change, and is still influential today. The first is Victor Horta (1861-1947) an architect from Ghent, Belgium. His influential work is the epitome of Art Nouveau. The second is Hector Guimard, a French architect whose Art Nouveau architecture is still used today. Finally the third architect is Henry Van de Velde who’s work has been influential to the modern movement following. While their approaches are different, their work has shaped the Art Nouveau movement that we know today.

            Victor Horta began his studies at the Ecole de Beaux Arts in Belgium. Despite his Beaux Art training, it is suggested that he had close ties with the Neomannerist Movement that was occurring at the time of his early career. This can best be seen in the symmetry of his façade of the Hôtel Tassel, his best-known work. The Hôtel Tassel is more famously recognized for its interior stairwells. It is considered the prime example of Art Nouveau architecture. Its forms show a beginning example of the idea of object and ornament merging. The design was a “total work of art” in every detail. The design took inspiration from the British Arts and Crafts movement occurring at the same time. Despite its first impression, Horta’s work was never viewed as theatrical. It always found a sense of formal order.

Victor Horta's Hotel Tassel. 1892-3.

            While it was Horta who showed this organic language in his work, Hector Guimard was the architect who truly defined the natural aspect of it. His works translated that organic language over into the use of iron. While Guimard’s architectural facades maintained a medieval character, his ironwork was divine. He expressed a more bulbous or swelling character. Guimard’s Parisian metropolitan entrances were the first true public expression of Art Nouveau. Horta was focused on creating these inwardly looking worlds within his residences. This seems ironic that Victor Horta was designing homes for the Belgian equivalent of the Parisian Bourgeoisie, while Guimard was in Paris designing public works in the middle of Haussmann’s newly transformed Bourgeoisie environment.

            The total work of art would appear to be very time consuming; most likely explaining why Horta’s later works failed to capture the freshness of his early Art Nouveau structures. One could assume that the movement didn’t last more than a decade because of its demanding and time-consuming designs. This also explains the selectivity of it. It was very expensive to create and most Art Nouveau architects, such as Horta and Guimard were often commissioned by rich high socialites of that period. Guimard made an attempt to mass-produce his customized railings, but the designs were expensive and underwent continuous changes according to transgression into Art Nouveau. This gives more significance to the Parisian entrances, which can be shared by all classes in a public environment. This is much like the Victorian Arcades that were widely popular during that era. Many of which were located throughout Paris. 

Hector Guimar's Parisian Metropolitan Entrance

        While Guimard was expressing himself through the means of iron, and Horta through his interior worlds, it was Van de Velde who attributed both of these ideas into his works. He was a painter who drew much inspiration from Gauguin and the impressionists. His work was more grounded and simple. He distinguished the difference between ornamentation and simply ornament. His work relates less to the periods leading up to Art Nouveau, as Guimard’s and Horta’s styles had, but more towards the periods following Art Nouveau. His work on De Boekentoren University Library shows early signs of focusing on daylighting schemes, and an open floor plan and grid function. This piece shows the transition into Bauhaus architecture derived from his work.  

Renzo and Roger's Centre Pompidou. 1972-1976.

        Van de Velde’s work was very experimental in functionality as well. He created furniture to place into his works, and idea followed by Frank Lloyd Wright and Mies Van der Rohe. He had a strong belief that mass production could be successful assuming that the craftsman who designed the prototype gave extra attention to its detail. He was the director of the Grand Ducal School of arts. His work on Haby’s Barber Shop in Berlin shows his efforts to expose the water piping and the electrical ducts to the users of the building, again expressing Semper’s ideas of showing how the building is made. This idea is later expressed in the Centre Pompidou designed by Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers.

        Although the art Nouveau movement only lasted merely a decade, its influences are still highly viewed still today. With advances in technology comes a great creativeness in architecture, that is first seen in the Art Nouveau works. Throughout modern architecture, you can see a return to the organic appeal and the idea of merging ornamentation within form. Its few pieces are miniscule in physical monumentality, but expressive beyond the comprehension of any other architecture of that time. 

Traditional Art Nouveau Artwork

http://www.all-art.org/Architecture/23.htm

 http://lh6.ggpht.com/-9zE1pvAKYi0/SSDY8oRb4zI/AAAAAAAAAEk/cDZu55BaQkg/IMG_1054.JPG 

http://mirappraisal.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/art_nouveau_blog_post-1.jpg

Reflections on Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-Le-Duc

         The 19^th century was a time of confusion as the world was rapidly approaching reform and progression in terms of politics, thinking, and especially art and architecture. For the first time in history, religion had taken a back seat to progression. With this movement came much confusion as to what was correct thinking and what was incorrect. Within the art realm, self-containedness was dwindling. Art was not strictly for aesthetic purposes, it was beginning to be an expression meant to engage the viewer. The same intentions were demanded of architecture.

         Zeitgeist, or the idea of expressing the spirit and the embodiment of the age, was a rising philosophy. Classicism was a dying movement and there was a split rise into historicism, positivism, ecclecticism, or romanticism. Modern ideas were beginning to replace eternal ones because of the positivist movement that arose during the age of reasoning. With that, the demand to define a set architectural standard style was necessary. But this age was one of immense criticism as times were approaching modern reform and the industrial revolution was setting sail. While the world was full of great revolutionaries and philosophical thinkers, who were finally given the freedom of speech, the need to defend one’s personal ideas and thinking was a new concept. This is evident when examining the 19^th century architects Gottfried Semper, Viollet Le Duc, and John Ruskin.

         Many new concepts were taking place as the industrial revolution had begun. New buildings, such as factories, and railroad stations were becoming new public institutions. And the church was no longer the city center of function. New materials and methods of construction were being implemented and much skepticism was also on the rise as to whether one should break tradition or embrace progression and how. With the use of new materials and the implementation of mass production came the fear that craft would be lost to progression.

         Gottfried Semper, a German mathematician and engineer who was a strong believer in local craft, was the first to make the connection of industry to architecture. Semper claimed that industrial art influenced monumental architecture. In his writings, he categorized industrial art into four types: tectonics (joinery), textile art, ceramic art, and stereometry (stone building). He believed that buildings take on meaning by the way they are made and the function they serve. He enjoyed the way that technique could draw attention to the procedure of how it is made.

This addresses that modern idea of engaging the viewer into the architecture. Semper believed that art was successful not if it is perceptible, but could be realized by others. This is a very modern idea of thinking, especially when applied to the works of artists such as Pablo Picasso. Semper saw great importance in the construction of the building, just as John Ruskin (an English historicist), and Viollet Le Duc (a French historicist). But the construction process was important for different reasons in their individual reflections.

Pablo Picasso's Violin and Guitar

               Semper saw importance in showing the procedure of how a building was made, much like Viollet Le Duc who valued the rationalization of the construction process. Semper was a believer in the evolution of technical skills, while Viollet valued the use of modern technology and materials to create a rational construction method. Ruskin on the other hand, detested modern materials, such as iron, and valued the traditional methods of construction and the integrity of the labor. He believed that the spirit of the laborers was the embodiment of the success of a project.

         Along with Ruskin’s theory that architectural success is measured in the joy of the process, Viollet Le Duc theorized the construction process would be futile if not for the equal help of everyone involved, despite their class or background. He saw significance in the construction process and rational structural system of the Gothic. Semper believed that man became closer to nature in the process of creating. Ruskin valued the natural characteristics of the gothic movement, shown in the ornamentation. Many anti-modernists at the time were disproving the modern theories and turning towards tradition and the church. This idea involved turning towards a more primitive time, or being closer to nature.

         Ruskin believed that the answers would be found by looking backwards into history, while Viollet Le Duc was focused on progression into modern times with modern methods. This difference in opinion was evident in their approaches to historic architecture. Ruskin thought that the integrity of the historic was only apparent if the building represented the natural in its ornamentation. He was drawn to ornamentation. This is evident in his book “The Stones of Venice.” The language of the Doge's palace in Venice is translated into the style of the Lincoln Cathedral in England, a work that he much adored. In terms of historicism, He believed that these historic buildings should be preserved but never changed. Viollet Le Duc defined the restoration process as the “renewal” of the old, claiming to bring new functions that weren’t in the original plan. Colquhoun argues that Viollet Le Duc reduced historicism to a set of instrumental principle that he could apply as a model of contemporary practice. 

Lincoln Cathedral

            Many of Viollet Le Duc’s drawings depict his use of modern practices and materials in the restoration of the old and implementation into modern architecture of the time. He most likely did not agree with the historicist theory. Viollet Le Duc was a doer, whereas Ruskin was a writer. While Viollet Le Duc was commissioned to restore some of France’s oldest structures, it was Ruskin who was criticizing the methods of Viollet. Ruskin believed that a building was best shown by its age and to modernize it would be to destroy the building entirely.

While Viollet Le Duc and John Ruskin differed in opinion and method, both of their approaches were relevant to the advanced thinking that led to the modern architecture movement. While Ruskin stressed the importance of ornamentation and nature, Viollet Le Duc stressed the importance of modern technique and materials. Ruskin was a backwards emotion and tradition based thinker, while Viollet a forward and rational scientific methodical thinker. It was Semper who theorized about the function of a building: saying its four basic elements were hearth, platform, roof, and enclosure. All of these theories are translated into the works of modernist architects.

Viollet le Duc's drawing

         In the works of modern architects, like Frank Lloyd Wright, you can see Ruskin’s idea of nature, Viollet’s use of modern materials and new methods, and Semper’s use of elements (especially hearth.) In the works of Louis Sullivan you can see Ruskin’s ideas or nature and ornamentation and Viollet’s use of modern materials and practices. The 19^th century architect's theories paved the way for modern thinking and design. It just took time to progress. However isn’t that a modernist’s main goal: to be ahead of your time?

Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water Cantilever

Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater hearth

Louis Sullivan's Guaranty Building Cornice

http://www.worldgallery.co.uk/art-print/Violin-and-Guitar-7565.html

http://www.wwowens.com/Lincoln_Cathedral.asp

http://www.arch.mcgill.ca/prof/sijpkes/alsop/alsop-webpage-final.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Falling_Water_01.jpg

http://pittsburgh.about.com/cs/pictures/l/bl_flw_2.htm

http://www.buffaloah.com/a/church/28/tc.html

About Me

Hello Reader,

Let me start by telling you that I'm a Senior Architecture Major at Ball State University. I'm planning to graduate in the Spring of 2012. I'm am currently timorously searching for Graduate Schools. So if anyone has any helpful advice, feel free to share! I take any chance given to me to travel. I spent last semester on the CapAsia trip, and I'm definite that it has shaped the way that I approach architecture. My favorite architecture firm would have to be Cutler Anderson Architects. I am a sucker for materials. In Graduate School I hope to focus on green design and architecture's environmental impact. I find it to be an issue that shouldn't be ignored. We have the technology, now its our job to apply it! I got excited the other day when I got a compost awareness stamp at the post office!

Outside of classes, I enjoy running as a pastime, especially as a release from the challenges of college. I find inspiration in the words of writers such as Neruda and Frost. I think that everyone has to have a passion, goal, and belief for what it is they are doing. As for this year, I'm anxious to learn about Modern Architecture. While I find it hard to define modernism in the context of today, I hope to gain an understanding of how it has shaped the built environment. I desire to learn more about the meaning of modernism in terms of the period, its classifications, and its philosophies.

The disciple should hunger for knowledge and have the spirit of

humility, perseverance, and tenacity of purpose.

-B. K. S. Iyengar