This summary is more to me than just a unit summary. It is a summary of the class and the knowledge I gleaned from it:
I believe that, at no time in history have humans sought to design and construct buildings that do anything other than demonstrate the latest innovations as they were understood at any moment in time. Architectural explorations in modern structures are not unique to the modernist movement (mid 19th century-present), as humans have pushed architectural boundaries since the inception of constructing environments, as an attempt at communication regarding their beliefs and values, and as a creative outlet of expression. The modernist movement and all of the modern sub-movements, are the only artistic periods in history in which the artists, architects, designers, style-makers, etc have named while simultaneously producing the style. We see these modern movements as, possibly, more technologically advanced because of the age of the machine, and subsequently the computer. But can you imagine how technologically advanced ancient structures built with simple machines must have been at the time of their construction? As we have seen throughout this class, architecture always looks forward and always looks back; this concept is not exclusive to modernism. We value the language of our culture as displayed in our architecture. And while our structures' skins may change stylistically, the bones of human understanding of architecture always remain the same; circles, groves, and stacks.
england~b.c.
england~21st century
After World War I there was an attempt by architects to erase the language of individual cultures by creating a universal human identity as embodied in architecture. But even that concept, while at the time seemed like a new idea, was appropriated. Historic examples include classic Roman architecture built throughout the Roman Empire, or by the Roman Catholic Church creating a universal language in the architecture of Gothic Cathedrals all over Europe. The modernist movement did, however bring a social consciousness to the forefront of architecture. The atrocities and aftermath of World War II led to the rebuilding of cities throughout Europe. As a result, modern architects and designers began to consider how good design could be available to all while providing the pinnacle of functionality. This concept of good design for all cemented the idea of international style. Ironically, this concept that actualized modern structures morphed into a design philosophy that did not consider human wants and needs or the natural environment. As a result, the globe is dotted with steel and glass cubes that, may, seem visually interesting but have had to be altered to be functional. Inevitably humans' need for classification and identification puts the notion of singular identity, as communicated through architecture, aside by developing, or embracing, vernacular architectural styles. The attempts at squelching cultural identity through architecture establishes regional reactions that have become more important as we understand sustainability in building practices in the 21st century.
steel and glass cube~Seagram Building
While modern and post-modern structures are still designed and built, humans have begun to consider sustainability practices in architecture and design. Again, regionalism is not a new idea in architecture. Early human structures were constructed to fit the landscape and they were built using local materials. It is human technological advances that instigated architectural movement away from regionalism and, I believe, as our understanding of sustainability improves, our advances in technology will bring us back to regionalism.
modern architecture~north carolina~materials
Throughout this course, we have discussed the cyclicality of architecture. We witnessed it in the consistent use of circles groves, and stacks throughout history, in classical architecture being revived (over and over and over...), in the human psyche that establishes sets of rules only to push against them to the point of breaking, and the human condition that implores us to communicate about ourselves and our culture through architecture.
Object: my wedding ring. My wedding ring is a replica of a victorian/art deco ring. I chose this setting because the roundness of the design was very appealing to me. Everyone who has seen it says that it "looks like me." I found taking pictures of a diamond to be impossible, so I used a close example.
Space: Food Hall at Harrod's. What does this say about me? I happen to love the tile and the arts and crafts/deco decor of the space, not to mention the bevy of food. It's a food orgy!
The Building: Hagia Sophia. I love the roundness and the enormity of this building. I am attracted to its history. I think history in design is very important
The Place:London. I have always loved England! I love the history, the monarchy, the tea. I guess I'm a bit of an anglophile.
