21st Century High Architecture or Just Hundred Year Old Modernism

21st Century High Architecture or Just Hundred Year Old Modernism

The news that the new nation house for Rowan Atkinson has been affirmed by the Oxfordshire Planning Committee in spite of being suggested for refusal by the Authority’s Planning Officers is at risk for raising again the fairly worn out  discussion about Modernism versus Classicism in the British open country. In any case, this is altogether an inappropriate discussion. Hauling out the two old war ponies onto the jousting fields of Middle England is removal action that removes the consideration from an all the more squeezing, contemporary discussion influencing Western culture all the more by and large that could be publicized if the war-ponies could be returned in their corrals for some time.

Atkinson’s arranging advisor Terence O’Rourke is accounted for as portraying the new proposition as ‘a bit of 21st century high design’. I don’t know this is a useful or absolutely exact depiction of the recommendations. The facts demonstrate that Atkinson’s planner for the house, Richard Meier, brought over from the US to do this his first structure in the UK, is a regarded designer despite everything rehearsing in the 21st century however the thoughts that produce his work are solidly grounded in the early piece of the only remaining century. The house could in this way similarly be depicted as a bit of twentieth century design or as a bit of ‘Old Modernism’.

Old Modernism

The thoughts that Meier despite everything utilizes in 2010 were new in the 1920’s and 30’s when Le Corbusier and other early pioneers of the Modern Movement made an engineering that communicated the soul of an age coming out of the main universal war. This age rather innocently imagined that they could clean off the record of history and fabricate an exciting modern lifestyle. Corb’s polemical verbalization of that design was portrayed in his popular ‘Five Points for a New Architecture’, first distributed as a progression of articles in the diary he made, entitled ‘L’Espirit Nouveau’. These five focuses set up amazing polemical polarities, deliberately defaming of the old request; the new engineering was to stand richly over the ground on thin ‘pilotis’ (segments) rather than over sodden and rodent plagued storm cellars, the lined structure would make the ‘Free arrangement’ and override the impediments of overwhelming burden bearing structures with their unbalanced corners, lifting the structures off the ground on pilotis would produce ‘free ground’ in the city to supplant the clogged boulevards. The basic edge would notwithstanding opening up the arrangement make the ‘free height’ and the trademark flat strip windows of the time. At long last, what Corb contended were the futile dim rooftop spaces related with conventional pitched rooftops could be supplanted by the ‘rooftop garden’ the fifth of Le Corbusier’s five focuses. The other prevailing attribute of this engineering oddly doesn’t get referenced as one of the five focuses is that it is ‘white’. The whiteness empowered this design to prevent the materiality from claiming the structure’s surfaces. The surfaces are in this manner seen as immaculate deliberations, applied skins which look to characterize conceivably limitless space. The defects of a genuine material would subvert the mission for an unadulterated proclamation of outright space, and subsequently material itself needed to join those subdued parts of design’s world.

Obviously those parts of engineering’s world that in these five focuses were denounced by Le Corbusier didn’t leave. To be sure after the Second World War, Le Corbusier’s own engineering took an extreme alter of course. When he was structuring Masions Jaoul in Paris the 1950’s the five focuses had been deserted. The piloti had vanished, with the end goal that the structures sat positively on the ground. The houses were given burden bearing structures, consequently restricting the impacts of the ‘free arrangement’ and ‘free height’ and simultaneously the rooftops were vaulted in this manner denying the available ‘rooftop garden’. Indeed, even the ‘whiteness’ that denied the structures materiality had vanished to be supplanted by ‘Beton brut’, another and extraordinary type of building materiality that appeared to be called from Le Corbusier’s mind to adjust the previous disavowal.

The Young Old Guard:

In spite of the fact that we can see that Le Corbusier had the option to proceed onward from the extraordinary questioning of early innovation, the seeds of the engineering language that he had assisted with making had been planted and were later to be gotten uncritically by another age. Richard Meier was a piece of that new age. He rose as one of a gathering of youthful designers working in New York in the 1960’s who came to universal consideration in 1967 after a presentation of their work at the Museum of Modern Art sorted out by Arthur Drexler and later distributed in a book including crafted by ‘The New York Five’; Peter Eisenman, Michael Graves, Charles Gwathmey, John Hejduk and Richard Meier. Around then this gathering somewhat shared the reductive language of the early present day development yet albeit some were later to move into a new area, Meier held the line. “On the off chance that I can’t be Le Corbusier, at that point I can be Richard Meier”, I appear to review him saying in the beginning of his profession, and in an ongoing letter to the Oxfordshire Planning Department he is currently obviously guaranteeing the domain as his own, “Whiteness is one of the trademark characteristics of my work….”.

It is presently seventy or a long time since the stripped, building language of innovation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *