Designing your own "Modernism

Modernism,  an utterly problematic term describing an style of architecture, art, or even lifestyle, is one of the most dominant epidemic of our time. To randomly approach an individual and ask he/she to define the term "modernism" would be met with a wide range of answers. To clearly define modernism, we must go back to what modernism is all about : extraction of the essence.
I believe human civilization is comparable to a mature onion with numerous layers. As time progresses, the layers continue to peel off leaving us with "the actual onion", or "the essence"

Modernism in architecture can be defined in numerous different ways. "Organic architecture," a term coined by Frank Lloyd Wright is a architecture philosophy which focuses on unity with nature. Frank's philosophy often represents building in strong relation with the context, meaning depending mainly on factors such as passive ventilation and natural lighting. To Frank, Harmony is his answer to modernism. To unify, or blend in with nature through architecture design is his idea of getting closer to the essence. he sometimes refer to this as "the true meaning of life." The Robbie House designed by frank clearly reiterates his point of organic architecture. The space is designed to lay flat as if to blend in with the ground, the spaces are designed for natural lighting in certain times of day and even the smallest details like the unusually long horizontal red bricks strengthen his style of unification with nature.

In another case, the founder of the famous Bauhaus : School of Building, by Walter Gropius followed another philosophy regarding the term "Modernism." Bauhaus in contrast to Frank, defined modernism by functionality. his argument states that function equals the essence of the space. for Gropius, all space is designed to serve a certain function. The glass facades,for example, allows for vision throughout the campus while the mini balcony's on the dormitory allows for commuting between colleagues in a simple rectangular bedroom.

The Ambiguity of Modernism is sometimes problematic. A colleague of mine used to say : If Modernism is so vague and can be adapted to anything, then the term itself fails to serve its purpose. I somehow disagree with my dear colleague, as when tracing back all the various styles and versions of modernistic values, it comes from the phrase "desire of essence." Today, Modernism is represented in an eclectic mix of style. Bangkok Metropolitan is a great example of this mix. Frank's organic architecture is strongly cohesive with the going-green trend of today's popular culture, inspiring many buildings to have podiums and gardens, villas and boulevards (K-village.) Commercial office buildings adopted many of Gropius's ideas such as the glass facades, cubicles in dense areas of population and so forth. Modernism can be represented in many various different ways. One cannot simply pinpoint to a style and declare that modernism is that and only that. Unlike styles of the past, Modernism opens up for new and challenging opportunities. As an architecture student, my challenge would be to define your own modernism.


Sources :

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/56418/Bauhaus
http://www.pbs.org/flw/legacy/essay1.html

Ornamental Crime

  "Ornament is wasted manpower and therefore wasted health." quoted Adolf Loos on his Ornament & Crime Essay issued in 1908. Adolf elaborated on the subject claiming ornaments not only waste manpower and health but also means wasted materials as well as wasted capitals. The debate on whether ornaments causes degenerative effects on the culture today is plausible. Although it is true that ornamented objects costs more than modern simplistic objects, I believe the true value of an object does not rely solely on the amount of labor hours and its material costs. for instance, the Christmas tree holds a special meaning to people of the Christian faith. Trees that stayed green all year long held a special meaning, thus people believe it could fend off evil spirits in the cold winter. Today, Christmas trees became a symbol, the main ornament of every household reminding people of the holiday season. The Star on the Christmas tree holds spiritual value and a reminiscence of the peoples origin and culture : the birth of Jesus Christ. For all religions and culture, ornaments have been what defines them, and their pride of their own identity. An object obtains value that is given to it by man. In this case, objects can hold the value of identity, the pride, the spiritual value and historical value.

History reminds people not to make the same mistakes they did and that is, what i believe, promotes innovation and urge to move forward. Stripping people of ornaments would be like stripping them of their intrinsic value. People are born with appreciation for ornaments, it is the our human nature. To move away from our appreciation for ornament is moving away or denying humanity. We are not machines to generate profit and scientific innovation, but we are here as humans with feelings, with values.

At times however, ornaments can be over rated. Adolf Loos set a perfect example about eating a lobster on an ornamented lobster-fetish plate. Ornaments can sometimes be used at wrong places at the wrong time but that does not mean we should stop appreciating ornaments. The world as we live in is full of natural ornaments. The organic forms from landscapes to microscopic details of a flower pollen are fascinating sights humans experience everyday. Humans are born to appreciate ornaments. 

A modern streamlined design could provoke a modern man as " simply beautiful." I do not deny that modernism is a displeasing sight. It is to me, in fact, aesthetically pleasing for its context and its surroundings, but that does not mean total annihilation of ornaments are acceptable. Ornaments are more than an "Add-on" to life but plays a prominent role in sculpting the culture as it is in the modern day. It is our signature and would continue to exists in various and different forms.

Adolf Loos vision might be where all existence is in its purest form and function. What is problematic about his vision is that we are in fact, human. We enjoy the littlest things in life and we hold it very dear. In Adolf Loos' essay, he says that "Ornaments could no longer be born by someone who exists at our level of culture." claiming in a sense that we are too advanced for relics and symbolism of the past. I find his claim rather offensive, is it not the past that shapes us, is it not these values that enabled us to stand at this very point? I am not saying stick to the past and its ineffective ways, but i am saying we should respect it and be cautious of what it had taught us. 

Yes, reduction of ornaments might be the "style" of our time and i do not deny that. But the argument stating that it is more productive and efficient for futuristic innovation is not at the least convincing, for ornaments hold more value to us than what Loof claimed. profit and time consumption are powerful factors but are inadequate for the conclusion of total removal, for they hold much more value that what is seen to the naked eye.

Sources : http://www.history.com/topics/history-of-christmas-trees
              http://lamar.colostate.edu/~rolston/beauty-to-duty.pdf