Diagramming Aesthetics: Modernism and Architecture in the 21 st Century

Transcription

1 Diagramming Aesthetics: Modernism and Architecture in the 21 st Century Mark J. Clayton, Ph.D. Department of Architecture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX , USA Abstract. In architectural design, diagramming has an equally important role in functional studies and in aesthetic studies. Diagrams are used to create and explore alternative schemes at the very early stages. They are also used to explain concepts once a project is completed. Learning to diagram is an important part of architectural education. A particular diagramming vocabulary can help to guide students into an appreciation and consciousness of aesthetics. As an introduction to theories of modernism, students have been instructed in the use of a set of diagrams that express abstract qualities of architectural aesthetics. The exercises are designed to wean students from a naïve aesthetic that merely mimics popular taste and introduce them to the field of aesthetics as an intellectual discipline. The diagramming vocabulary has been developed from the seven invariables, described by Bruno Zevi in The Modern Language of Architecture. Students apply the diagrams to analyze examples of famous buildings. They then design a house, applying the aesthetic principles expressed by the diagrams. The resulting designs are compared to previous designs produced by the students to reveal the change that is due in part to learning the diagramming vocabulary. 1 Introduction Experience as a design studio instructor has exposed a particular problem in meeting the educational needs of contemporary students: many students lack an understanding of aesthetic theory upon which they can base their design decisions. Although more acute in some less urban University settings, the problem is probably general to many educational environments. Students produce designs that essentially mimic the buildings around them. For example, a house design is most often a copy of the house in which they were raised or a copy of their current residence. Justifications for their decisions rarely go beyond a statement that the student likes it, or it looks good, or occasionally that they wanted to create a sense of grandeur. To address this emptiness of aesthetic dimensions to student architecture, I have developed course exercises that employ diagramming in conjunction with a clearly stated aesthetic code. Students learn to apply the code and the diagramming languages to analysis of architectural precedents and then to their own designs. Graphic thinking is a hallmark of architectural design education. It is widely accepted among practicing architects and educators that acts of drawing are indistinguishable from the design process itself. Observations of architects instructing students have revealed a continual, fluid interplay between the spoken word and quick

2 sketches [1]. The abstraction inherent in the creation of a diagram is critical to identifying the key parts of a problem and formulating solutions [2]. Consequently, diagramming abstract aesthetic principles may be effective in engendering increased awareness of aesthetics among students. Other diagramming languages have been applied to analyzing architecture but lack a clear connection to a particular aesthetic stance [3]. 2 Zevi s Modern Language of Architecture Modernism remains a powerful influence in contemporary architectural aesthetics. Leading internationally known architects, such as Frank Gehry, Richard Rogers, Sir Norman Foster, Peter Eisenman, Zaha Hadid and others, employ forms that owe little to architecture before modernism. The theories and examples produced by pioneers of modernism, such as Frank Lloyd Wright, LeCorbusier, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, remain compelling and influential in both architecture schools and professional practice. Although arguably written at the end of the strictly modern period in architecture, The Modern Language of Architecture defines a tantalizing formula for producing designs using a modern aesthetic [4]. 2.1 The Seven Invariables Zevi began his treatise by declaring that modernism is an anti-classical language. One way of looking at modernism is to see it as a reaction and repudiation of Beaux- Arts theory and practice. Zevi stressed that modernism should be ungoverned by stylistic clichés such as the classical Greek and Roman orders. The creation of a modern language by which aesthetic decisions may be made with some consistency presents a dilemma: superficial form and familiar patterns must be excluded or else one falls into just another type of classicism. Zevi overcame the dilemma by elaborating seven invariables that describe aspects of a modern process and give guidance regarding key aesthetic decisions without prescribing particular aesthetic motifs. The seven invariables are summarized as follows: 1. Functional listing. This is a characteristic activity in the design process in which the desired performance of the building is decomposed into units and sub-units. Zevi places response to function as the premier aspect of modernism. The idea has a long pedigree dating back to Louis Sullivan s statement that Form ever follows function [5]. 2. Asymmetry and dissonance. The modern approach is to avoid symmetry and regular patterns. Zevi suggests that a truly functional design cannot be subjugated to an a priori desire for symmetry. A symmetrical building must always compromise function. Even when there is no functional reason not to use symmetry, Zevi recommends a dissonant pattern to express individuality and emphasize that the building is not symmetrical. 3. Antiperspective three-dimensionality. Most buildings consist of rectilinear forms that are easy to draw and easy to conceive. Zevi suggests that before the invention

3 of perspective in Renaissance Italy, buildings and cities were composed to provide rich volumetric forms. With the introduction of perspective methods and an architecture profession, buildings were subjugated to the tyranny of the T-square. Architecture was limited to forms that were easy to draw and easy to communicate to a builder. Zevi suggests a modern architecture that is spatially complex so that it cannot be easily portrayed in orthographic projections and one-point perspectives. 4. The syntax of four-dimensional decomposition. This invariable is concerned with the quality of space. In contrast to the Beaux-Arts attitude of multiple compartments, modernist space is flowing and indefinite. The boundaries depend upon how the occupants are using the spaces at the moment. The impression is that of unlimited expanse rather than limited enclosure, and of movement rather than a static box. 5. Cantilever, shell and membrane structure. A key part of modernism has been structural innovation. The trabeated stone construction of classicism has been replaced by steel spans and reinforced concrete. A modern design makes use of advanced engineered structures to create breathtaking forms. 6. Space in time. Closely related to fourth dimensional decomposition, this invariable emphasize movement and change. Modern architecture is concerned with paths through space, the passage of time as marked by the sun and the seasons, and an awareness of past, present and future. Rather than being timeless like a classical monument, a modern building should help one to be intensely aware of time. 7. Reintegration of building, city, and landscape. The disparate invariables of the modern language must all be brought together in a reintegration. The scope of the designer s attention spans from the hand scale to the global scale. The notions of inside and outside are metaphorical in that every location is inside one boundary and outside another boundary. Modern architecture recognizes this truth and employs subtle gradations between inside and outside and multiple readings of them. These seven invariables provide students with a principle by which they can make aesthetic decisions. The pedagogical intent of presenting them to the students is to help them to be aware that aesthetics can be objective and intellectually engaged. By further applying the invariables, the students begin to replace a naïve aesthetic that is without intellectual foundation with a consciousness of sophisticated aesthetic concepts. 3 Diagramming Languages In this research, a set of diagramming methods has been devised to distinguish abstract qualities of architectural designs that relate to Zevi s aesthetic code. The diagrams include: Servant/Master. Spaces that fulfill a primary function, such as living, sleeping, or entertaining are shown in blue. Spaces that are merely to support the primary spaces are shown in orange. Addresses the first invariable. Public/Private. The diagram differentiates among spaces that can be seen by a delivery person, a guest and the owner. Addresses the first invariable.

4 Symmetry. Axes are drawn on the plan or elevation. Solid lines designate axes that govern the placement of architectural elements, while dashed lines designate axes that could be in the design but are not reinforced. Addresses the second invariable. Antiperspective. Heavy lines designate antiperspective effects in the house, such as converging planes, changing rhythms, or a use of color to create a sense of distance or proximity. Addresses the third invariable. Four-dimensional decomposition. Overlapping, multicolored shapes designate the overlap of spaces suggested by boundaries in the house. Addresses the fourth invariable. Structure. The columns and primary and secondary spanning elements are drawn as an overlay on the plan. Hidden structure is differentiated from expressed structure. Addresses the fifth invariable. Circulation. Circulation paths are designated on a floor plan using thickness that diminishes with importance. For example, the relationship between the kitchen and the car should be rather thick. A relationship between the dining room and the kitchen should be thick. Between the entry and the living room should be thick. Paths to the bedrooms or private baths should be relatively thin. Addresses the sixth invariable. Space in time. Movement through the house is designated by drawing streams and puddles. Addresses the sixth invariable. Indoor and outdoor. A gray scale is used to designate the degree of connection to the outdoors for each space. Addresses the seventh invariable. 4 Application In third year architectural design studios, students have been assigned to analyze a house designed by a recognized modern architect. They have produced the diagrams shown in this section. The exercise has been applied in studios that emphasize hand drawing as well as studios that focus upon computer modeling. By portraying many buildings in a common graphic abstract style, the students can compare the relative success and failure of the buildings with respect to Zevi s invariables. Fig. 1 illustrates Public/Private diagrams. In these houses, there is a definite sequence that restricts access to the private spaces and reveals only parts of the house to an uninvited visitor. The living spaces of the Stahl House are protected from uninvited visitors by a gate at the property line. Private spaces in the Davis Studio are clustered remotely from the front entrance while in the Stahl House they are held against the back wall away from the patio. However, in both houses most of the space is exposed to the guest to create a typically modern sense of openness. The Lawson House and the Loggia House similarly establish a public zone near the street entrance and progressively more private zones deeper into the houses. The clear patterns reinforce the functional listing invariable as a design concept.

5 Davis studio, designed by Frank Gehry Lawson House, designed by Eric Owen Moss Loggia House, designed by Whitney R. Smith Fig. 1. Public/Private diagrams illustrate zones for uninvited visitors, guests, and owners. In the Servant/Master diagrams shown in Fig. 2, one can clearly see how servant spaces have been clustered into zones in the Davis Studio and the Stahl House. The Davis Studio has a service core pulled away from the perimeter of the house and the desirable access to views. The Stahl House places the bathrooms and closets along the back wall away from the patio to the lower left in the diagram. In the House C and the Loggia House, the servant spaces are scattered throughout the houses to closely accommodate the served spaces. Both approaches are common in modern houses and represent different solutions to functional requirements. All of the houses diagrammed in Fig. 2, achieve ease of access from master spaces to servant spaces. In the symmetry diagrams shown in Fig. 3, the dashed lines show how the Stahl House avoids even the obvious opportunities to create symmetry. The Lawson House employs regular patterns of walls, but avoids axes of reflection. Both houses have a sense of proportion and pattern, due in large part to their strong structural grids. Both houses clearly differ from classical designs by their lack of symmetry and their dissonant compositions.

6 Davis studio, designed by Frank Gehry Loggia House, designed by Whitney R. Smith House C, designed by Killingsworth, Brady and Smith Fig. 2. Servant/Master diagrams distinguish between primary spaces and secondary spaces. Lawson House, designed by Eric Owen Moss Fig. 3. Symmetry diagrams show whether concepts of geometric symmetry have been used in the design.

7 Antiperspective diagrams help to illustrate the architectonic devices that give the designs richness and complexity. The Davis Studio, diagrammed in Fig. 4, is clearly a composition inspired by antiperspective and visual tricks of perception. Most walls in the trapezoidal design are placed off the rectilinear grid to create illusions of nearness and farness. The Lawson House is less obviously governed by antiperspective. The curves create perceptual lines that play against the straight lines to distort one s sense of space. Davis studio, designed by Frank Gehry Lawson House, designed by Eric Owen Moss Fig. 4. Antiperspective diagrams illustrate how a design manipulates the perception of space. Four dimensional decomposition is illustrated in Fig. 5. These visually pleasing diagrams show how subtle boundaries define a multitude of overlapping spaces. All four houses that are illustrated make use of this modern invariable to a high degree. Furthermore, the overlapping spaces provide perceptual connections between the inside and the outside. In the Stahl House, the interior spaces in the L-shaped house blend with the patio. In the Caudill House, the large living room in the center flows out through glass walls into the entrance porch and the back patio. The kitchen overlooks the living area without any separating walls from its position two feet above. The Loggia House also uses four-dimensional decomposition to dissolve distinctions between inside and outside. Its central living space is actually an outdoor roofed pavilion with almost freestanding enclosed rooms for the kitchen and bedrooms. Structural diagrams show the basic construction system and how it makes use of engineering principles. The diagram of the Stahl House, shown in Fig. 6, shows the widely separated beams that rely upon engineered steel decks, and the wide cantilevers, designated by hatching. The diagram of House C illustrates the columns in the glass curtain wall that provide a sense of openness in contrast to a bearing wall. Circulation diagrams, shown in examples in Fig. 7, show the characteristically well-ordered and controlled movement through a modern house. In the Stahl House, most circulation is outside in the patio with entrances into each room through large glass doors. The Lawson house has implied hallways in the interior that are open to the main spaces. The elaborate stairway in the drum form provides a sense of ceremony to the movement.

8 Davis studio, designed by Frank Gehry Caudill House, designed by William Caudill Loggia House, designed by Whitney R. Smith Fig. 5. Four-dimensional decomposition diagrams indicate spatial boundaries. House C, designed by Killingsworth, Brady and Smith Fig. 6. Structural diagrams show the use of engineered structural forms.

9 Lawson House, designed by Eric Owen Moss Fig. 7. Circulation diagrams show how the architecture controls movement through space. Space in time is illustrated in diagrams in Fig. 8. The Davis Studio diagram shows the multiple moments of arrival as one approaches the house, moves up the patio steps, and then stands before the entrance. The diagram of the Stahl House shows the entrance through the carport and arrival in the patio and how movement is along the perimeter of the house and the edge between the house and the patio. Davis studio, designed by Frank Gehry Fig. 8. Space in time diagrams illustrate how people move and linger in various spaces. Diagrams illustrating reintegration with the landscape are shown in Fig. 9. The Stahl House diagram clearly shows how the line between indoor and outdoor is blurred through glass walls and the cantilevered roof overhangs. Very few spaces in the house are defined completely as interior. The Lawson House less successfully applies this principle. Although its patios and balconies provide an intermediate kind of space between indoor and outdoor, much of the house appears to be inwardly oriented. The diagram may not truly indicate the subtlety of the treatment of indoor and outdoor, as the double volume spaces with overlooking balconies help to create a perception of looking from one space into another space, and thus an ambiguity of

10 inside and outside. The diagrams of the Caudill House and the Loggia House are mostly gray, indicating the large amount of space that is intermediate between indoors and outdoors. The use of glass walls, roofed patios, walled patios, and courtyards provide a wide range of degree of enclosure in these houses. Lawson House, designed by Eric Owen Moss Caudill House, designed by William Caudill Loggia House, designed by Whitney R. Smith Fig. 9. Indoor/outdoor diagrams illustrate clarity or ambiguity between inside and outside of the buildings. The diagrams help the students to critically exam precedents. By using the relative objectivity of Zevi s published modern language and applying them to the design of someone else, students learn to detach themselves from their intuitive and unexamined aesthetic. They can begin to make judgements among the multiple buildings studied by the class to say that one design is successful in a particular criterion while another is not. The skills that they cultivate are crucial to acquiring an ability to criticize their own designs and accept criticism from others.

11 5 Student Designs The final step in this educational sequence is to challenge students to design houses that apply Zevi s invariables. The students are instructed to ignore context and their preconceptions of a good house. The resulting designs can be compared to designs executed by students before they have gone through the diagramming exercises. In Fig. 10 and 11, designs executed by students before they learned to diagram are shown on the left while designs executed after the diagramming exercise are shown on the right. The comparison demonstrates an increased awareness of modern principles and how they can be used to create rich, complex and stimulating architectural forms. Student designs from before the exercises are pre-modern or even classical. They generally exhibit symmetry, a compartmentalization approach to rooms, conventional wood framed structural systems, and purely rectilinear layouts. The designs stop at the exterior wall such that the yards are unconsidered. After the exercises, the designs take advantage of asymmetrical compositions, open planning, steel frames and shell structures, skewed geometries, and include private patios and outdoor living spaces. While the student designs may still be immature, their spoken language about their designs shows increased sophistication, referring to precedents, architectural theory texts and abstract aesthetic intentions. 6 Conclusions This paper has presented diagramming languages that illustrate an influential architectural aesthetic system. Application in classroom situations shows that the diagramming languages can be taught, and that many people can apply them to many buildings. The research illustrates how semi-formal diagramming languages can heighten a student s awareness of aesthetic issues. Beyond merely talking about the issues, the diagramming helps students to operationalize their knowledge of aesthetics. The example diagrams are a resource for other researchers. Further work can refine and clarify the diagramming languages or produce alternative and additional ones. Use by more students or in controlled experiments can test the clarity of the diagramming language. Recent experiments have introduced 3D computer modeling as a way to produce diagrams quickly with more complexity and clarity. The use of transparency and the combination of shaded and wireframe images can focus attention on particular qualities. The indoor/outdoor diagram of the Caudill House is an example of the increased communicative power that can result from overlaying the diagrammatic abstraction upon a perspective projection. An algorithm could be used to score buildings based upon the abstract qualities portrayed in the diagrams and consequently the modern aesthetic language.

12 References 1. Schön, Donald. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers, Laseau, Paul. Graphic Thinking for Architects and Designers, 2 nd edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, Clark, Roger H. and Michael Pause. Precedents in Architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, Zevi, Bruno. The Modern Language of Architecture. Seattle: University of Washington Press Sullivan, L The tall office building artistically considered. In The Public Papers, ed. R. Twombly, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Designs before the diagramming exercise. Fig. 10. Examples of student house designs. Designs after the diagramming exercise.

13 Designs before the diagramming exercise. Fig. 11. Examples of student house designs. Designs after the diagramming exercise.