Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
PortElliot2.jpg
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Weblog Links
Library
Fields
Philosophers
Writers
Connections
Magazines
E-Resources
Academics
Other
www.thought-factory.net
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'

modernist architecture, space, photography « Previous | |Next »
February 24, 2011

The The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 69 no.1 is a free sample copy. In it Filip Martens in his The Aesthetics of Space: Modern Architecture and Photography observes:

Those who fail to appreciate modernist or contemporary architecture tend to lump together the most divergent problems as all originating in the invention of modern architecture. Without distinguishing the naive intentions of its pioneers from the practical failures of their inheritors, they uphold a caricature of the modernist spirit, which is held responsible for every single abuse and indiscretion in postwar building history, from the monotony in urban planning to excessive use of concrete in commercial towers. In this way, the very idea of an aesthetics of space characteristic of modern architecture is absorbed in the general picture of an inhuman, or even antihuman, architectural ideology and then dismissed.

He adds that a more nuanced approach to the elements involved, however, reveals a remarkable intrigue between modernism, space, and photography.

The first observation is that:

Architectural modernism was consciously developed as a programmatic movement. In its program, we find dwelling—the traditional inhabitation of space—to be an issue of high priority. .... Dwelling had become a part of the agenda of architects because it had lost its naturalness. There is no need to deny that several modernists’ visions and practices display a blatant misjudgment of the nature of dwelling. However, this does not imply that modernist architecture itself created the disintegration of the natural relation between building practices and traditional life. To the contrary, faced with this problematic situation, early twentieth-century designers set themselves the task of providing an architectural solution. Moreover, the origin of what has become the aesthetics of modernism lies in a reaction against those movements that did not truly address the issue of dwelling, most notably, the many “aestheticisms” that tried to cover up the problematic conditions of life with decorative profusion.

The second observation is that:

Against the widespread but idle criticism that the ‘modernist style’ flows from a blindness to the true purpose of buildings, I have pointed out that the forerunners of contemporary architecture reacted against the decline of architecture's integrity. The very origin of the modernist aesthetic lies, at least partly, in this reaction against those movements that had themselves neglected to respond to the question of dwelling. But, even though an awareness of the crisis of human dwelling lies at the origin of the modernist movement and its aesthetics, from the beginning, modernism was portrayed as misanthropic.

The third observation is that the emergence of modern architecture coincided with the popularization of photography.

For the first time in its history, architecture could be depicted by those who were not gifted aquarellists. Whereas previously the great majority of architectural drawings were presentations made before realization, in order to please the patron or client, architects could now record the result of their imagination at will so as to produce truthful depictions of unprecedented accuracy. However, there is something remarkable about the origin of architectural photography. Given the modernists’ fascination with the metropolis, the bustle of crowded streets and busy traffic, and given the typically modernist visions of the orchestration of the crowds, it is striking to see how desolate their interior spaces are when photographed. Schools, cinemas, houses, and the like are almost always shown as deserted, devoid of people, and often even completely cleared out, with no furniture or other signs of human occupation. This characterizes a great deal of architectural photography from its origin to the present day.

He asks what is the purpose of the ‘emptiness’ that so strongly characterizes architectural photography? Is it that (a) the emptiness of these depicted spaces merely serves the purpose of rendering a neutral photographical representation? Or is it that (b) this emptiness fulfills a specific role in that it influences—or has come to influence—our appreciation of the spatiality of architecture?

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 4:59 PM |