Ornament: Raison D’Être?

When talking about ‘ornament’, what usually comes to mind is that gothic or baroque style church we’ve once visited. The overly adored pillars from the greek temples, or even an accessory fashion related. In other words - a element that has a visual function. 

The use of ornament in architecture has been under investigation for over a century now, when pre-world war Sant’Elia, Marinetti and Loos amongst others, decided to call attention on how ornament was still being ‘wrongfully’ implemented . In their statements they strongly denied ornaments as how they were being worn for elements of construction. 

"Decoration is something imposed upon architecture, an absurdity (…) The decorative must be abolished."

They believed that there was nothing different in architecture since the 18th hundreds, as though as they were still living in the past. The classical way of constructing was loosing sense in the modernity of the technologies and the new necessities of the users, and together with it was the external elements that seemed to have no fundamental or structural functions.

"Architecture is breaking free from tradition. It must perforce begin from the beginning."

As a result, they proposed a new approach for architecture: the elements should reflect solely on the choice of the materials, the functions and the form. They believed that the future was to be constructed by the ‘scientific and technological experiences’ embracing new materials.

"The house of concrete, glass and iron, without painting and without sculpture, enriched solely by the innate beauty of its lines and projections."

The determination of extinguishing decoration in architecture by remaining only the form itself gave way to a new era in the architectural field where a series of new styles appeared. But what’s intriguing is how this denial created a new stylistic method of construction, and  therefore a new conception of ‘ornament'. 

Moving to an Industrial Ecological Architecture

A New Epoque

Le Corbusier: Maison Domino 

The term insutrialization is often used in history and architecture to describe part of the cultural movement, and the tehcnological and mechanical advances of the XIX and XX century. This new cultural movement can be seen in Le Corbusier manifesto; he  wrote "Exist multiple works concieved in a new spirit; it encounters particularly in the industrial production", also he expressed "Its the beginnig of a great epoque. There is a new spirit. The indisutry... give us the new tools adapted to this new epoque, powered by a new spirit.... the laws of the economy rule our acts and our thoughts". Another example of the new spirit and interpretation of the architeture is the one gave by Sant'Elia in his manifiesto "the futurist architecture is the architecture of calculation, of audicity and simplicity". Both refered to the house as machines where all the elements play a roll, just like pieces of a machine. The idea behind the industrialization of the architechture was to make pieces, fallowing certain standards, and then mass produce them, to reduce cost and make faster the construction of buildings. Or we can quote Ramon Araujo in On Architecture and Industry "Idustrialize is to mass produce, with the variations that may be, but en masse. The assembly line, the spare part and the automation of task were and continue to be determinant features of industrial proportion ... the objective is to supply products to a society of severed million people. Elia's reflection on the future of architecture was "as the art of arranging the forms of builfind according to predetermined criteria". 

Praunheim, Frankfurt, 1926-29 One of the first mass produce housing projects after world war I.

The Chaos

Since the year 1950 we have seen industrialized elements and techniques being incorporated into the realm of architecture first in doors and window, subsequently in new products like prefabricated slabs of tiebeams and plates, facade panels, divisions of boards, modular ceilings, and many more.  What it seem to be an organized and beneficial solution to mass build houses or other types of buildings lead to environmental problems. Ecological ideas start to appear and spread during the following decades, specially after the oil crisis. The increase of the oil prices made us aknowledge how much we depend on fossil fuels. As Sant'Elia said "the constantly growing number of machines, the daily increase of needs imposed by the speed of communications, by the agglomeration of people" has gone out our hands. There is no doubt on how much we have afected our planet specially by the massive use of non renewable resources to power our machines.  But at the end industrialization have accomplished its goal, make cheaper and faster the construction of any kind of building. The question then is industrialization is bad. We live in the epoque that Le Corbusier descrive, industrialization has gone beyond our imagination and now everything is being mass produce. 

"We will get to the "machine-house", to the serial house, 

healthy (even morally) and beautifull like the tools of work that 

accompany our existance"  Le Corbusier

http://arc.housing.salle.url.edu/sdr/private/entregas/0f9127c6ed562c106124085f05a166ce.swf

Moving Forward 

Today companies are investing in new technologies to reuse and recycle different materials, in that way they dont have to consume more natural resources. Other ones are looking for more ecological and efficient way to transport prefabricated elements to reduce the consumption of oil. On top of this different governments have develop a "Technical Building Code" where the construction is regulated by different laws, some of them deal with energy consumption and efficiency; in other hand these laws have helped to come up with new standards of construction elements. In the construction industry is becoming more aware of its effects on the nature. Young Architects and engineers are looking forward to an efficient, sustainble architecture, instead of tearing down buildings, architects try to reuse elements (due to  standarization this is posible), or recycle the as most as possible. There is still a lot to do but we are going on the right path.  

Image by Armand Perez 

Más que arquitectura

A lo largo de los años la arquitectura ha cambiado, ya que cambia la forma y muchas de sus veces se utilizan técnicas del pasado. 

Yo creo que hemos llegado a un punto en el que adaptamos la arquitectura a las ciudades, no las ciudades a la arquitectura... es decir, ahora todo parece muy mecanizado, excepto aquellos que rompen la norma y destacan por vivir lo que construyen. Hoy en día existen muchos tipos de arquitecturas y arquitectos, arquitectura tradicional, arquitectura prefabricada, arquitectura sostenible...

Pasamos de construir con piedras a conocer más materiales, a una gran industrialización, modulación que quieren acabar en sostenibilidad. Como una escala de grises que va de un gris claro a un negro y se quiere convertir en azul. 

Algún día llegaremos a un azul semejante al de la escala. 

La arquitectura es cultura, ya que las casas no son las mismas en casi ningún país, cambia la forma de estructurar las ciudades, el clima y sobretodo las personas, la modulación no creo que ayude a mejorar la forma de la arquitectura, puede ser muy útil a la hora de construir dicha arquitectura ya que la modulación es el manejo de elementos repetitivos de características similares en lo que se refiere a forma, tamaño y función, recibiendo cada uno de estos elementos el nombre de módulo.El diseño modular no es una técnica moderna, se remonta a la antigüedad, donde se empleo en arquitectura y otros oficios. Un modulo es un elemento constructivo que sirve de base para la construcción de la forma y la función.

EVOLUCIÓN DE LA ARQUITECTURA

Podemos observar como evoluciona la arquitectura en un minuto.

VIDEO FLASH

ARQUITECTURA VS. CAPITALISMO

Comparando entre ellos los manifiestos: ' PRACTICAS MENORES', 'LOVE IT OR LIST IT' y 'SUPERPOSICIONES MODERNAS', puedo afirmar que la arquitectura ha sido utilizada como una herramienta de propaganda política  que la ha perjudicado más de lo que la ha beneficiado. Remontandonos en el siglo pasada, simplemente por el mero hecho de demostrar el poder, la ostentación  y estatus social de la burguesía,  dejaba en segundo lugar la esencia de la creación arquitectonica de las obras encargadas por dicha burguesía. Una lucha constante en querer construir dejando de lado los conocimientos y el seguimiento y desarrollo de la misma, acorde con la época. No hace falta irse muy lejos en el tiempo para ver cómo la arquitectura es utilizada para dar a conocer la nueva imagen de un país, pero la pregunta es la siguiente: 'han sabido utilizar la arquitectura para darse a conocer de la mejor manera'? O sin embargo la han utilizado vulnerando así su real propósito?

La arquitectura ha quedado numerosas veces como único testigo tanto del esplendor de grandes civilizaciones, como del esperpento de épocas menos gloriosas.  Los egipcios con las pirámides, los griegos y romanos con sus templos, el clero con sus catedrales o reyes y emperadores con sus castillos y palacios son algunos ejemplos claros de ello.

La arquitectura es unas de las primeras armas que los políticos utilizan para ganarse al pueblo y sus votos. Esto no tiene inconvenientes siempre y cuando los esfuerzos se encaminen a solventar problemas existentes, contribuyendo a mejorar la vida de los ciudadanos. El problema radica en que hay muchas ocasiones en que no es así y los arquitectos contribuyen al derroche de dinero de las arcas públicas en proyectos de dudoso interés o necesidad.

La globalización ha generado que se esté perdiendo el carácter tradicional de nuestras ciudades en detrimento  de una arquitectura que a primera vista puede parecer heterogénea, pero que es más bien anodina y copiada hasta la saciedad. ¿Por qué  resulta más agradable pasear por el casco antiguo de una ciudad que por los nuevos barrios? ¿Por qué las viviendas y equipamientos de los nuevos ensanches parecen exactamente los mismos en diferentes ciudades no solo del mismo país, si no del extranjero también? Algo se está  haciendo mal sin duda.

Tal y como afirmó Nietzsche, 'España es ese país que quiso ser demasiado'. Relacionandolo con el manifiesto de Santiago Molina, el talento se ha vuelto huidizo, como antes lo fue el dinero. Ha ido emigrando a causa de las carencias de los políticos en referencia al arte arquitectonico. 

Tal y como afirman los certificadores en el manifiesto de 'Love it or list it', acorde con los manifiestos anteriores, tienen razón cuando afirman odiar los arquitectos burbuja, esos arquitectos sin criterios fijos, esos arquitectos dominados como marionetas por el poder y la politica que actuan acorde a sus deseos y no acorde con la demanda del pueblo. Un tipo de arquitecto que abandona su criterio para posteriormente construir viviendas del s.XIX que no tienen en cuenta dichas demanadas sociales y energeticas del s.XXI.

La complejidad en la arquitectura

En ocasiones se cree que la complejidad de las cosas reside en el “exceso” de elaboración, ornamentación, superposición o sobrecarga de elementos, pero realmente lo es? En arquitectura, la idea de complejidad ha ido evolucionando con el tiempo y pasando por numerosas etapas (simplificadas), des de la simplicidad del Románico (si bien podía ser por falta de conocimiento y técnicas), elaboración del gótico, máxima ornamentación y ostentación en el barroco y vuelta a la simplicidad en las formas con la arquitectura moderna, que tenia como grandes impulsores la Bauhaus (con Walter Gropius a la cabeza) o a Adolf Loos, Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe, Oscar Niemeyer, Alvar Aalto, entre otros, a finales del XIX y S.XX.

Promoviendo una arquitectura que se caracterizaba por la simplificación de las formas, la ausencia de ornamento, con referencias permanentes al denominado arte moderno (cubismo, expresionismo, futurismo, impresionismo, …) y con el uso de tecnologías mas avanzadas como eran el hormigón armado o el uso de acero. Centrándose en el arte de proyectar, sin perder el tiempo en maquillar el edificio vistiéndolo de elementos inútiles a su estructura.

        

En el manifiesto de “Ornamento y delito” (1908) Adolf Loos afirmaba que "los volúmenes tenían que ser simples, puros y libres, eliminando cualquier tipo de ornamentación" de este modo se desprendía de todos aquellos elementos estructuralmente "innecesarios". Mantener la estructura vista libre de elementos ornamentales que no favorecían al soporte de la misma, y que nos privaban de la visión del esqueleto estructural. “El ornamento es símbolo de un tiempo ya pasado. Es un signo de degeneración estética y moral”.

(espacio para el flash)

Post publicado por: Xavier Dou

"Eyes which do not see"

How industrialization opened our eyes / David Huri 

"We must aim at the fixing of standards in order to face the problem of perfection "-said Le Corbusier in his manifesto "toward a new architecture"

William Butterfield: All Saints’ Church

Margaret Street, London, 1849-1859

                                                                                                                                         


In the early 20th century, we found ourselves in a point where "styles" have been misunderstood as progress ,this misapprehension derived from the necessity to show the own "special" characters of an epoch and from the fear to be perceived as too simple.                                                                                                                                 

new york at 1900

                                                                                                                                                                      The change in perception arrived from the new needs reality had dictated , The influx of people to big cities created the main objective of modernity- supplying products to a society of several million people, and modern architecture had to confront with this new situation.  "if we eliminate from our hearts and minds all dead concepts in regards to the house ,and look at the question from a critical and objective point of view we shall arrive at the "house machine"(le corbusier)

With this new conception of architecture, the application of the industrialization on buildings was indispensable,and according to the article "on architecture and industry" -"since 1950 we have seen industrialized elements and techniques being incorporated into the realm of architecture,first in doors and windows subsequently in many more new products in this evolution more and more prefabricated elements are becoming part of the system"

This mentioned progressive replacement of elements, has been followed by a development of special structural system (what today happen mainly in high cost works),but no real change of concept occurred in this industrial process, just an input of new more industrialized solutions ,the biggest legacy we gain from this process are all the experimentations that have been done, and the series of technical innovations to incorporate those new ideas .

"industry overwhelming us like a flood with rolls on towards its destined ends ,has furnished us with new tools adapted to the new epoch,animated by the new spirit"(le corbusier)

mies van der rohe,s.r crown hall

The next step in industrialization is far more radical and it has taken the idea of a building working as a machine to a farther step,taking a model of a complete building and producing it industrially ,"only full production of the object allows true serialization and a real reorganization of the production of the city"

casa bloc

Those ideas first applied on family dwellings and after have been translated to other architectural types such as the school, apartment blocks and finally public buildings

We can't control this industrial process ,moreover it began because of the reality knocking on the door ,it depends on facts that aren't architectural only,such as economical social (etc.),but it is quite clear that it continues to be a necessary positive process

"nowadays we are focussing on problems of energy management-reuse,recycling and reduction of consumption can only be efficiently achieved in the context of industrialized production ,outside of which they are practically irrelevant"(architecture viva 156,15)

So we need to continue doing those experiments between buildings,technology ,materials etc. and create a flexible architecture that will adapt itself to the daily changes.
 And the most realistic way to do so is threw the project itself ,this comes with the understanding of the building as a whole and the construction as a system,and more than that,this building should act as a part of a city that needs to work as a whole we need to use the technological progress that we achieved through history to reduce our ecological fingerprint and not the contrary 

The venus project-self sustained city