The Cycles of Trends and Movements

Stylistic movements are constantly moving in and out of vogue (as Heidi Klum would say, one day you're in; the next day, you're out).  The third and fourth part of that sequence is that there is likely a strong backlash against whatever was en vogue, and then at some point much much further down the line, whatever is "out" will somehow end up being back "in".  This premise is easily demonstrated in the fashion of that last five decades or so.  Who would have thought that high-waisted jeans, acid wash, day glo, and jumpsuits would ever be back in style?  And yet you see some of the most fashion-forward design houses or "avant-garde" pret-a-porter styles are actually just reminiscent of something you might find in your mom's closet circa 1983.

As with fashion goes architecture:  Classical (600 BC - 323 BC) begets Neoclassical (1715 - 1820), Gothic begets Gothic Revival,  Colonial has Colonial Revival.... so it goes.  One of the readings mentioned that there are two strong reactions to a movement:  vehement reaction against (eg Romanticism vs. Enlightenment, Realism vs. Romanticism) and renewal of it almost as a new idea.  From my understanding of the readings and a little help from an outside source, the Italian Rational movement was kind of a revival of the European historical city whose elements were the most basic elemental parts of architecture.  These fundamental parts of architecture could then be used as the stepping stone for understanding the "types" of different elements and developing them for their own specific purpose.  The culture of the site would drive the design of the elements.  All this was driven by the need to rebuild the historical cities of Europe following the war.

This discussion of types and typology reminds me of last week's readings talking about getting back to the beginnings of things to really understand them.  This is why the study of architectural history is important to us as architecture students (however tedious it might be).  There are a million iterations of the potential of a roof or a wall because of our deliberate design, yet when it comes down to it they start as basic universal things:  a horizontal plane and/or vertical plane(s) to protect the inhabitants from exterior conditions. 

So those denim skinny jeans you're wearing right now, why are you wearing them?  They started out as work trousers when they were invented by Levi Strauss and Jacob Davis in 1873.  Then they became a teenage fashion statement sometime in the 1950s, and since then have been a staple of casual dress.  Over time, they have variably been deemed fashionable by being dark wash indigo, acid washed, sand-blasted, distressed, high-waisted, low-rise, low low low rise, flared, boot-cut, skinny, and baggy (boyfriend, for you ladies).  Ten years ago you ladies in particular probably wouldn't be caught dead in high-waisted, taper-legged "mom jeans," and yet this is somehow fashionable again.  Think about it.

Design inspiration of the day: WRB Architects Lake House

Elegant, Simple, 1-story Lake House

Last quarter, I wrote my final paper about my design theory and supported it using information about transcendentalism and Lou Kahn's philosophy.  My theory was only based on what I knew from studying Emerson in American Lit and a basic recollection of Kahn's philosophy from his son's documentary about his life.  I wish I had had access to this week's readings for that assignment, because I'm sure my paper would have been a hell of a lot better.

Kahn's architecture isn't really my cup of tea - I'm not all about the heavy, obvious platonic geometry.  But the more I read about his thoughts on the metaphysical and monumental aspects of the built environment, the more I realize I like his philosophy.

I struggle a lot in my own design process because I try to jump too far ahead to what the solutions should be and over think details; I don't spend enough time contemplating the big picture and trying out lots of things that are probably crap, but are what Kahn thinks is most important:  PROCESS.  The arrival at the solution, the final stage of the project, or the grade is not what I should be thinking about from the very beginning.  Reading Kahn's words helps me realize part of what my huge problem is.  When I complete a project, often I feel unsatisfied with my work, like I could have done much better.  Sure, everybody feels that way to a certain extent, especially if they had just had one more hour... but for me, part of it is that I don't explore the full range of possibilities, all of the possible solutions (including the garbage) that are inspired by the asking of the question.  I don't ask enough questions.  The most successful design students I know probably ask five times more questions than I do.

First there is denial, then there is acceptance.

Kristin's New Year's resolution:  Ask more questions about my projects.  To quote Ms. Wreden from free hand drawing in first year:  "What are you doing, potato?"

Kahn's idea about the "ina" and the existence will of every object and living thing fascinates me.  There is a unifying spark of life in every organism, I can go along with that.  Are we defined as what we are because something in us "wants to be" it?  With humans this becomes too complex to understand fully, and thus what humans produce (architecture) is too complex for this concept to be applied.  Are you who you are because of what your genes and your environment "want" you to be?  Or are you who you are because of what you intellectually desire to be?  I want and try to be easy-going and level-headed, but my genetics from my dad (nature, not nurture in this case) want me to be a deep feeler and emotionally guided (which I struggle against constantly).  Should I not struggle because nature has chosen my course?

So in architecture, does the design of a library dictate itself to the architect because of what libraries "should be", or does the architect dictate the design based on where he wants to take it?  These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive concepts, but what is at the root of this design?  Does a cathedral want to be a cathedral?