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.
I don't really know if there is going to be another "coming-in" of gothic or Beaux Arts styles, and while I see the relationship you are trying to establish, I have to ask, what are we reverting back to now, with our fluidity, our meta-rationalism, our confluence, our ribboning?
ReplyDeleteI suppose I should clarify that not every movement is a reaction against or a revival of another movement, necessarily. I would say the general trend is really more of a building-upon of styles and elements.
ReplyDelete