Sorted by date | |||
page147from Building Ideas
Meaning and Architecture and edited by
Charles Jencks and George Baird. Jencks went on to champion the use of semantic
references in buildings, which became the basis of what we now refer to as the “language”
of postmodernism in architecture. Robert Venturi was perhaps the first
architect to make explicit use of these ideas, in terms of the self-conscious “quotation”
of historic forms in his buildings. While in his early work from the 1960s
these references are still fairly abstract – such as in the arch form across
the doorway of the house for his mother, near Philadelphia – in his later work
they appear in a much more literal form, as in the classical pilasters and
Egyptian decoration of his Sainsbury Wing of the National Gallery in London.
Uniting these two extremes is the principle of the arbitrariness of the sign, which
in his written work Venturi had translated into an intriguing architectural
theory. On the basis that any object could be made to signify a particular use,
he saw a problem in the modernist principle of expressing a function through a
specific form. Illustrated by his famous sketch of the “duck” and the “decorated
shed”, Venturi showed how a building could signify without resorting to
functionalist expression. Rather than trying to make the form of the building
express the character of what goes on inside, Venturi advocated the application
of signs, as seen in his studies of Las Vegas hotels. He felt that modernism
had compromised itself by insisting on functionalist expression and it was time
to learn from commercial architecture in its techniques of communication:
By
limiting itself to strident articulations of the pure architectural elements of
space, structure and program, modern architecture’s expression has become a dry
expressionism, empty and boring – and in the end irresponsible. Ironically, the
modern architecture of today, while rejecting explicit symbolism and frivolous
appliqué ornament,
has distorted the whole building into one big ornament. In substituting ‘articulation’
for decoration, it has become a duck.16
To
get over what he claimed was a problem within modernism of functional
expression compromising functional operation, he tried to
|
|||
|
|||
|