Sorted by date | |||
page152from Building Ideas
making great play of the fact that it is
merely trying to refer to something else.
The
problem with this reduction of architecture to decoration is that people still
have to inhabit the internal spaces of the “shed”. Another architect who has
also tried to make sense of this dilemma, and who shares the concern with
history expressed by Venturi, is fellow American Michael Graves. Graves became
known in the 1970s as one of the famous New York Five, after the book Five
Architects published in 1972. At this stage, paradoxically, his work showed
pronounced “syntactic” tendencies, being for the most part of revival of 1920s
modernist forms. Beginning with the abstract geometric language of Le Corbusier’s
“purist” villas, Graves was just beginning to experiment by adding colour and
fragmenting forms.
Following
a period of study in Rome at the American Academy and the phenomenological
influence of his colleague Peter Carl, his buildings also began to include more
obviously figurative elements, along with the explicit quotation of historical
references. In the essay accompanying his work, published in 1982, he made use
of the language analogy to illustrate his interest in meaning. By
distinguishing between the everyday and the poetic dimensions of language, he
was also echoing Broadbent’s division between syntactic and semantic:
When
applying this distinction of language to architecture, it could be said that
the standard form of building is its common or internal language – determined
by pragmatic, constructional and technical requirements. In contrast, the
poetic form of architecture is responsive to issues external to the building,
and incorporates the three-dimensional expression of the myths and rituals of
society.17
Graves went on to admit that both
dimensions of meaning are essential, but he concentrates on the latter as a
reaction to its neglect in mainstream modernism. This poetic, or external,
language is dependent
|
|||
|
|||
|