Introduction
This paper analyzes arguments against modern architecture. These arguments are based on the book “the language of Post-modern architecture” by Jencks. This paper explains the central argument and structure of the points presented in the book. This analysis is aimed at explaining the justifications of the points analyzed.
Secondly, this paper discusses these arguments relative to the period which the arguments were put forward. Such issues will be analyzed in this subsection to establish if the author was advancing some common agenda, or if there was a specific issue that the author was speaking against, or supporting. Finally, this paper investigates if the arguments are sustainable or not. This will be an indication of if this paper agrees with the author’s arguments or not.
Central Argument and Structure
The central argument advanced by Jencks is that, modern architect is proving to be irrelevant in present-day society which is characterized by extreme commercial interests. The author indicates that modern architecture was developed to uphold certain universal agendas which fail to reflect what present-day societies believe in. In this regard, the author explains that modern architect seems to be more elicitist and tends to lack meaning as well. Jencks further explains that modern architect was based on traditional structures which do not resonate with new modernist construction.
Examining the main role for which modern architecture was founded, Jencks notes that, modern architecture plays a silent role of a ‘social utopian.’ According to him, this is a deflection from the original purpose to which modern architecture was founded. He further notes that during the inception of the concept of modern architecture, the main agenda voiced at the time was upholding social morality but further down history lane, the motivation behind modern architecture was social transformation.
According to Jencks, this conflict of task formed the framework for continued misunderstandings of modern architecture because initially, it was marred by challenges of practice. However, as time went by, it was marred by challenges to do with acceptance. Here, he notes that the pioneers of modern architecture abandoned their role of architects in the society and instead pursued the agenda of advancing a new social paradigm. However, Jencks questions the creation of the new social paradigm advocated by these architects.
Jencks’s structure of this argument is based on the analysis of international exhibitions and world fairs. In this segment of the study, Jencks notes that there was no clear understanding of how buildings which were designed in the context of mass exhibitions (and world culture) could be comprehended in the context of mass culture alone. He notes that this observation was evident because most people only concentrated on observing the spatial and optical qualities of various buildings. He also notes that mass media overlooked the authentic content of these architectural works by focusing on the blatant nationalism and ersatz ambience which characterized most of the world’s trade fairs. In the same context, he also notes that, because most people overlooked the content of these architectural works, they also failed to notice the provocative, creative and humorous aspects that these architectural buildings brought to fore.
To advance his argument, Jencks explained that modern architectural buildings were mainly designed with business or commercial interests in mind. He further gives evidence of the fact that, most modern architectural works were owned by multinational companies because big businesses were the main clients for modern architectural designs. He equates the boom of modern architecture to the start of the industrial period where capitalism was only starting to gain ground. Here, Jencks criticizes modern architecture from the fact that it lacked credibility. However, he acknowledges that modern architecture brings the much needed capital for architecture, because of its sensitivity to commercial interests.
Furthermore, Jencks criticizes modern architecture because most of its designs were skewed towards factory designs. His strongest criticism in this respect stems from the fact that the same factory designs were included in the housing designs. Here, he questions why the housing sector had to adopt designs resembling the factory or mass market setups. These designs have been rejected in most areas where they have been applied, except for a few areas. However, the same designs have been accepted when designing public architecture such as stadia, aircraft hangars and the likes.
Jencks’s fourth basis for criticizing modern architecture is based on his analysis of how modern culture seems to take the symbol of consumer temples and churches. According to Jencks, these temples and churches are symbols of destruction. These temples also express the themes of personal adornment and private jewelry, which according to Jencks, is supporting the themes of ‘crime’ and ‘jewelry’. This analysis creates a big difference in the manner Jencks’s perception of architectural content should be perceived. In other words, he perceives jewels to be distinct symbols of their own being and not part of the authentic architectural design. This is the final area Jencks expresses his dissatisfaction with the concept of modern architecture.
Comprehensively, Jencks observes that architecture represents the financial and spiritual aspects of humanity, or the context in which architecture is practiced. He also draws a distinction between past forms of architecture because he observes that past architecture was based on non-commercial fixtures of the society, such as the church, temples, palaces and the likes. However, recent forms of architecture have taken the form of commercial agents, with heavy financial investments being poured into commercial buildings such as hotels and restaurants.
In this respect, he observes that, symbols that represent the local community, such as churches and temples, have suffered as a result. He however makes reference to the acceptance of architects who support modern architect because they came to accept that, the commercial nature of current architectural designs cannot be avoided. Instead, they decided to make the transition an exciting one because despite the flaws of this paradigm, commercial architecture is perceived to be more democratic than ancient forms of architecture.
Modern architecture has therefore embraced the concept of secular forms of architecture and celebrated the new identity of the society. However, this new identity lacks substantial social content. Jencks’s strongest worry emanates from this fact because he knows that since architecture is supposed to represent societal ideals and norms it may fail to pass the test of time if the commercial aspect of architecture fails to sustain in the long run. This fear is based on the fact that, commercial interests in architecture represent a superficial form of architecture which lacks content.
Jencks, however, expresses hopelessness in this situation because he notes that there is nothing which architects can do except to protest this transition, and design buildings which represent the complex situation that plagues architecture in its authentic form. He further suggests that, architects can criticize current values which do not conform to the authentic purpose of architecture. In the same regard, they can support architectural values which represent the true values of authentic architecture. This is the justification of Jencks’s argument.
Period of Argument
Jencks’s argument is based on the early 20th century period. During this period, the scope of modern architecture was not clearly defined. In the same period, the concept of modern architecture was only starting to gain ground. Principles of underlying architectural design were also starting to be defined. Equally, concepts regarding the advancement in technology were also starting to gain shape in architecture. Several schools of movement therefore gained shape within this period, but some were in conflict with one another. For instance, different schools of design and architectural styles were conflicted (to the extent of even surpassing their own definitions).
From this understanding, it is crucial to note that, the author was criticizing the concept of modern architecture just when it was just starting to be established. From this point of view, the author’s sentiments were skewed towards undermining the concept of modern architecture before it was completely accepted. Also, during this period, modern architecture was understood from a very narrow spectrum of modernism because the concept was overly simplified. In some contexts, modernism was simply perceived as the subtraction of the ornament from the design, but in other contexts, modern architecture was perceived as the integration of technology into architectural designs.
It is also crucial to understand that, during the early 20th century, the concept of modernism had only started to take shape after the end of the Second World War and influential architects were slowly starting to embrace the concept as well. Moreover, the concept was also starting to be taught in schools. Here, it is crucial to note that, during the same time, movements against modern architecture were also starting to gain shape, with the most common movement being the post-modernism movement.
The postmodernism movement sought to break away from the strictly modernism concept advanced by modern architecture. Instead, elements of pre-modernist architecture were included in the concept to break away from the rectilinear designs incorporated in the modern architectural concept. This break away movement provided a more eclectic style of architecture. The postmodern architecture concept was therefore specifically designed with the sole aim of transcending modern architecture. It is from this school of thought that Jencks shows the weakness of modern architecture. In other words, he seems to be advancing the pre-modernist school of thought.
Opinion
Jenks’s argument is still relevant in today’s world. In this context, Jenks’s argument stands true, despite the difference in time. The concept of modern architecture was developed along the frameworks of perfection and minimalism. However, these two concepts (perfection and minimalism) are subjective. This means that the philosophy behind modern architecture can be easily questioned because most buildings developed with the concept of modern architecture can be termed, overly simplistic and based on abstract concepts. The main problem emanating from modern architecture is the set of goals it tends to uphold. From a general point of view, modern architecture lacks meaning and expression; it is instead enshrined in the concepts of material and the absence of ornament.
Jencks’s argument stands true today because in the last quarter of the 20th century, people started to move from the concept of modern architecture because it was boring. In other quarters, modern architecture was termed uninspiring, unwelcoming and unpleasant. These sentiments brought forth the rebirth of postmodernism which incorporated past designs. However, this did not mean a recreation of past architectural designs (like neo-classical architecture did). There was a new fusion of past designs with new designs but the architects ensured the new designs had meaning and expression. For instance, buildings that came up in the postmodern times bore designs from the classical Greek and Roman empires.
Modern architecture fails to relate to the context in which it is supposed to be built in because modern architects were obsessed with functionalism and economic appeals of the buildings they designed. In this regard, it is very difficult to accept modern architecture because they do not meet the human need for the body and the eye because they were so abstract that they did not appeal to the concept of beauty which is a pivotal part of architecture.
From the above understanding, we see that modern architecture has many limitations. For instance, many of the residential buildings designed under modern architecture quickly degenerated into slums because they lacked the concept of beauty and ornaments. Modern architecture therefore betrays the very essence of architecture because it ignores all crucial components of architecture and obsesses over its functional and minimalist appearance. If ornaments and decorative elements are included into the design of buildings (a concept that modern architecture does not support), two core functions of architecture (communication and variety), will be upheld.
The concept of communication will be upheld in this context because buildings designed under the context of modern architecture fails to communicate any special meaning to the public. This communication is however not intended to convey a common meaning. The whole concept of postmodern architecture tends to mirror the dynamic nature of the society because the meanings it conveys to the public will be interpreted in many ways, thereby symbolizing the various dynamics of the society. Modern architecture portrays a common meaning to the society, therefore misrepresenting the true nature of the society. From this understanding, Jenks’s argument is still relevant in present-day society.
Conclusion
This paper identifies that Jenks was arguing against the concept of modern architecture. He advanced the knowledge that, modern architecture lacked expression and meaning. Moreover, the entire concept was obsessed with functionality and economic sustenance, such that, it failed to communicate the real nature or essence of the society.
However, these arguments were aimed at supporting a larger school of thought – postmodernism. Jenks’s arguments are sustainable in present-day society because modern architecture betrays the essence of true architecture which is a representation of the spiritual and the true nature of the society. In this regard the argument the death of modern architecture is real.
References
A Colquhoun, Modern Architecture, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.
C Jencks, The Language Of Post-Modern Architecture, Rizzoli, Sydney, 1984, p. 9-37.
K Galinsky, Classical and Modern Interactions: Postmodern Architecture, Multiculturalism, Decline, And Other Issues, University of Texas Press, Texas, 1992.
M Torgerson, An Architecture Of Immanence: Architecture For Worship And Ministry Today, Eerdmans Publishing, London, 2007, p. 194.