Abstract
Art can be viewed as an expression. It is a method of bringing to life ideas, feelings, emotions and messages. Just like great painters or musicians put their personalities and their messages into a piece of work, so does an architect. Architecture entails fusing art and structure. Right from the basic plans of the building to the layering of the final slabs and the curves in the resulting masterpiece, an architect’s vision is what they are trying to communicate with their creation. The theme of the masterpiece they are struggling to erect not only reflects the background of the community and location within which it will be located, but also speaks volumes about the user’s emotions, desires, and goals. An architect is a Leonardo da Vinci using stone and cement instead of paint and brush. This is the argument that Jencks tries to convey in his book titled The Language of Post Modern Architecture which was published in 1977.
Introduction
Imagine walls disappearing from buildings; imagine the fascination that gripped several architects when glass slowly replaced several building materials such as stone and ballast. Imagine the sight of roofs that were no longer roofs and how they appeared to the communities around them. This movement in architecture and a shift in design is what Jencks describes as the post modern architecture. This is in his book titled The Language of Post Modern Architecture. The book was published in 1977.
Charles Jencks was born in Baltimore in New England. Initially a student of literature, he shifted his focus to architecture and landscape design where he has made a mark for himself. He has become a force to reckon with in the architectural field. He is well known to students of architecture and practitioners in this field. This architectural icon subscribes to the opinion that modern architecture is dead. Through the use of several illustrations, he explains his viewpoint and the intricacies involved in architecture during this period. He also explained why, according to him, several architects and their creations championed the so called death of modern architecture.
In this critical writing, the author will review Jencks’ argument regarding the death of modern architecture. The author will make efforts to illustrate the clarity (or lack of it thereof) of the position taken by Jencks. In this paper, the author will further create a bridge between the argument of “the death of modern architecture” by Jencks and the situation or status of architecture during that particular period. Several sources are used to either illustrate the argument or contradict this view.
Reading Critique
The Actual Death of Modern Architecture
On July 15 1972, several blocks of the then famous Pruitt- Igoe scheme were bombed. According to Jencks, this was the official date of the death of modern architecture. The death was accompanied by a ‘big boom’. What followed were funeral arrangements for the victims and attempts by several architects to deceive the public. The architects were trying to convince the public that modern architecture could still be called upon.
For those who knew it, Pruitt- Igoe was a real piece of art; a masterpiece. It was made of elegant blocks rising 14 stories high. It was characterized by sunshine, large open spaces and green plants. This was your ideal urban home with enough play space, several amenities such as laundries and crèches and a purist’s clean style. The architect had by all means intended to create a hospital- like environment that was meant to promote a serene existence for the would-be inhabitants.
According to Jencks (1977), the building was demolished after it was turned into a crime den. The scholar states that “……..(its) sky streets became impassable (as) several black men gangs ended up colonizing the building (and) creating some kind of crime heaven within what was once a majestic building’s walls” (Jencks 1977: p. 32). What Jencks drives at in this point is that architecture directly or indirectly determines the success of the environment around it. This building- regardless of the good intentions when building it in the modern architecture era- resulted in a translation of its features, a development that harmed the immediate environment. The changing society viewed in it a harbor for crime; a fortified castle with several rooms high in the sky.
Modern versus Post Modern Architecture from Jencks’ Perspective
Architecture in contemporary society has evolved and it is not enough to simply describe it as modern or stylish (Ghirado 1996). Jencks (1977) explained the trivial yet intricate differences between modern architecture and the current post- modern architecture. He for example used several hotels that were built in what he calls the classical “modern designs”. The Churchill Hotel, the Imperial Hotel and the Park Tower Hotel all share this modern design of architecture according to Jencks (1977). Jencks’ arguments can be clarified by using the illustrations that he borrowed from Malcolm McEwen’s Crisis in Architecture which was published in 1974.
According to Knox (1985), the old architectural system was characterized by private production. This period is categorized as the one preceding world war one. During this period, the architect and the client knew each other on a personal basis. The two were together as far as the requirements were concerned and the architect shared the client’s values as well as their code of conduct. This was in terms of the little things that added up to nothing but meant everything to them. The architect in many occasions was both the builder and the user of their creation. Their way of life was hence manifested in the structural outlook of what they came up with. This particular design in architecture has persisted over several generations. However, it has diminished to a few personal homes situated away from the urban centers in contemporary society.
Several other factors which influenced this type of design included capital and its restricted availability. The architect in this scenario worked slowly and carefully, accounting personally for each and every detail of the creation to the user who was in most cases a close individual and invariably the user of the building. According to Jencks (1977), all these factors culminated in an architecture that was well understood by the client and which was created in a language that was shared by all members of their immediate community.
The architecture undertaken today contrasts sharply with what the latter method entailed. For starters, Jencks (1977) proposes the issue of economics as a contributor to current architectural trends. Jencks (1977) explains that,
“……it is either produced for a public welfare agency which lacks the money necessary to carry out the socialist intentions of the architects, or it is funded by a capitalist agency whose monopoly creates gigantic investments and correspondingly gigantic buildings……..(such) buildings are usually structured in mass scales and the architect’s main goal is to create something that ‘appeals to mass taste, at a middle class level’ (p. 20).
The other difference that Jencks (1977) draws between the two forms of design is the intentions of the architects working on the buildings. The modern and post modern trends found in hotels entail designs that either solves a problem or simply makes more money for the investor. However, architects in the past had similar ambitions but the results of their work were not the same.
Post modern architecture involves structures that can be described as “too big”. This is in sharp contrast with the modern architecture that created relatively bigger structures. These styles however set these two lines further apart. It is noted that modern architecture entailed impersonal and to some extent safe styles. The focus was mainly to please or appease people at a large scale. Post modern housing trends have adapted or embraced a bolder approach as far as the styles involved are concerned. They are pragmatic and to a larger extent bombastic, displaying the pride that architects take in their designs. These designs are predominant in the hotel industry, office suites and in shopping centers around the world.
Architecture and a Generation
Jencks’ language of post modern architecture was written at a time when architecture was revolutionizing. Just like Massey (another architecture scholar) illustrates in his writings, architecture and interior design moved in tandem with the change in society and the changing preferences in terms of life styles (Massey 2008). During the period covered in Jencks’ writings, architecture saw developments in scales of buildings to accommodate larger populations. Jencks believes that
“……modern architecture has impoverished architectural language on the level of form; and has itself suffered an impoverishment on the level of content, the social goals for which it actually built” (Jencks 1977, p. 25).
This however cannot be termed as completely true as the half truth it bears in written prose is to be found in another definition of the era.
Modern architecture can be considered as a ‘necessity pressed trend’. The designs that towered over several urban centers and dominated the skylines of most cities around the world were ideally focused on space and maximum accommodation. Architects were less bold and their clients were far less involved. For a building to be considered as descriptive of its administrative functions or for it to manifest its social implications, the factor of scale versus space was to be taken into consideration. This was a period during which the industrial revolution was at its zenith. Countries had ceased colonizing other countries and their focus was in building their own structures. Urbanization was taking place at a very high rate and architects around the world no longer had the luxury of sharing a close relationship with the client. The idea of a building with emotion was a written expression rather than a practiced profession. Buildings such as the Seagram Building in New York and Lake Shore Drive Housing in Chicago are classical examples. These buildings addressed every concern relevant to the contractors and their clients at that time. The question of why houses looked like offices at that time was never raised nor addressed because to this generation of architects, predominantly huge and robust buildings was what the society needed and that is what they gave them.
Criticisms of Architects of the Modern Regime
Jencks (1977) further illustrates his point of view using the works of several artists. He argued that modern architecture offered no context. He for example uses Mies and illustrates several of his buildings. The simple box- like structures were indeed only impressive as far as size was concerned. The structures such as the chapel and the boiler room and the president’s temple at the school of architecture in Chicago inadvertently symbolized and embodied several contrasting messages. Jencks (1977) quips that “………Mies is saying that the boiler house is (more) important than the chapel, (and) that architects rule, as pagan gods, over the lot” (p. 19). He continues to say that “…..of course Mies didn’t intend these propositions, but his commitment to reductive formal values in- advertently betrays them” (Jencks 1977: p. 19).
In addition to Mies, Jencks illustrates the works of several other artists. These are artists such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Owings and Merrill, Phillip Jonson and Ulrich Franzen. He explains that while all these artists had striking forms of architecture, a similar pattern of erratic signification is evident in their works. Unintended imaging can be seen in almost all of their works.
Jencks (1977) however advances his view of the modern architects and their progressive creations in a new form of attack. He explains that several architects of this modern era abandoned their call for social utopiasm and instead opted to building for an established commercial society. Modern architecture- earlier viewed as a call to morality and social transformation- found itself being changed by the society, albeit slowly. The scholar says that
“……these architects wished to give up their subservient role as tailors to society and what they regarded as a corrupt ruling taste and became instead doctors, leaders, prophets or at least midwives, to a new social order” (Jencks 1977: p. 26).
Jencks is directly referring to the development in architecture that seemed to benefit several people in the society. Knox (1985) describes a somewhat similar trend in an abstract manner. The writer refers to the most notable form of architecture while indirectly alluding to the idea that several individuals in the society were deemed fit for such architectural designs. According to him, the best belongs to the best principle.
The Language of Post- Modern Architecture: A Conclusion
Post modern architecture has constantly drifted away from the practices of modern designers. This is from the creativity entailed in a design of the curves and emotions illustrated in each and every inch of the structure. While the arguments raised by Jencks are very critical and slightly demeaning to the modern regime of architects, it can be said that the views he expresses are agreeable to many. However, the modern regime of architecture and the various advancements associated with the era served a useful purpose in teaching and modeling the post modern architect. The trends, having been criticized, serve as base templates for education to many upcoming architects in this era. It can also be said that the modern architect gave birth to the improved post- modern architect.
References
Ghirado, D 1996, Architecture after modernism, Thames and Hudson, London.
Jencks, C 1977, The language of post-modern architecture, Academy Editions, London.
Knox, A 1985, Living in the environment, Second Back Row Press, Leura, NSW.
Massey, A 2008, Interior design since 1900, Thames and Hudson, London.