Venturi's Style

          There is a very big differences between Modernism and what Venturi is trying ti do. Venturi's idea is focused on designs off building that not just only creates identity to it but also express the real function of it as well. His style approached the shape of the building and trying to connects it with its function in order for people to understand what it really made for.

          I am really appreciate the way he designs one of his building to have literally the shape of a duck, the reason behind this design is that the building was meant to be a shop, so he use the shape to represent the products, which is duck eggs. By doing this, the building can communicate its function to every person walking through or seen it in a distance without using any help from signs or advertisements. People will be able to relate to the function of that building because of the appearance of it. Unlike Modernism where everything was mass-produced structures which are also impossible to tell the difference between each other unless there is a clue about its functions. 

          In the past, building were built in different shapes depends on the functions of it, which can be related to Venturi's style. Some was built in order for safety purposes, some was built to be noticed and some was built for decorations. Most building have its own identity that we can tell what there are right at the time we see it for example churches with a symbol of a cross, there is no need for more signs people can relate to it immediately.

          For Modernism, Things are different from the past, they are focusing more on the function, those mass-produced structure were built while concerned about time and materials. It must be done in a fastest and simplest way, every elements must served its functions and there will be less decoration as possible. By following the concept of Modernism the building need addition help in order to communicate with people about it functions, The best example is a showroom, even we can see that there are selling motorcycles and cars but it is actually the products that are telling us not the building. If we simply hide the products, the identity of the showroom will be changed into unlimited possibilities, it can be almost anything from a simple shop to a restaurant, because there is no way we can tell the different without any clue.

          However, in my opinion, the venturi's style is consist as a good erotic architecture. I like the way that these buildings provides some clues for the people while there are still a little mysterious, it is a very interesting for people to be able to explore what they see. It attracts people by its form and make people want to find out more about it. People will read its functions not from a text but from the structure itself

               

               

                

Modernism Vs. Postmodernism

                At first, we studied about Modernism, the style which focused on simplicity and function of buildings which is quite hard for people to see nowadays. For me I think that the real reason that makes Modern style become less popular that before is due to the fact that it is too spiritless, even the style can serve all the functions but it is still lack of a very important element. The part that create all the unique feelings and separate the one building from others, the part that serve as the "identity" for the building.

                Later on, there was a creation of "Postmodernism", the style which developed from Modernism but instead of just designing simple structures, Postmodernism also introduced the new style by combining the previous one and ornaments together. The new style introduced the buildings with the help of 

ornamentation, which is really different from the previous one because Modernism consider ornaments as unnecessary elements and avoid using it. In my opinion, I really like the new style, it creates unique identity to each building. The new additional part helps the building to express the feelings which is a new thing that Modernism do not have, "Uniqueness".

                Not just new feelings but ornamentation also means new ideas and creations. It helps in creation new designs that literary outside of the box, from a simple glass box to difference forms such as triangles and curves. The best example would be the TWA terminal, which has a stunning designs that not just only beautiful but meaningful as well. the building use a bird as an inspiration and thanks to the ornamentation, the TWA terminal can really express itself.           

                                    

                It is quite an impressive development from Modernism to Postmodernism, we can see that Postmodernism did not replaced the concept of Modernism, the new style actually using the modern concept as one of the main components, but adding ornaments in order to improves the old concept by giving the ability to express itself to it. We can see that Postmodernism is not so different from Modernism, for me Postmodernism is like an upgrade version of modernism, a new version that not only functional but also meaningful. 

Le Corbusier & Playtime

                Le Corbusier is a very famous architect, his unique design inspired many buildings and in the 20th century. His works may looks really simple compare to many buildings that we can see nowadays, but that is exactly the way he want it to be. His designs are considered  "modern", which is more about simplicity and functions more that decorations. Also, Le Corbusier combined his modern designs with "mass production", a concept of creating a perfect place, a utopia for every person where all of them can have the same equal standard. He created buildings that can really fit into everyone standards, so that there will be the advantage and disadvantage. The results are similar to factories, where every routine are repeated endlessly, everyone has the same thing and living in the same way. I think that in the end everybody becomes more like a machine that human.

                And then there is a movie called "Playtime", in the movie we can see that the city is very similar to Le Corbusier's utopia where there are almost no differences between people. The movie shows the city where the buildings are created to look the same everywhere, and people shared a very similar way of living. Just like one of Le Corbusier manifesto that he compared a house to a machine for living, in the movie, I can see the connections to that, because people are so robotic and lifeless.  The movie shows another side of Le Corbusier's concept, it shows the time when a perfect world started to effects people lives and identities.

                In my opinion, I love the idea of creating a utopia for everyone, I respect how it will create equality to all the people but as we can see in the movie, may be people are not ready for it yet. As you can see, people are people because we are all different from each other. By living like this, people have their own identities and their way of living, indifferent from industrial lifestyle in "Playtime" where their lifestyle are limited. Even it may not be equal for everyone but I believe that the uniqueness each people is the most valuable things that people can have. 

Modernism And Ornaments

                The name Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, for many people this name is just another name of some random guy that has nothing to do with them, well actually it is much more complicated than that. In fact, The name Mies van der Rohe (or well known as Mies) creates a lot of impacts to the society we lived in, not just only for those who studied in architecture but for every single person who actually use buildings or houses as a place to live. He is a German architect, which known for his amazing modernism designs and also for his famous quote "Less is More".  His style is focused on simplicity and minimalism.

                As you can see, Mies van der Rohe's style is very opposite to "bourgeois". As a modernist, Mies always create his designs to be in the simplest form and choose only the materials that really necessary for the structure but not for decorations. Some people might actually misunderstood the simplicity of modernism means the cheapest, fastest and easiest way to design a building but in reality, I think it really goes the other way around. I always believe that it is quite a challenge to create a modern style because due to the fact that modern buildings are created with only elements that really necessary, we can see that everything needs to be planned and designed very neatly to be able to serves all the functions needed. Compared to bourgeois, it is really amazing for modern architectures to create such an impression to all the clients without using any fancy or luxury decorations.

                Mies van der Rohe always try to position his style away from all those the ornaments and decorations in order to make sure that his style will not change to the opposite direction. But everything has its limit, even  for Mies van der Rohe himself, we can see some changes from his style with in his work. The best example for me is the "Seagram Building", one of the most well known building designed by Mies. It looks really normal as if nothing is different but if you look close enough you will see that there are some elements that existed not only for its functions but for another reason, decoration. The I-beams outside the Seagram building that we can see are actually not for supporting any foundations as it should be. The fact is while Mies can der Rohe designed this building, he noticed that the real I-beams that were used for structural purpose will be covered with concrete then nobody will know that they existed. His concept of showing the real materials somehow makes him designed more I-beams on the outside in order to show the materials that the building really made of. Because of that he ends up using unnecessary elements which is not only just changing his own style but it also consist as ornaments. This is quite confusing but he actually broke his rules while trying to followed it.

                The story of this building shows me that the differences between modernism and bourgeois are separated by just only a thin line. Just only small elements can actually change one style to a completely opposite one, only because he over think about it too much. I think it is quite hard in order to keep follow your style while make sure not to cross the line while designing it.