Some discussion questions for this week:
How does Hays differentiate between the notion of architecture as an instrument of culture and architecture as an "autonomous form?"
How does Hays relate the concept of Nervenleben from Simmel to the realm of architecture?
How does Hays differentiate between Mies' Barcelona Pavilion and the earlier more vertical work?
Also, I noticed that the reader has cut off bits of the text. If you're having trouble you can find a PDF here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
--Question #1
ReplyDeleteArchitecture as an instrument of culture is based off of the studying of the origin. To use the instrument of the origin includes studying the socioeconimic status, the political status, and the technilogical process for the project. This type of process is based solely of off culture, which provides the reasoning behind the structure. When reconstruction is involved, they must refer back to the original meaning of the object.
On the other hand, Architecture as an autonomous form differs from architecture as an instrument of culture. This process includes more formal operations, which includes, the technical building process of the parts, how they are put together and how they are percieved, and how the parts can be reused. The main difference between the two processes is the fact that the autonomous form does not believe in the fact that the object should have constraints because of its original meaning. Another main difference between these two forms is that the autonomous form does not consider the exterior opinions and criticisms in order to create a piece of architecture.
--Question #2
Hays does not seem to agree with Simmel in this article. Simmel believed that, "the rapid crowding of changing images, the sharp discontinuity in the grasp of a single glance, and the unexpectedness of onrushing impressions." was what influenced architecture during the "Metropolis and Mental Life" also known as, nervenleben. Hays continues to disagree when he calls this statement a "bias attitude" and doesn't agree with the lowering of others self esteem only to make them feel worthless.
--Question #3
When Mies began his work he believed that his work was the beggining and was never fully complete. Hays believed that his early work felt "resistant". Although, Mies did not follow what other architects were doing at the time, he eventually fell into the chaos of NYC. Hays then agrees with his approach and say that its a "critical interpretations of its worldy situation." When Mies built the Pavillion it was known to be a place where everything was out of sorts. The work has been said to be a place that was filled with all different kinds of textures, surfaces, etc. Hays finally says that he believes the Pavillion to reflect Mies work, positively. Hays states, "he represents neither an authoritative culture nor an authoritative formal system...the repetition thus demonstrates how arhitecture can resist, rather than reflect, an external cultural reality." This statement by Hays proves his entire article, that no piece of work needs to be labled as a type, but instead there is positive work that is individual and is represented by individuality rather than the exterior constraints.
-Julia Beth Stern 9/22/09
1) How does Hays differentiate between the notion of architecture as an instrument of culture and architecture as an "autonomous form?"
ReplyDeleteAS AN INSTRUMENT OF CULTURE>>>>
-“culture as the cause and content of built form”
-functional
-architecture as an "epiphenomenon;"
“dependent on socioeconomic, political, and technological processes for its various states and transformations.”
AS AN AUTONOMOUS FORM>>>>
-“characterized by absence of historical concerns”
-the object and its formal operations; something that may be understood independently
-pure idea
-total dismissal of circumstance////uncontaminated by social constraints
2) How does Hays relate the concept of Nervenleben from Simmel to the realm of architecture?
“a blunting of discrimination, an indifference to value, a languid collectivity”
-architecture as a manifestation of our culture’s contradictions
3) How does Hays differentiate between Mies' Barcelona Pavilion and the earlier more vertical work?
-"an a priori mental construct rather than a palpable worldly object"
^^^^
ReplyDeleteSarah Merkle
S-R-Y G-U-Y-S
1) Architecture as an instrument of culture dependent on socioeconomic status, political and technological processes. Architecture as an aoutonomous form is a historical concerns. It is formal operations like techniques and all is independent functional status.
ReplyDelete2)It seems Hays believes that changing of images in architectures was what influenced it during the "Metropolis" in the other word nervenleben. He does not seem to be agree with Simmel.
3) Hays agrees Mies's approach. Mies did not follow that others were doing in architectures. Hays believes that there is positive works like povilion that is indevidual with the different kinds of surface and textures.
Question 1: The main differences between art as culture and art as "autonoumous form" has been adressed in the forum already but Id like to add a couple of insights into the limitations that Hays' finds in both categories. Viewing art as culture is "essentialy a self transportation or imaginative projection backward in time." Architure has no real meaning in itself but is inexorably likned to ideas of the past. This view of architure is extremely limited. On the other hand, viewing art a purely autonomous "risks collapsing into an interpretive scientism not unlike to one it seeks to criticize." Paradoxically, in the formalist viewpoint "architecutre is denied its special status as a cultural object with a causation, presence and duration of its own."
ReplyDeleteWill Marsh
1:
ReplyDeleteHays uses the word "epiphenomenon" to describe the architecture as the cultural instrument. I think this word is suitable to the description. The epiphenomenon clarifies the separation of physical and mental phenomenon. The very physical form is built and then as a secondary phenomenon, cultural instruments come into play. According to the cultural instruments, the dialog between culture and form is ever expanding and always draws back to the original meaning.
The autonomy of architecture deals more with a "blue-print" mentality. Tangible observations are made in this autonomy. It does not rely on outside values.
2:
Simmel criticized the growing density of people/form/emotion in verticality of a metropolis. The very utopia and order that Mies was searching for however turned its discourse.
3:
Form: horizontal wins over vertical, appreciation for space. Space becomes function.
Hays sets up a distinction between architecture that is motivated by--and representative of--cultural values, and architecture that is motivated by purely formal concerns. When architecture reflects culture, it can only be understood through a historical analysis of its context. Without this context, cultural architecture is “hopelessly subjective."
ReplyDeleteArchitecture as pure form rejects the need for historical context because it isn’t motivated by cultural values. Proponents of this approach reject the idea of any “single truth” implied by a historical reconstruction of context. Instead, since it is motivated exclusively by objective formal systems, this architecture could be equally evaluated 100 years on as it could on the day it is created.
Hays references Simmel’s concept of nervenleben as a force that critical architecture--like that of Mies--has tried to combat. Nervenleben is the chaotic, discordant, overwhelming condition of the modern urban setting. So much material (images, data, etc.) presents itself that individuals slowly become numb to the experience. This “blase attitude” blunts the criticality of a cultural. Architects, Hays says, have an opportunity to cut through this indifference by exposing (and opposing) it in the forms of their work.
Hays draws both formal and conceptual distinctions between Mies’ Barcelona Pavilion and his earlier work. Whereas earlier works could be seen as a single unified, indivisible forms, the Barcelona Pavilion operates instead of a collection of discrete forms and materials. Each form or material calls attention to itself by its dissimilarity to the others. The Barcelona Pavilion is a “fragmentation” of its space.
1.
ReplyDeleteWhen architecture is used as an "instrument of culture", the word "dependent" is inevitably mentioned. Cultural architecture is based on values rather than forms, so, therefore it has to be dependent on society, economy, and anything else dealing with the life of mankind. Because society as a whole has incredibly subjective needs and even values, cultural architecture is difficult to explain, let alone defend.
While the opposite position is "architecture as autonomous form", this is still a subjective view. Architecture based purely on form (not from history, personal events, or the economy) still elicits opinions. Autonomous architecture may be more objective because of the formal methods, but it is still very subjective because every audience is different.
1) Hays writes that architecture is an instrument of culture when the built form is a “…dependent on socioeconomic, political, and technological processes for its states and transformations….” (3). In this way it is an instrument of culture when it reaffirms the state of culture around it and when, in order to make an analysis of it, one returns to the cultural and timely state under which it was built to find answers; a historian will turn to the point of origin in time and culture to draw conclusions about the architecture.
ReplyDeleteHays counters this by saying that architecture in an autonomous form when analysis of the built object and space are only seen through the lens of formality and there is a removal of historical significance and timely origin. He specifies that architecture as an autonomous form also gives way for “…vocabulary enabling critics to talk seriously, technically, and precisely about the architectural object as distinct from other kinds of objects….” (4).
2) Simmel’s theory of nervenleben , or anxiety and overwhelming emotion related to the urban industrial experience, was believed to result in a numbing or dulling of emotion: an ambivalence or apathy. Hays relates this to the realm of architecture through his argument that the works of Mies Van der Rohe are to be seen in contradiction of other artists responses. Unlike Dada nihilism and responses that sought to express a negative and personal response to the urban landscape, Van der Rohe forged designs that were not meant to “deflect” the environment around them but rather “plunges into the chaos of the new city and seeks another order within it through a systematic use of the unexpected, the aleatory, the inexplicable.” (7).
3) Van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion was a more fragmented horizontal structure where the elements that combined to form the pavilion all acted upon each other but still autonomously. Hays writes: “There is no prescribed logic of passage; the completion is neither a relational hierarchy of component parts nor a series of identical units…” and that “…Any transcendent order or space and time that would confer an overarching unity onto this assemblage is systematically and utterly dispersed….” (11). Van der Rohe’s earlier vertical skyscrapers also placed emphasis on the reflective surface of the building façade, the identical and individual prefabricated units that conformed to a whole unified piece and the notion of the absorption and interaction with the urban environment.
1. When architecture is examined either culturally or as an autonomous form, it is being interpreted by the viewer. Both methods allow an explanation of how it came to be. When Architecture is examined as an instrument of culture, its analysis is dependent on socioeconomic, political, and technical processes throughout its various transformations. Change is a major aspect on viewer interpretation as one must consider how an object originated. This leads to a completely subjective outcome that always relates back to the past. Architecture as an autonomous form has a complete absence of historical concerns. It is a purely conceptual interpretation based on space, where the origin of an object is not constraining of its meaning. These interpretations benefit from misreading and misunderstandings. There is an avoidance of historical connection and the vocabulary is much more technical. It is about pure form.
ReplyDelete2. The concept of Nervenleben has to do with a growing metropolis, which was ambitious and overwhelming. Mies in particular was able to contradict this through his style of simplicity. This allowed for a restoration to order that others could become comfortable with.
3. The Barcelona Pavilion is horizontal, with an elongated roof slab. Its chosen building materials are illogical and contradictory. They change consistently as one moves throughout the building. In contrast, Mies’ Friedrichstrasse project consisted of a building surface made of glass. Vertical in nature, skyscraper projects presented great surface and volume. By using glass as a prominent building material, a change in light conditions allowed images of the surrounding city to become absorbed, or distorted.
1. As an instrument of culture, architecture is examined through the building’s context. It is considered to be a representation of the culture that built it in that specific place and time. As an autonomous form, architecture is studied through only its form. What makes this structure stand, what is it made from, how does this entity exist entirely separate from the rest.
ReplyDelete2. He relates Nervenleben by examining how Mies’ reacted against the confusing and rapid shifts of a metropolis setting through radical building design. First he created forms which reflected reality and then forms which were separate from it.
3. The Barcelona Pavilion is unique because it challenges the norms of spatial conception within a structure. It’s unlike Mies’ earlier work of closed, vertical buildings where the same repeated forms and patterns were displayed. The emphasis was on order, continuity, and logic. The Pavilion, open and light, is built from material which “contradicts their own nature”. It is like a dada artwork because it challenges expectations and is illogical, “like a labyrinth”. This is the antithesis of the skyscrapers where there is a clear sort of beginning and end, a top and a bottom. The skyscrapers reflected their surroundings while the Pavilion more became something in and of itself.
Michael Engelbreit
Architecture as an instrument of culture vs architecture as an autonomous form (in Hays's view):
ReplyDeleteAs an intrument of culture: the cultural context informs architecture's form and function. It is dependent on the politcal, socio-economic and technological cilmates of its time. When architecture is an 'autonomous form' it begins to dismiss historical, social, political and economic contraints/circumstance. Stands independently as 'pure idea', form.
Hays relates the concept of Nervenleben from Simmel to the realm of architecture as "a manifestation of our culture’s contradictions". Our architecture accumulates into crowded metropoli that creates a "blase attitude" among people.
Mies' Barcelona Pavilion is different from his earlier more vertical work by its sense for spatial clearing. It opens up a quiet center in the 'chaos of the nervous metropolis' , where as his earlier skyscaper work reflected and reframed the nervous chaos back into the city.