In 'Toward a Theory of Normative Architecture,' what does Ockman mean by normative or 'major' architecture? Explain.
Compare and contrast Ockman's evaluation of the criticism of Tafuri and Grassi. What does each suggest architecture ought to do?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
According to Ockman, major architecture is defined as "territorial, apolitical, and conservative of the status quo." She also claims major architecture as an accurate description of American Architecture post WWII. This is a highly Utopian view of architecture; creating for society as a whole. It is apolitical in order that it can be applied to all people and it is territorial in order to occupy great amounts of space. Mies van der Rohe was a believer in major or "normative" architecture. "The individual is losing significance," he says. I agree with Ockman on her definition of "normative/major" architecture, but sometimes it seems she confuses her own definition. Ockman claims that abstract expressionism during the Cold War was apolitical and normative. I disagree completely. In terms of expression of art (not necessarily international style architecture), this was definitely considered political and individual, since the war affected so many people politically and emotionally. I do not understand when Ockman states things like "the impersonal approach to post WWII...". How is a post WWII approach in any way impersonal?
ReplyDeleteAvant Garde is defined as rebellion against the norm. Initially reading about Tarfuri, I would gather that is he is an avant garde architect, but then Ockman calls him normative and pessimistic. Ockamn also says Tarfuri "recites a reformist approach different than the master-formgivers." This also makes me believe Tarfuri to be an avant garde architect... but I could be completely wrong. Another architect Ockman discusses is Italian Grassi who saw architecture as a profession or craft rather than an art form. Grassi is more clearly the non-avant garde architect since he focuses on formal qualities of architecture and has a rigid technique in doing so. In another contrast, Ockman herself sees avant garde architecture as "deterritorialized, homeless, and minor", but also revolutionary. Tarfuri seems to suggest that architecture be built in an almost non-serious way that will cause reaction. Grassi wants architecture made purely based on formal qualities and structure.
In the article: “Toward a Theory of Normative Architecture” Ockman talks about major architecture versus minor architecture. She explains that minor architecture is based on the major and vice versa. When she talks about major architecture she is referring to the architecture that is common during the time period. When modern architecture was first developed it was considered to be “minor” because the majority of architecture at the time was not of that style. Now modern architecture could be referred to as “major” because it is so uncommon to see architecture of other styles.
ReplyDeleteWhen Ockman talks about Tafuri she explains that while he was interested in the avant-garde style of architecture; he was also concerned with the function of the buildings as well. It seems that he was more interested in the theories of avant-garde instead of the actual practice. Grassi on the otherhand admitted to feeling that architecture needed to serve a purpose and was not hung up on the concepts of the avant-garde. Grassi was much more concerned with the forms and techniques of architecture instead of the meaning of the buildings.
For Ockman, her definintion of major architecture (territorial, apolitical and conservative) "seems to offer a useful description of the evolution of American architecture after World War II and of the process by which the international style achieved hegemony." I find her connections between post war American Capitalist culture and the modernist asthetic in architecture to be the most resonsant part of her essay. The ideas behind "major/normative" architecture formed out of a the United States triumph in WWII and reflects the ideas of an architecture that was "a maximum of technical ingenuity with a minimum of dissent." This architecture should be "safe for Capitalism, and "safe for millionares" Modern architecutre "was transformed into a fully embodied expression of advanced capitalism, corporate bureacracy, and big business." These are the foundations for the formation of the "international style". Ockman states "modern architecure stopped being an American import and became an export." For me Ockman gives me better insight into my dislike of modernist architecture, it seems far to mechanical, dry and homogenous. Its connection to postwar capitalistim seems to explain these traits.
ReplyDeleteWill Marsh
1. Ockman defines ‘major’ architecture as “territorial, apolitical, and conservative of the status quo.” This means that architectural developments become associated with historical events. As a result, new or revisionist ideologies within architecture are brought forth based on the time period and any events associated with it. ‘Major’ architecture is constantly redefining itself within its historical conditions.
ReplyDelete2. Tafuri considers the relationship between discipline of architecture and “reality.” He says that technical-administrative activity makes for an alternative for those who desire preserving a linguistic ‘aura’ for architecture. He is claiming that a normative practice of architecture is an alternative to an avant-gardist, or purely linguistic one. Tafuri believes that this is the most realistic mechanism for affecting the built environment given architecture’s relatively modest capacity to bring about social change.
Grassi proposed a theory of continuity, or of architecture as a profession or craft, rather than art. He believes that the discipline of architecture is about the transmission of an ongoing tradition to building practice. “The architect’s role is to construct lasting monuments by building upon a typology of forms sanctioned by history.”
Ockman traces the history of architectural Modernism through its transition from "minor" (political, ideological, subversive) to "major" (apolitical, neutral, conservative). The International Style developed in Europe as the formal instantiation of what was then a radical ideology.
ReplyDeleteWhen that same style was adopted in America, it was stripped of its ideological roots and reduced to mere form. As a repeatable, predictable, and conservative standard, Modernism became a system of normative architecture in America.
Tafuri seems to advocate a middle-ground between ideological and normative architecture. He suggests that while architects ought to think critically about the culture context that surrounds their work, they have to do so from *within* that culture, not removed from it. Ockman describes this middle ground as critical-normative.
Grassi finds even less room for ideological concerns in architecture. He sees architecture as a a mere profession; the responsibility of the architect limited to the construction of buildings based on forms "sanctioned by history." His conservative ethic is the antithesis of the highly ideological concerns of the original European Modernists.
Adding to the comment board, Ockman also makes a profound analogy of Kafka's writing as a zetigeist that defines the relationship of minor and major settings. Ockman states "a Minor literature does not come from a minor language; it is that which a minority constructs within a major language. " Kafka unknowingly push the limitation of the major language in ways that only a minority can achieve is rather fascinating. If we take language as territory (space), Kafka deterritorized its major language from the conservative context.
ReplyDeleteTafuri pushed to have more authorship & production and to be more critical in works with economic and political aspects of architecture. He acted as a reformist, or as ockman labeled him as a "critical-normative architect"
Grassi was heavily relied on form and much conscious of historical contexts rather than the cultural context. Seems to me, he catered his service to make "pretty buldings" that awed people; however, his criticality in authorship and responsibility of architectural advancement wasn't hardly apparent.
Ockman proposes that a major architecture could be defined as territorial, apolitical, and conservative of the status quo. He explains that the International Style (although initially 'minor') became major, (or normative), when it was adopted by corporate America, stripped of its ideologies, and reduced to an aesthetic style.
ReplyDeleteTafuri advocates a critical-normative practice over an avant-gardist one as a realistic means for affecting change. He doesn't rule out formal experimentation entirely, but argues that it must develop from the inside out -- essentially submitting form to the existing context and language of critique.
Grassi, on the other hand, focuses on the history and continuity of the profession, seeing the architect's role as one that operates within a realm of historically 'sanctioned' form.