It was somewhat
of a surprise when seen on Google Earth, but not unexpected. That the
iconic and much-praised, much-referenced dwelling might be buried in
a forest confirmed the loneliness in its identity, its quiet, singular
stamina; that its separation might be so dramatically complete, truly
alone in a cliché clearing in a forest surrounded by a busy, buzzy
context of development, was the intrigue, the lingering enigma that
raised the questions.
Like other 'islands' - those of Seidler, Eames, Mies, Wright, et.al.# - this home was
isolated, a true retreat. Yet it stands as an example, an inspiration
for so many, in the same way as Le Corbusier's remote chapel at
Ronchamp does: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/03/architectures-two-remote-islands-too.html Alvar Aalto's Villa Mairea (1938-1939) is a much-acclaimed masterpiece.
What does this
say about modern architecture - that so many of its great pieces are
remote from any testing challenge of context other than solitude? The
Farnsworth house is in a clearing by a stream that unfortunately
floods, but it, too, has been the beginnings of various works in
other very different contexts. Is this the core problem with
modernism - forms fixed in iconic isolation being transposed into towns and cities?
Is this the emotional challenge in the NEW that reads as an esoteric,
elitist arrogance that has a complete disregard for the other? - see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-need-for-street-view-in-architecture.html Inspiration, if
not replication, is complete in every way except context, even with
Johnson's glass house that stands as part of a set of structures
grandly, blandly, exposed to the road passing through an idyllic, green
suburbia.
Is this blind
enthusiasm for heroic work the shifting sands of modernism - its
Achilles heel? Modernism, well architects, have all struggled with
context in their efforts to be innovative with things appropriately
'modern.' The Postmodern ideologies began looking at neighbours and
place, but even here we have the masterful Venturi constructing his
landmark gem as an 'island' for mother, to be photographed and
considered alone: see -
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-vanna-venturi-house-postmodern.html Can one see Villa
Mairea as the defining example in this matter, in the same way as
Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water? Why are the 'great' buildings so
literally alone?
How can we build
cities inspirited by singular statements interested only in themselves, in
being isolated, free from any challenge beyond self-expression in
nature? Is this why our cities are failing? Is this why the street
has become just a left-over zone, a no-man's-land? These icons have
no relationship to anything like a street, just open space, sky and
trees, and yet we seek to force them as inspired derivatives into an intermingling of other
structures and public places. Little wonder that there is such a division,
a schism, between the architectural image and Street View – see:
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-need-for-street-view-in-architecture.html
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-rose-seidler-house-private-visions.html
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-hawthorne-house-context-place-street.html
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/10/taylor-square-warehouse-variations-in.html
The street is never in any initial architectural view or vision; it
ends up just being there in spite of the primal dream, with all of
its rude necessity, just because we cannot all live in 'Villa Mairea's;
and all of this is in spite of the aspirations and enthusiasm for the images and
their subtleties, their astonishing intellectual love and embodying
care.
Can modernism be
likened to the street walker, the prostitute, commercialising love,
things intimate, private? Are these the origins of modernism's
exhibitionist status, offering displays like those of the
exaggerations of the cliché ladies on the corner?
There is
something too gritty, too unfair, in the analogy, but it is useful in
highlighting the problem that we need to consider if we are ever
able to again build great cities that are more than an ad hoc
conglomerate like rocky road that, in spite of the messy shambles,
still makes a claim as a tasty, popular confection.
What is a city
today beyond a concocted confection of buildings dreaming of being
alone? What are our suburbs but a collection of individual visions,
with each struggling to express its isolation? Is our problem one of
ideas shaped for solitude being forced into an unwanted cohabitation? Is this why architects consciously exclude context in the published,
architectural images?
We seem to have
forgotten the other in architecture when others are there,
everywhere, adjacent and nearby - such are our cities. What seems
clear is that we can only make good streets once we consider,
accommodate and respect the other.*
Modernism has
suffered from the physical isolation of its inspiration. One fears
that today we are doing likewise, but with our selves - our selfies
show our interest only in ourselves. One can see matters getting
worse before they improve. The isolation of the models is only
further aggravated, enhanced by that of the self that declares: Look
at ME and MY bespoke efforts! Am I not clever!
Is Edition
Office's strategy to consciously ignore context the new wave - the
explicit statement that no longer pretends to consider anything but
self? One can possibly admire the honesty if not the outcome for
public place: see -
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-hawthorne-house-context-place-street.html
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/05/edition-office-re-calibrating-denial-of.html
Do we need a
vision for public place before we can construct it in the same way as
e.g. Villa Mairea stands as an inspiration for dwelling? How might we
best dwell in a city? For years, planners have drooled over the
Italian squares, (e.g. Camillo Sitte), their marvellous organic shaping. St. Marks is the
grand master, but there are many other less formal wonders in other
cities, towns and villages. Making cute, ad hoc plan-shaped public
spaces has not overcome our problem. It is clear that the between has
its authority rooted in the other that makes and shapes it. It is
this organic interplay that makes place and defines its ambiguous
qualities. Buildings and street are both best considered as one. What
might St. Marks be without its specific surrounds? We might get
wonderful displays of care and skill with solitude like Villa Mairea,
but we will never get a street, a square, or a lane from this
indulgence that holds its own marvels in its contrived, unspoiled
void.
We need to learn
to manage the spoilers, to incorporate difference and diversity,
likes and dislikes, if we are to have good cities. We need to respect
the between, that I-Thou mystery lingering and empowering the
everyday in every way. That an I might seek to be the Thou
without the engagement of the other is a fabrication that Street View
exposes as a fraud just too easily, effortlessly.
That the city has
been likened to a large dwelling has its own irony, because, seen in
this metaphorical manner, Villa Mairea is a fine city. That actual
cities struggle to replicate such subtle complexity in the larger
scale because of the inspiration of 'city' forms and ideas developed for the isolated context of Villa Mairea and other
referential, remote examples, is the problem that such intellectual
concepts rarely address.
#
All of these houses have their own private 'island' space:
Harry Seidler Rose Seidler House, Wahroonga, Sydney
Charles Eames Eames House, Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles
Mies van der Rohe Farnsworth House, Plano, Illinois
Frank Lloyd Wright Falling Water, Mill Run, Pennsylvania
Jacobs House, Madison, Wisconsin
*
NOTE:
See Sidebar: ON THE CULTURE OF OTHERS -
to know ourselves we have to know Others, who act as a mirror in which we see ourselves reflected
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.