Theory of Composition

It seems as though Robert Slutzky and Colin Rowe prefer the complexity behind phenomenal transparency more than the quality of material behind literal transparency. Slutzky compared Moholy-Nagy’s La Sarraz with Leger’s Three Faces and found the former lacking in complexity. For Slutzky overlapping and ambiguity increases the ways in which an object or painting can be seen. Leger’s Three Faces and I. M. Pei’s Denver building do not give an immediate sense of depth like Moholy-Nagy’s La Sarraz and Belluschi’s Portland building, but instead seem two dimensional. Further inspection of the patterns and shapes reveal overlaps and distortions which can be seen in more than one way. The secondary blue frame of Pei’s building can either be seen as in front of or behind the principal black frame. This for the authors creates more variety and therefore more interest. An unspoken criticism of the Bauhaus building and Belluschi’s building seem to be that there is not “more than what the eye sees”. Both buildings suggest things but do it in a very direct way. Pei’s phenomenal transparency is created through subtleties and illusions which Slutzky and Row think are richer. I also think that medieval towns when viewed from the perspective of their narrow streets also create a sort of phenomenal transparency. Often towers that rise over rooftops seem closer than they actually are, and all the houses in close proximity often appear to overlap. Most people find it very confusing to navigate, but there is an attraction to its complexity and ‘pseudo-chaos’.
Still, I don’t have the preference for phenomenal over literal transparency that Rowe and Slutzky hold.