The design of the Modena cemetery is definitely heavily influenced by religion. Rossi’s intentions of establishing architecture as an authority are very apparent, and his tools of accomplishing this idea are certainly successful. Moneo, in his essay, claimed that Rossi had to adopt an elusive relation to broader urban technologies to protect the authority of architecture in the post-war city. To me, it seemed that Moneo was seeking the grounds to support Rossi, but the evidence of the contemporary city - the late 20th Century metropolis -made Rossi's propositions difficult to accept without stipulation.
Moneo's essay began a procedure of reconciling Rossi's theory and practice of architecture within a broader and ultimately more self-sustaining field, in this case the post-war city of Western Europe and the United States. In addressing the self-sustaining role of the metropolis itself, Moneo seemed reluctant to accept a project of architectural autonomy, and instead came close to proposing the autonomy of the metropolis as a monetary, governmental and power-laden instrument. In Rossi's work, architecture offered what Moneo termed a "fleeting glimpse" of the city achieved in the suspension of analytic technique. Architecture as memory, as time-image, allowed Rossi to conceive of architecture as permanent, limited and distinct, yet also relieved it of its relative and synthetic unity.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
Powerful cemetery
Rossi’s theory and work are responsive to the modern architecture that had spread across the world to become known as the International Style. While this style was about simplicity, stripping down to the basics, and uniformity, Rossi’s desire was to bring back that lost quality of architecture that would capture meaning and awe the beholder. His Modena Cemetery does just that. When I look at it at first, I am discomforted because I cannot reach out and claim any of the forms or spaces as familiar property of my culture… or of my world. The color, the scale, the massing, all of it is unexpected, unrecognizable and disassociated with typical building functions. Then when I begin to think about as a city of the dead, I feel inspired and intrigued by the mystery of what lies beyond the frame. It definitely sets up a threshold condition; it is as if the solid orange mass is a gated wall barring any from entering, yet the smaller square openings suggest passage into a new space, one hidden from sight by the shadows. Such a bold monument opposes the light, airy, black and white forms of the International Style; it asks that we take a second look at architecture as something able to carry a weighty meaning and project a profound understanding that even words could not capture.
Typology from memory
"no type can be identified with a particular form, but all architectural forms can be referred to types."
Rossi's words shake a bit of artist's vanity out of me. Many architects, especially the young ones, aspire to become an artist, and within an artist's heart, there is an ambition to be original and revolutionary. Incorporation of a building typology into an architectural design puts a selfish reluctance in an artist's heart. It is thought to diminish the originality of a design. We are afraid that our plans will be too easily categorized and lose its novelty. Aldo Rossi's design method is not concerned with such immature worry. He embraces building typology. Through established typology he strives to create a place that is instinctively familiar. Its is not surprising such nostalgic architecture is produced by an Italian architect. Rich Roman architecture is powerful in a fundamental level, and any who grow up in a place so rich with history would come to love and miss the powerful presence of Roman atrium and Renaissance churches.
Rossi's words shake a bit of artist's vanity out of me. Many architects, especially the young ones, aspire to become an artist, and within an artist's heart, there is an ambition to be original and revolutionary. Incorporation of a building typology into an architectural design puts a selfish reluctance in an artist's heart. It is thought to diminish the originality of a design. We are afraid that our plans will be too easily categorized and lose its novelty. Aldo Rossi's design method is not concerned with such immature worry. He embraces building typology. Through established typology he strives to create a place that is instinctively familiar. Its is not surprising such nostalgic architecture is produced by an Italian architect. Rich Roman architecture is powerful in a fundamental level, and any who grow up in a place so rich with history would come to love and miss the powerful presence of Roman atrium and Renaissance churches.
Construction through Time/History
The relationship Rossi brings up about "Construction of the city in time" caught my attention because even though we design with references to historical structures or using a historical structure as inspiration, I had not really thought of being able to link the past with the present in order to evoke a sense of nostalgia such as the cemetery does. The non-functional windows with no sills made it clear that the space was not meant to be used by the living and were there instead to add to the feel of abandonment as the article states. The idea of representing time through architecture in this manner seems interesting and I feel like Rossi was quite successful in this cemetery.
There are more recent buildings such as the Jewish Museum that relate to history and evoke a sense of remembrance but in a more dramatic manner. The cemetery is quite subtle in the way it portrays the passing of times and of he people that lived have lived during those times. The Jewish Museum in a way forces the past on you with the chaos and extreme spaces that greet you at every turn of the corner. In this case the building is independent of the city or its past. It is not constructed by history or time but by the existence of a short period in time, not by "its collective life, through memory" as Rossi states..
There are more recent buildings such as the Jewish Museum that relate to history and evoke a sense of remembrance but in a more dramatic manner. The cemetery is quite subtle in the way it portrays the passing of times and of he people that lived have lived during those times. The Jewish Museum in a way forces the past on you with the chaos and extreme spaces that greet you at every turn of the corner. In this case the building is independent of the city or its past. It is not constructed by history or time but by the existence of a short period in time, not by "its collective life, through memory" as Rossi states..
Typology and Memory
Architecture's relationship to the past is very difficult. For a long time, throughout the classical period, architecture changed very little, and when it did it tended to be very incremental. Therefore its relationship to the past was simple. However, as architecture has increased in complexity and innovation, its ties to the past have become more and more muddled. Finally, during the Modern Movement, these ties were purported to be severed completely. This was false. Architecture could not dissociate itself from the past, because our collective past defines us as human beings, and all of our thoughts, observations, and impressions are colored by it. All that could really be accomplished by severing ties with the past was to make architecture unintelligible.
I appreciated Moneo's discussion of Rossi here because he attacked the problem of history in a way that I believe is very meaningful. History is not a collection of facts, names, and dates from the past, although many have treated it as such. History's importance lies, as Moneo has said, in memory. History is what shapes cultural identity, and defines the essence of who we are. Therefore, I think a look at the memory of the past is critical to designing architecture that is intelligible and meaningful. The question is whether memory can be tapped into through typology, as Rossi believes. I believe it can, to an extent. There is more to the history of any place than the specific typology of a building within a given culture, but it can certainly provide a starting place for design. The problem arises when typology becomes limiting. Design must be more than simple adherence to a fixed typology. If typology is given too much importance, it can take over a building and make it generic, rather than meaningful. If it is given too little power, it becomes illegible and loses its presence. The key is to find a middle ground where a building's typology can be read, but where breaks from its typology give it interest, meaning, and a sense of self. It is also important to note that typologies are not fixed, but evolve as cultural memories change over time, as Moneo implies in his discussion of the evolution of the city. Therefore architecture is destined to change over time as it responds to these shifts, and a building's perception will always change in response to the times and the course of history.
I appreciated Moneo's discussion of Rossi here because he attacked the problem of history in a way that I believe is very meaningful. History is not a collection of facts, names, and dates from the past, although many have treated it as such. History's importance lies, as Moneo has said, in memory. History is what shapes cultural identity, and defines the essence of who we are. Therefore, I think a look at the memory of the past is critical to designing architecture that is intelligible and meaningful. The question is whether memory can be tapped into through typology, as Rossi believes. I believe it can, to an extent. There is more to the history of any place than the specific typology of a building within a given culture, but it can certainly provide a starting place for design. The problem arises when typology becomes limiting. Design must be more than simple adherence to a fixed typology. If typology is given too much importance, it can take over a building and make it generic, rather than meaningful. If it is given too little power, it becomes illegible and loses its presence. The key is to find a middle ground where a building's typology can be read, but where breaks from its typology give it interest, meaning, and a sense of self. It is also important to note that typologies are not fixed, but evolve as cultural memories change over time, as Moneo implies in his discussion of the evolution of the city. Therefore architecture is destined to change over time as it responds to these shifts, and a building's perception will always change in response to the times and the course of history.
Aldo Rossi – Analogical Architecture
For Rossi, “analogical thought is sensed yet unreal, imagined yet silent… and practically inexpressible in words.” I think I might have to agree that his architecture is “analogical.” Even as I was reading Moneo’s article I had to write simple equations to keep his ideas straight:
form and style = urban facts
city = image by politics through architecture
proportion = relationship of measures -> value
lives = rituals + customs + situations -> history
construction = relationship of elements -> architecture
autonomy of architecture = discipline, way of thinking as spatial order
a building = achievement of architecture
It’s as if Rossi had to develop his own meaning for these words in order to communicate his theory. I think this is pretty cool, but I think I might need to go the Modena Cemetery for me to like it…
form and style = urban facts
city = image by politics through architecture
proportion = relationship of measures -> value
lives = rituals + customs + situations -> history
construction = relationship of elements -> architecture
autonomy of architecture = discipline, way of thinking as spatial order
a building = achievement of architecture
It’s as if Rossi had to develop his own meaning for these words in order to communicate his theory. I think this is pretty cool, but I think I might need to go the Modena Cemetery for me to like it…
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Autonomous Discipline
There is a common ideology between everything we have read up to this point: "the idea that there [is] a specificity or a particular aspect of architecture which could allow it to be considered an autonomous discipline." The attempts to identify this aspect of architecture have been many and varied, and yet in my mind it remains as questionable and elusive today as it did back then. Aldo Rossi provides an interesting outlook on the subject, but his architecture, or at least the Modena cemetary, does not seem to follow his ideology on architecture as the construction of the city. Perhaps it is because we are not able to view it in context of the city, but nevertheless I think he was very successful in creating a "city for the dead." However illogical the idea of "the program of a desolate house" seems at first, it's presence is felt without eplanation or understanding. This metaphysical relationship between people and architecture and his decomposition of buildings to their essence reminds me of the ideology of Louis Kahn. Kahn was searching for the perfect expression of the same building typologies that were central to Rossi's rationalism; in both cases that which was closest to its essence; what a building "wants to be." Rossi's prioritization of form and complete disposal of detail, however, draws an enormous rift between the two comparable to their conflicting political ideologies.
The Theories of Aldo Rossi
Rossi campaigned for the elevation of the urban space as equally important as the architectural design. While his statements occasionally seemed a bit drastic, one phrase of Moneo’s stood out: “Building must become an urban fact.” This is true on many levels, including the one that he meant. He was referring to the ability of a building to address the value, meaning, and uses that the city required it to take on. It became a fact of the city, and it needed to become so interconnected with the fabric of the city that it became indistinguishable from the character of the urban space. It is obviously true on the most basic level, which is to say that once a building is built, it is part of the city. It is a call to the end of formalism, specifically of form for form’s sake. It is an understanding of the need for architecture to reach out to other ideas, whether the ideas of urban planning or of history and memory. This is one of those phrases that could truly be embodied in a design. The idea of focusing on the urban space, on the interactions with other buildings, is a very extroverted way of designing. In a way, it sacrifices what the building itself wants to be for the ability to create a better urban design. A good designer could combine the two ideas in a intriguing and successful way, but there is no doubt that a building will not be successful if it does not add, modify, support, reject, or otherwise respond to the urban fabric of its surroundings.
Applying his architectural concepts to the Modena Cemetery, one can clearly see the house of the dead, the collective memory of the lives of the dead, and the monumental quality of the space. All of these ideas were intentional, as they reflect his ideas as to what architecture should really be. As each new metaphor of the experience is presented, one can inquire as to the success of this method. Does architecture need such deep, metaphorical meanings in order to convey the sense of power found at the Modena cemetery? Many architects discuss successful buildings based on the program, the function, and the form. Rossi himself believed that construction was paramount to architecture. In the end, Moneo may have clarified the answer best: “Technique does not count, the essence of architecture is not found in technical matters.” If this is to be believed, then one must look for the deeper meaning, perhaps theoretical, philosophical, or sociopolitical depth that could bring a sense of importance to a space. This is not necessary only in the mundane works; it is necessary in all works of architecture. Rossi managed to express his ideas in ways that were not intellectual but rather subconscious, and his greatest success fell in this category. The meaning could be understood by everyone, perhaps not in words, but in experience. It is this meaning that transforms an experience from a walk-through to a moving experience.
Through the design of this cemetery, he also managed to advocate the usefulness of monumentality. Many architects despise this concept, feeling that it is wasteful and unnecessary. Rossi presented spaces that used the monumentality to their advantage. Rather than creating spaces that were simple, he created spaces to move people. Despite all of its shortcomings, the dramatic impact of the monument is something not to be forgotten. Monuments in their very nature recall the memories of the past and connect the events to the present. It is no wonder that monuments and memorials are such widely visited tourist attractions. Something about the monumentality of the space is moving; it allows the occupant to experience, remember, and understand. Such moments can be used carefully in architecture to create similar moments of clarity, provided the monumental nature is strictly regulated. It may be easy for such designs to get out of hand, but they should not be dismissed. The compelling quality of a monument should be harnessed by designers in the same way that Rossi harnessed the effects in the Modena Cemetery.
Applying his architectural concepts to the Modena Cemetery, one can clearly see the house of the dead, the collective memory of the lives of the dead, and the monumental quality of the space. All of these ideas were intentional, as they reflect his ideas as to what architecture should really be. As each new metaphor of the experience is presented, one can inquire as to the success of this method. Does architecture need such deep, metaphorical meanings in order to convey the sense of power found at the Modena cemetery? Many architects discuss successful buildings based on the program, the function, and the form. Rossi himself believed that construction was paramount to architecture. In the end, Moneo may have clarified the answer best: “Technique does not count, the essence of architecture is not found in technical matters.” If this is to be believed, then one must look for the deeper meaning, perhaps theoretical, philosophical, or sociopolitical depth that could bring a sense of importance to a space. This is not necessary only in the mundane works; it is necessary in all works of architecture. Rossi managed to express his ideas in ways that were not intellectual but rather subconscious, and his greatest success fell in this category. The meaning could be understood by everyone, perhaps not in words, but in experience. It is this meaning that transforms an experience from a walk-through to a moving experience.
Through the design of this cemetery, he also managed to advocate the usefulness of monumentality. Many architects despise this concept, feeling that it is wasteful and unnecessary. Rossi presented spaces that used the monumentality to their advantage. Rather than creating spaces that were simple, he created spaces to move people. Despite all of its shortcomings, the dramatic impact of the monument is something not to be forgotten. Monuments in their very nature recall the memories of the past and connect the events to the present. It is no wonder that monuments and memorials are such widely visited tourist attractions. Something about the monumentality of the space is moving; it allows the occupant to experience, remember, and understand. Such moments can be used carefully in architecture to create similar moments of clarity, provided the monumental nature is strictly regulated. It may be easy for such designs to get out of hand, but they should not be dismissed. The compelling quality of a monument should be harnessed by designers in the same way that Rossi harnessed the effects in the Modena Cemetery.
Neo-Rationalist Theory
I found Moneo's essay to be quite a read. As most theorist, he rant and rants rants, but not in a bad way. I think Rossi definitely is a move away from the norm. I can see how Rossi's architecture can be considered rationalist, after all, he has a way of putting everything in order in the most thoughtful of ways. Rossi's use of the word "typology" is used in the most interesting of ways, as he uses it to set up his set of rules, which he will follow to the tee. I'm not very familiar with Rossi's work and I will not go on about it in long sentences, but I did manage to look up some of his work and found, to my amusement, that his tenet of using the city as a means to direct the design is very prominent. I can see why one would want to use such a tenet, specially in a country with so much history and culture as Italy, but I feel that this complicates things quite a bit. It seems that many of his designs were modern versions of the old monuments of Italy. It was as if he remade the pantheon to look more modern. His use of very symmetrical lines along the plans and facades are very reminiscent of older times, but I don't feel that they are very effective for leading architecture into a new direction. I can definitely see why his work is considered rational, as the designs are very strict, simple, and well thought out, specially in the Modena Cemetery. However, I do find them to be quite bland and too symmetrical, to the point where its just frustrating. It reminds me of a person with o.c.d. I might be biased, as are many people, but I do find that Rossi is a much better theorist than he is an architect. His ideas are solid and very thought out, mainly because the city is a very important part of what we, as architects, are trying to make better, or at least take in the direction that is best. But I definitely don't think that by basing architecture on the already available monuments, we can achieve a better architecture. Instead, I believe that leaving those monuments alone, using them for ideas, and creating something that will make them better is a more plausible way to go. I want to move forward into what could be, not what can we use to make it be.
Rationalist Theory
My understanding of Aldo Rossi’s principles for architecture is that he doesn’t believe in a set form for a specific use, but he does believe in using forms which we know and are common for functions which they are suited. Therefore while his Modena Cemetery appears surrealist and therefore not rationalist, his forms are used in such a way that they suit the purpose of a cemetery. His idea that architecture is a discipline autonomous of sculpture and painting seems to be a direct criticism of architects who build according to form and solely for compositional aesthetics.
Invisible Cities by Calvino also spoke of cities whose existence lie mainly in memories, but I’m not sure if Rossi means the same as Calvino. To me, Rossi seems to see cities in our memories as a type, but what actually results in a city in the physical form will inevitably vary or not fulfill the type fully. Still, according to Rossi, a city’s meaning changes through time as its meanings and relationships to its surroundings and its inhabitants change. Calvino also wrote about that same principle, in which different people sees different things in the city. They’re roughly contemporaries, and both worked in Italy, so I wonder if they knew and influenced each other.
I think Rossi has a very romantic view of what architecture is, despite his method being called rationalism. Still, I think using common forms in a different way is very appropriate in the case of Modena Cemetary, because it creates a sense of displacement, initial, confusion, and alienation.
Invisible Cities by Calvino also spoke of cities whose existence lie mainly in memories, but I’m not sure if Rossi means the same as Calvino. To me, Rossi seems to see cities in our memories as a type, but what actually results in a city in the physical form will inevitably vary or not fulfill the type fully. Still, according to Rossi, a city’s meaning changes through time as its meanings and relationships to its surroundings and its inhabitants change. Calvino also wrote about that same principle, in which different people sees different things in the city. They’re roughly contemporaries, and both worked in Italy, so I wonder if they knew and influenced each other.
I think Rossi has a very romantic view of what architecture is, despite his method being called rationalism. Still, I think using common forms in a different way is very appropriate in the case of Modena Cemetary, because it creates a sense of displacement, initial, confusion, and alienation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)