Thoughts on the Formal Method

El Lissitzky wanted to eliminate the concept of perspective from his art as a way of eliminating the natural sense of depth perception of a human being. Normally, the human eye uses the vanishing of lines and the extension to their intersections to judge distance. This is done without any thought. He theorized about the unsettling nature of the axonometric, a drawing where the lines will never vanish. He believed that such a drawing would allow the human mind to grasp the infinite nature of space. There is an ambiguity to parallel lines, and to perspectives without clarifying figures, that makes it impossible for one to truly grasp the space. While this is an interesting theory, axonometric drawings rarely appear to by anything more than a little unsettling. The viewer may have an unconscious understanding that this is not how the world works, but rarely does it help in the understanding of infinite space. It typically does more to isolate the drawing as an object that could never exist in reality. This is what it has in common with infinite space; objects that do not vanish even slightly and infinite space are both impossible. As far as grasping the impossible and portraying it on canvas, El Lissitzky was successful. As far as attaining a representation of infinite space, he appears to be much less successful.

The more successful attempt of his is to eliminate the third dimensional axis in the drawing while making it appear that the objects are still three-dimensional. Many of his Prouns have objects all drawn with different techniques. Some are perspective and some are axonometric. This combination is much more successful at being unsettling. There is no fundamental orientation and no clear location for the observer. He wished his Prouns to be displayed horizontally to disconnect the viewer from the typical relationship to a work. When the Formalists attempted to incorporate these concepts into architecture, such as the Palace of Labor by the Vesnin brothers, they showed that such strong ideas about art could be translated into an architecture that fundamentally reflected the nature of the regime.

There came about in the minds of Choisy, Eisenstein, and the like, an obsession with the relationship between cinema and architecture. These theorists wanted to have architecture be central to the plot of a movie. They believed that the representation of a work was as important as the work itself. For instance, Choisy agreed that the axonometric drawing was the most powerful, and he felt that it communicated the agitation and animation of the building itself. Personally, it is hard to see such characteristics in axonometric drawings, but this was the common belief of the day. It was used as a means of gaining a new understanding of their surroundings. Eisenstein also helped to introduce the idea of contextualism, which has since fallen from popularity but was once a grave concern of architecture.

Furthermore, Eisenstein did not believe that elements of architecture had to be literal in order to be present. For instance, he believed that symmetry did not have to be exact if the visual symmetry made up for it. His example is the Acropolis. This appears true even today. When one looks at the plan of the Acropolis, one rarely sees a horribly disorderly composition. The buildings are not symmetrical but the composition is balanced, and this was what Eisenstein thought was the better means of design. The basis of all of this design is memory. Designing with memory is something that Eisenman has clearly undertaken as well. In his buildings, though much more modern, memory is the key to the design. The buildings are designed to evoke certain memories, and the understanding of many of his spaces hinges on the observer’s memory of what he has seen before. All of these ideas form montage because they are multiple frames that have been superimposed not in the physical reality, but in the mind. This architectural theory is most interesting because it does relate almost entirely to the mental effects of architecture. Such intellectual concepts were key to the Formal Method.

The Formal Method II

I think the idea of montage as individual elements which are brought into context only when juxtaposed or viewed together is a very powerful idea and tool. Though I view the story of Bernini’s heroic act against the papacy with some skepticism, I don’t doubt the method and effectiveness of those eight reliefs. That method applied to architecture, as shown by the progression through the Acropolis, is also powerful and tantalizing. However, I strongly agree that sometimes the overall plan doesn’t make sense unless viewed with respect to what the planners were trying to achieve. I don’t think that it decreases the merit of the work even if it’s not understood immediately. However, when the true progression is shown it is very powerful. However, I am more dubious of works which are not understood and still are not understood even when explained. Personally I think if a work has merit, it could be explained, but the power of a piece of architecture should be experiential, which is also why I can appreciate detail in architecture more as viewed when in it and when inhabiting it than just looking at it as a whole, like a sculpture which has force only through outward appearance. That is also the difference between most sculpture and architecture, though of course there are exceptions (Serra’s work comes to mind).
I also find that the last article was so much a categorization of the new movement which eventually broke away into individual and competing ideas that the force of its idea as a whole is not as powerful. Certainly such background information is useful, and I vigorously support such information in conjunction with reading works which are theoretical. However, I feel that the information could have been presented in a way which can communicate more forcefully the thesis. In a way it’s like designing a paper to best communicate an idea.

Formal Method 3

It's quite interesting how drawing and movies can make people think of everything. I agree that some drawings do show more things than other, however, it depends on the person drawing them and how skillful the execution is. Bois' article about axonometry makes a good case for the use of that type of drawing, going so far as to explain why it was big in suprematist circles. But I think that it really depends on what you are trying to convey. For suprematist, since they were really worried about simplicity, axonometry is perfect. It shows what it needs to show and that is pretty much it. I feel that sometimes they were rather successful, in our architectural projects, especially when the building contained some simple and clean elements. But they also failed miserably at showing various concepts of a design, especially if the building has a rather complex design. They tend to crowd up the place and look very bland. I understand that suprematist took things out of the norm and did things that they considered to be a more genuine form of art. I can relate axons to the modern movement as well as I can relate perspective drawings to classical teachings of art. It's very interesting to see how people developed these ideas and how they stuck to them during the developmental process. Should we be drawing inspiration from these ideas? Sure, why not see what everyone was doing in the past and obtain ideas for the future.

Maybe I just don't get it.....

These articles focus on what seems to be a technical analysis of Suprematist work. They analyze how the perspective lines are drawn (parallel, not to a vanishing point), which points out an almost childlike drawing style. Axonometric drawings are used because of their perfect geometries that are not convoluted by reality. Plan and elevation coexist to give a more complete understanding of an object (i.e. seeing a pyramid from all angles rather than simply from the top). I don’t understand what extravision or intravision are. The Acropolis provides an interesting look into the duality of path and perspective. An observer sees the various buildings in 3-D rather than head on. The Greeks paid a lot of attention to path and perspective, an apparently modern thought. This also brings up the point about cinematic path. As I understand it, this is about what an observer sees on a given path. Cinemarchitecture? The Vesnin “Palace of Labor” contest entry deals with planes and volumes in perspective. The building looks completely different depending on which angle you view it from. This is pretty amazing for an early 20th century project. So after all of this, I’m getting to the conclusion that the formal method is an amalgamation of path and perspective, materiality, and volumes versus planes.

Quote: “you don’t admire Russian poetry because you don’t understand it.”

Maybe I don’t admire any of this because I don’t really understand it.

Vertov's The Man with a Movie Camera

Although I enjoyed the movie and how it depicted Soviet life, the article enabled me to appreciate the tedious editing techniques and how the variety of shots were composed as a whole. I think the film greatly succeeded in showing a particular rhythm of everyday life, where a great amount of energy was put into the production of goods with the help of mechanical devices. Vertov continuously reflected back onto the actual device of the camera to show that the film process and production was deeply connected to the machines and processes that he was filming.

I found that the film had a positive and inspirational viewpoint on the production cycle in the cities where Vertov showed the great social unity in everyday life. Even when the film transitioned into leisure activities, the same rapid high energy shots, portrayed the subjects in the film to be motivated and productive as when they were working.

Constructivism on film..

As I watched the video on Friday I was a bit confused as to what was going on and why. Some of the scenes seemed completely random at times and I wasn't sure where it was going. After reading the article I feel like I understand more of the direction in which Vertov was headed. I believe he was extremely successful in what he set out to achieve by using this new method of film editing. I'm not sure if I liked the film but considering the fact that I'm not really into movies, yet this one for some reason did not make me fall asleep I believe is a good thing.

Going back to the article, I like the comparison with Tatlin's Monument to the Third International and Complex Corner Relief. The author speaks of the "bridging of their separateness," speaking of the materials used in the relief, which is also valid for The Man with a Movie Camera in the way it brings the different industrial and daily tasks together into an interwoven pattern of daily life.

On a different note. I couldn't help noticing what Jae wrote about technique and message? I think he brings up a good point that might be worth looking at...

Art for the sake of Technique

This week’s reader has been the most difficult material to absorb so far. Perhaps it was because of its incessant references and comparison to other theorists, but it was difficult to follow the points the author was making. Having pointed that out, it seems to me that constructivists sound a lot like the formalists. They put great emphasis on the method of production, and such attitude is exemplified in Vertov’s “The Man with a Movie Camera.” Constructivist’s diligent effort to discover and master their technique is admirable. Evolution of movie film from a mere reproduction of the eye to something much greater is amazing. But all great achievements aside, question remains: is purpose of art to convey a message or to present a technique? Vertov’s work conveys a simple message very clearly through an extensive use of several advance film editing techniques. If the purpose of art is to present a technique, is art just something to be appreciated?