Defining modern residential architecture: Le Corbusier, Alvar Aalto, Mies van der Rohe

The 1930’s proved to be an important moment in the transformation of the architectural society. New forms brought about the period know as ‘International style’ of which expressed a basis for new individual invention. During this time Society as a whole began evolving as the automobile became more popular among households, thus cities began to grow and urbanization was in full effect. The advancements in the Architectural realm led designers such as Alvar Aalto, Mies van der Rohe, and Le Corbusier to start what is now know as the Modernist Movement. These architects among many others shaped the way we view architecture and defined their approach through a progression of designs, of which residential will be examined in this blog.        
  

Charles-Eduard Jeanneret, later know as Le Corbusier was an internationally known and influential Swiss architect and city planner. His vision of an ‘ideal city’ pioneered studies of including theoretical plans for skyscraper cities and mass-produced housing which sought to provide better living conditions for the residents of crowded cities in crisis. Influenced by the ideas of nature and its simplistic geometrical forms Le Corbusier combined the functionalism of the modern movement with bold, sculptural expressionism. In his formative years, Corbu “absorbed many different influences and tried many different forms of expression before he found his true way” (Curtis 165). Belonging to the first generation of the ‘International School’ such as the likes of Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier excelled in the movement providing deep wisdom and a rich illustration of ideas. These concepts later formed one of the most influential architectural books of the century, Towards a New Architecture 1923. After settling in Paris, Le Corbusier along with painter Amédée Ozenfant formulated the ideas of Purism, pioneering an aesthetic based on the pure, simple geometric forms of everyday objects. “Jeanneret and Ozenfant, strongly objected to developments in Cubist art, particularly the decorative elements. [They] wanted a return to more basic forms mainly inspired by modern machinery” (Lecture). His early work joined the functionalist aspirations of his generation with a strong sense of expressionism. Le Corbusier was an architect who made a studied use of reinforced-concrete construction: his pursuit eventually led to the invention of the ‘Dom-ino’ skeleton 1914 (Fig.1).

“The Dom-ino frame embodied the industrialization of the building process… in which the columns and floor plate constituted a prefabricated system independent of walls and partitions” (Colquhoun 141). The use of the free floor plate, independence from structure, vertical stacking, and an idea of mass production can be seen in his designs such as Maison La Roche, Villa Stein, Villa Savoye and Maison Citrohan to name a few. In the latter work mentioned Le Corbusier implemented his theories in which he established through his writing Five Points of a New Architecture 1926. He prescribed the rules of a new architectural system, of which consisted: pilotis, the roof garden, the free plan, the horizontal window and the free façade (Colquhoun 148). In the case of works such as Villa Savoye in Poissy, France (Fig. 2). Le Corbusier created a building based upon his principles of architecture, and the idea of the house as a machine for living. These programmatic elements yielded a simple building that followed his five points of architecture. With its structure raised on slender concrete pillars or pilotis the building was lifted off the ground; a free and open floor plan allowed for the interior structure to conform to its own functions; long horizontal strip windows were utilized for lighting and views; and the roof terrace reintroduced nature to the city as well as replaced the green space the building footprint disposed of. The broad application of the system strove to work on a formal, symbolic and structural level. “Le Corbusier used various regulating diagrams; the place of the right angle, the golden section, the logarithmic spiral, the pentagon. Each of these geometric systems provides a specific kind of equilibrium and character” (Lecture).

While not as nearly renowned as Le Corbusier in France, Mies van der Rohe proved to be a distinguished actor in the realm of Germany’s architects. In Mies’s work, two opposing tendencies struggled for dominance. 1) The enclosure of function in a generalized cubic container not committed to any particular set of concrete functions, relating to his early allegiance to neoclassicism similar to Le Corbusier. 2) the articulation of the buildings in response to the fluidity of life (Colquhoun 171). The resultant architectural formation was very similar to Le Corbusier’s yet the approach was very different to their perceived conditions of modernity (Lecture). Mies spent a much greater time than Corbu designing homes in the neoclassical style and in fact saw a greater success. His early designs focused on “ symmetrical two-story prisms” (Colquhoun 172) such as the Riehl House in Berlin 1907 (Fig. 3). The house is conceived in a simple and practical style with references to the architecture of residences of the early nineteenth century. The emphasis of the house lies in its gabled ends, one of which seems to grow out of the retaining wall.

After the war Mies’ design conventions transform from mimetic eclecticism to Constructivist abstraction. “He began to take a strong anti-formalist position: ‘We know no forms, only building problems. Form is not the goal but the result of our work’” (Colquhoun 173). His early Constructivist projects were exemplified in works such as the Wolf House, Lessing house Project, and Concrete Country House. The Wolf house depicts a system of cubes broken down into smaller interlocking forms utilizing local building materials and brick. Similar to the Lessing House project these plans form a rough pyramidal composition of two and three stories achieving sequences in echelon.

To touch on the progression of Mies’s development the Tugendhat house focuses on his next stage. Similar to the Riehl house the building is lodged into a sloping site however instead of using brick as the primary medium the cubic mass is held by monolithic white planes. (Fig. 4).

The Tugendhat house as well as one of Mies’s more infamous works the Barcelona Pavilion seek support by an independent grid of columns, at first similar to Le Corbusier’s free plan the system works in unison with the wall planes. Mies gradually began to open his enclosed works over time to frame views of nature. This I believe can be depicted best in his design of the Farnsworth House (Fig. 5).

Leading the discussion on nature presents Alvar Aalto who strongly pursued the incorporation of this element throughout all his work. His prototypes were well adapted to the scale of the landscape and the stringencies of the Nordic climate (Curtis 454). Aalto is seen as the father of the modern architecture movement however rarely gets the acclaim to the extent of Le Corbusier. This Finnish Modernist questioned the mechanistic premises of the new objectivity as did the likes of several others – including Le Corbusier. Returning to natural materials and traditional details Alto like Le Corbusier retained the ‘empty’ language of the new movement, seeking to fill it with new metaphors (Colquhoun 201).  

In the Villa Mairea at Noormarkku, taut curved walls faced with wood sidings are contrasted with sharp-edge brick walls painted white thus showing a tacticle sens of industrial and natural materials. The ground floor plan (Fig. 6) shows how the house respects and appreciates the landscape by wrapping around. In the living room – which like Mies’s tugendhat house combines different living zones within a single space – screens of wooden poles in random clusters become metonyms for the pine forest visible through wall-to-wall plate-glass windows, creating a synthesis of modern technology, artisianship, and nature (Colquhoun 202). Aalto’s Villa Mairea proved to be an important move from functionalism.    

The Modern House and the Weissenhof Exhibition - A comparative analysis

At the beginning of the 20^th century much was taking place in and around Germany. The driving force of the artistic and cultural reform taking place was the Deutscher Werkbund - which grew out of the German Arts and Crafts movement. Established as a cultural reform project the Werkbund consolidated and accelerated the integration of art and industry at a national level as to transcend Capitalism. Architects such as Peter Behrens oriented the movement so as to “infuse mass-production with meaning and spirit by artistic means” – Naumann (Colquhoun p.58). Similar to the Art Nouveau and Jugensdtil movements, the Werkbund focused on the reduction of time and efforts of manual labor in relation to cultural evolution.

  (fig. 1) AEG Turbine Factory

Peter Behren’s approach to art and architecture was “deeply tinged with the symbolism that characterized the German secessionist movements” (Colquhoun p.64). He has been cited as the father of German Industrial Design as well as the founder of corporate identity in which he exemplified through his work with the AEG Turbine Factory (fig.1). This style of architecture in the machine age was to be based upon classicism thus the factory exemplified a strong ancient Greek or Roman style to its structure, later know as industrial classicism.

(Fig 2)  Weissenhof Homes 31-32

In 1927 the Weissenfhofsiedlung exhibition in Stuttgart was an international showcase for what later became known as the International Style.  Behrens, the oldest designer played an integral role in the development teaching names such as Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier and designing Homes 31-32 for the exhibition (fig. 2).  Behrens’ design focused on a dominant system of geometry.  The arrangement of intersecting volumes plays off one another symbolically and allows for an overlap of square relationships- both in plan and elevation (fig 3). It is interesting to examine these relationships and investigate their correlations. The elevation and its placement of openings depict a strong grid system, which relates into the plan (fig.4) however to examine this further I began to look at the repetition between plan and elevation.  

(Fig. 3)

(Fig. 4)

When viewed in relation to their placement, both plan and elevation hint at a similar form and can be suggested from one another. Though not an identical comparison, the basic geometries seem to correspond (fig. 5). The modularity and use of modern materials and technology express Behrens’ form in the exhibition as distinct as possible. The resultant settlement with its flat roofs and flush white surfaces are testimonials to the form and technology, design and construction of what was then revolutionary architectural conception.   

(Fig. 5)

(Fig. 6) The Looshaus

During this expansive time in history another provocative and influential designer holds the claim of the father figure of the 1920’s modern movement. Adolf Loos similar to Peter Behrens managed to leave an enormous influence on Le Corbusier and generations of architects. Belonging to the same generation as the main figures of the Art Nouveau and Jugendstil movements Loos opposed their rationale and instead “saw the split between the craftsman and the artist irreversible” (Colquhoun p.73).  His writings on ornament argued against the principles of Peter Behrens and the Werkbund - who portrayed the artist as a form-giver to the industry. Adolf Loos believed ornamentation was eliminated due to cultural evolution and in the end a benefit to society reducing the time and labor spent. In context to ornamentation and its role in the design of Adolf Loos’ The Looshaus 1909-11 (fig. 6) “Loos treated each part of the building in a way appropriate to its function… whereas Behrens in his Turbine Factory carefully masked his distortions of classical syntax to create a seamless fusion of classical and modern”(Colquhoun p.77).

(Fig. 7) Villa Muller.
Raumplan

The evolution of Viollet-le-Duc’s traditional country house and French maison de plaisance culminated influences for Loos’ designs for several villas. The Villa Muller 1929-30 (fig 7.) began to show the mechanics of Loos’ concept of Raumplan or changes of level between rooms. This was a revolutionary moment transforming the floor plan into volume and envisioning/controlling the way inhabitants move through spaces. While Behrens may have utilized this concept on a larger scale more in relation to building mass it is evident the Loos theorized this concept on a much more intimate. As the case in many of his house designs there were wide openings between rooms and often-diagonal views were the resultant. “The walls in the spatial ordering played a dramatic role both phenomenally and structurally’’ (Colquhoun p.81).  These continuities between rooms not only served as transitions within the interior but Loos was deliberate in separating the outside public from the private interior (fig. 8). Consequently the exterior walls were stark without any form of ornamentation covering the lavish, warm and comfortable interior. Loos’ concept for Villa Muller was similar to that of Behrens’ using cubic volumes and shifting their placement. In the North elevation of Villa Muller Loos makes the repetition of the cube evident (fig. 9).  The repeated form not only establishes the exterior shell but also guides the placements of the windows and opening on the façade. “Similarity in contour between the windows is achieved by the golden section and partitioning into two or four sections”(Besser p.28). 

(Fig. 8) Courtesy of Urban

(Fig. 9)

While it seems evident Loos’ concept for Villa Muller was theoretically strong in its organization I feel it lacked a sense of symmetry that Peter Behrens had presented in his work at the Wiesenhof settlement. These men however were incredibly brilliant and ahead of their time by many years; their work word helped to produce one of the most influential movements in the history of architecture.   

Works Cited: 

"Stuttgart Tourist - Weißenhofsiedlung." Stuttgart Tourist - Hotels, Übernachtungen, Apartments, Kongresse, Pauschalangebote in Stuttgart Und Der Region Stuttgart, Tagungshotels, Kongresshotels. Stuttgart Marketing GmbH. Web. 21 Sept. 2011. <http://www.stuttgart-tourist.de/ENG/leisure/weissenhofsiedlung.htm>.

Besser, Joern, and Stephan Liebscher. Adolf Loos: The Life - The Theories - Analysis of the Villa Muller. University of Bath, 2005. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. <http://www.desyndicate.de/inhalt/downloads/Adolf_Loos-The_Life-The_Theories-Villa_Mueller.pdf>.

Colquhoun, Alan. Modern Architecture. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. Print.

Curtis, William J. R. Modern Architecture since 1900. [London]: Phaidon, 1996. Print.

Middleton, Dr., Deborah A. "Dutch & German Expressionism, Berlage & Adolf Loos." Arch 329. Ball State University, Muncie, IN. 20 Sept. 2011. Lecture.

Middleton, Dr., Deborah A. "Werkbund & Bauhaus Peter Behrens, Gropius." Arch 329. Ball State University, Muncie, IN. 22 Sept. 2011. Lecture.

Urban, Anna. Analysis of Muller House in FormZ. Anna Urban: Portfolio. 2006. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. <http://annaurban.wordpress.com/analysis-of-mueller-house-in-form-z/>.

Art Nouveau & Modern Architecture

The new art forms at the turn of the century formally referred to as Art Nouveau set the stage for the modern movement in Europe. This movement created a different style, one in which rebelled from the academic traditions that had become rather stifling and disconnected. For the artisans of this time period, nothing seemed impossible. Architects such as Hector Guimard, Victor Horta, and Henry Van de Velde sought to infuse art and design with beautiful decorative organic forms characterized by tendrils and flowing curvilinear tracery.

Hotel Tassel, Horta, 1892

In the early work of Art Nouveau a defining symbolist proved to be Victor Horta. His primitive works operated largely on a body of ornamental forms paying tribute to a more literal Italianate influence. As the Wills reading depicted on Horta “we find just such style where we find no particular style”.  His designs for the bourgeoisie began with the Hotel Tassel in 1892, which could also hold the claim as his first Art Nouveau masterpiece. The facade plays against the curves and vegetal accents, including windows of varying sizes and exposes the notion of metal - for structural elements equally ornamental. The concept of which can be related back to Viollet-le-Duc. For the interior, Horta deployed prosperous and remarkable stained glass with floral motifs, mosaics and so on relating to organic analogies.  The space was structured with an underlying formal order and particularly fluid with three rooms in a row. Victor Horta compiled an immense portfolio however his more prominent work came in his earliest years, sadly a great deal of his buildings were destroyed.  

Paris Metro, Guimard, 1900

The Art Nouveau movement was introduced to Paris through French architect Hector Guimard after a visiting Horta. Guimard in the 1890s began his career by designing several hotels where he built off of the lessons of Viollet-le-Duc. Rejecting the classical symmetry while reinterpreting in a highly personal way, the outside of these building’s projections and windows reflected the interior, while the façade was animated. Guimard sought to express the true character of the materials he used more so through his principles of logic, harmony, and feeling. His style was in part an abstraction of medieval forms relating to the distinction that Ruskin had made between the stylistic traits of Gothic architecture. While the majority of his work followed suit and catered to the bourgeoisie of the time; Guimard experimented on much broader public applications as well. His most notable designs were for the Paris Meto, in which natural forms in iron were mass-produced from moulds. Gradually his works gained monumentality and included a vast amount of mediums from graphics to furniture and fashion.  

Henry Van de Velde was a Belgian painter, designer and architect whom through his studies drew influence from the Impressionists and Symbolists of Paris. In the 1890’s he took part in the Brussels avant-garde movement drawing an interest in crafts. Through  his knowledge under the work of William Morris, Van de Velde focused on the relationship between art and society, moving towards the applied arts and becoming one of the leading representatives of the Belgian Art Nouveau movement. In 1894, he designed his first work of architecture, his own house in Ucles, near Brussels, which he also designed furniture. His intent and cornerstone of his work as a designer, as similar practioners, was ‘the total work of art’ in which every minute detail bore the same athestic character as the overall building (Curtis 58). Van de Velde produced Exhibitions in Paris and Dresden which made ​​him known throughout Europe. As a pioneer for the Bauhaus he exhibited theories in many writings and journals, where it supported the fundamental role of art in the renewal of society and culture. 

Ruskin, Semper, Viollet-le-Duc

The early developments of art and architecture in the modern movement were deeply initiated within the complex theories formulated in the nineteenth century. Aids in this development from Semper, Ruskin, and Viollet-le-Duc all proved to exhibit a renowned understanding of architecture through practice but more importantly their theories and writing.  

 

The most important protagonist and enthusiast of the Gothic cause in England was John Ruskin. For Ruskin art and architecture formed only a part of a much larger sociological understanding. As conveyed through his work The Seven Lamps of Architecture, Ruskin believed the laws of Architecture are identical with those of man’s moral life “The quality of architecture represents the quality of man” (P.22 Pevsner).  Pertaining to the High Gothic style worshipped by Ruskin and French counterpart Viollet-le-Duc, the former hypothesized a Lamp of Truth or that lies must be shunned in construction. Stating that deception such as gilding or facing surfaces to “the use of cast or machine-made ornaments of any kind” (P.16 Pevsner) must not be practiced. Relating to Ruskin, Viollet-le-Duc’s theories follow closely however the use of materiality poses a different thought. Depicted in several illustrations of the second volume of Entretiens by le-Duc, there are significant celebrations of exposed iron and cast ornaments.  These elements which Ruskin believed to be lies were often the basis of Viollet-le-Duc’s structure and much ornamentation. Pevsner concludes no better than by stating “There you have two men, but whereas Viollet here appears wholly forward-looking, Ruskin wholly Backward-looking” (P.37).  Viollet-le-Duc became a very important figure and through his designs and theories iron thus became associated with the reform of the decorative arts. His influence as explained in the Bressani reading relates his development and influence on the Art Nouveau movement: “Not only does an architecture need to have style, i.e. embody a specific structural principle (a specific Geometry) in response to the nature of the materials used and the functional requirements, it also must give a clear representation of the understanding of nature which the epoch has gained, it must reflect the degree of consciousness of the age.” Of the principles Viollet-le-Duc bestowed on the Art Nouveau movement none were more symbolic than the spatial organization of the building citing function rather than rules of symmetry and proportion “geometry forms the essence of natural law” (Pg.340 Bressani).

To touch on restoration, Viollet-le-Duc fixates on the importance of materials as a generator for form stating notions such as “To borrow forms from antiquity was irremedially deceitful” (Pg. 340 Bressani). Viollet-le-Duc theorized that restoration must be “to restore a building is not just to preserve it, to repair it, and to remodel it, it is to re-instate it in a complete state such as it may never have been in at any given moment” (P.38 Pevsner). This of course is entirely different than Ruskin’s belief of which he felt restoration to be the “total destruction which a building can suffer”. 

Gottfried Semper, a German architect of higher standing, possessing a larger portfolio of monumental buildings differs from theorists such as Viollet-le-Duc and Ruskin in an important aspect. “Semper dominated German theory to a much greater extent than these two other individuals did within their cultural context”  (Pg. 130 Modern Architectural Theory). Semper loved but hated the Gothic and iron stylistics Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc stood for. He introduced the contrast of “tectonic” and Stereitomic” architecture - an architectural system based on the relation between load and supporting structure as against an Architectural system based on the continuity of volume (Pg. 9 Zucker). Citing the  “style” of Architecture “true” only if its forms were motivated by the factor he saw important: construction, material, and the prevailing socio-economic, cultural, and climatic conditions.  

In his work The Four Elements of Architecture Semper attempts to classify systematically for the first time all architectural forms as a kind of typology of architecture, A strong hypothesis which I believe Frank Lloyd Wright makes more known much later. Semper’s aim was “to discover the underlying order to architecture style and its forms (similarities & relationships)” (Lecture). His four elements focused on: Hearth, platform, roof, and enclosure.

To examine Semper’s work such as the Opera house in Dresden, he was not one to adhere to a specific time period or style. He did however believe in the use of local materials a notion of which le-Duc approved as well.  

Semper as well as Ruskin and Viollet-le-duc almost single handedly charted the course of theory during the Victorian Movement; it is almost impossible to understand the push for modernism at the turn of the century without the recognition of their ideas. 

Test Post

Test