Paradigm shift in architecture: Modern Architecture styles-2

Paradigm shift in architecture: Modern Architecture styles-2 is the fourteenth article of a series of articles investigating the paradigm shift in architecture. In the previous thirteenth articles, I have discussed several different papers for academics, researchers, and professionals who have different perspectives on the paradigm shift in architecture.

This article is the continuity of my investigation of the reality of the paradigm shift, its effect on the work environment, and its real characteristics. Here I will start as indicated in my previous articles from ancient history to modern-day’s architecture. The modern architectural styles of constructivism and brutalism are the subject of my discussion here.

Constructivism appeared in USSR before the first world war in Moscow between 1920-1929. The Russians admired and were influenced by the European advances in visual arts and the architecture of the Bauhaus and De Stijl. They released that they have to do their part in the development of visual arts as their counterparts in Europe.

The style comprises two wings an artistic and an architectural wing. Gough¹ indicates One of the first initiators of the artistic wing is Karlos Johanson a Latvian sculptor who wanted to discover the cultural richness of Moscow. While Wolfgang²  illustrates that the style appeared first in the theories and work of the two sculptor brothers Naum Gabo and Antonie Pevsner. They issued the first Manifesto of the aims of the style and movement in 1920.

These two showed clearly the main and core approach of this movement in their writings in 1932. Gabo Says that constructivists will no longer paint pictures or carve sculptures but do constructions in space see figure 1. Here the distinction between art and sculptor is eliminated and they enter the domain of architecture together. Constructivists use in creating their art varying materials like metal, glass, plastic, and nylon and their work can be constructed with any material.  Some constructivists’ work is close to cubism as everything in nature is built from spheres, cones, and cylinders.

The architectural wing appeared in 1925 with the establishment of the OSA (Union of contemporary architects) founded by Moisei Ginzberg taking a different view of constructivism. They argued that the functional requirements and available technical resources were sufficient to determine any form of a building. This union and the artistic wing share the common principle of constructivism as art should serve a useful social purpose. In addition to that they believe that art is constructed from premade components.

Constructivism appeared as an art and architecture style for different reasons. First, two major events participated in the initiation and development of the style of the first world war. The war created lots of damage physical (city), psychological, and economical (work environment). The Russian revolution and its political, economic, and intellectual effects on society. Second, the adjacent European countries’ direction to mass production to fulfill the needs of social housing and the industrial production of major products that fit the new society’s needs. The country’s direction is that all constructivists should enter factories with an approach based on communism. Third, the integration of the three visual arts fields (painting, sculptor, architecture) and the Russian style followers believe that all should follow an experimental approach in work and show the role and efficacy of the vanguard artists in the Russian revolution. Fourth, architects believe that the best chance for a building to be beautiful is to be structurally right.

There are notable characteristics of this style of architecture. The main character is the structural expression of functionalism. The beauty of a building comes from the formal relationship between mass and space. All building accessories such asornament and style are discarded. The emphasis on the structural efficiency of any object made available by the industry replaces the traditional methods of construction. The efficiency of machines in producing new materials used in the new methods of construction is considered a standard of excellence. One of the first collections of constructivist buildings is the Kauchuk Club in Moscow see figure 2.

In reviewing and assessing what is presented here about the constructivism style there is a paradigm shift though not closely related to the architectural wing of the style and movement. The integration of the three fields – painting, sculpture, and architecture- in the creation of work by experimenting in the real world is considered a paradigm shift. As I have shown in roman architecture the Romans had this character in doing experiments on certain forms related to the architecture of domes, arches, and vaults to examine their stability. But here the experiment includes the creation of the art object as a whole, not one element. In renaissance architecture, many architects were either painters or sculptors who were applying artistic principles within the architecture work. Another important matter is that the creation of academic schools of architecture has established certain architectural and artistic principles in education since the renaissance architecture. We can see this effect of the constructivist style on architecture education in some architecture schools in the world that created new subjects of study through fieldwork like painting and sculpture. Constructivist architects have signaled and turned the field of architecture attention to the importance and role of art in the architectural design process. The artistic dimension of architecture became of extreme importance in professional practice and education.

Brutalism in architecture appeared in Sweden’s architecture literature. Critics and writers of architecture like Banham⁵, Clement⁶, and Frampton⁷ share an identical view of the origin of brutalism word. They say that the Swedish architect Hans Asplund coined the phrase in an article published in 1956 in the architectural review magazine when he was describing a villa design in 1950 by the two architects Benget Edman and Lennart Holm.

The Term brutalism gained access to the public after the life and art exhibition in London in 1953 where architects from the UK and Italy exhibited some photos of violence and distortion of life and the human figure. The exhibited material showed a coarse grain texture which was regarded as one of the main virtues.

In France Le Corbusier coined another phrase to express his concept of one of his commissioned works “Le beton Brut”. His first work that included the use of concrete with its natural finish and the effect of wooden shutters is the Jaoul house in Paris see figure 3.

The first contributor to this style is a group of UK architects. Alison and peter Smithson established a group that adopted this style of architecture. In the later years, many architects joined the convoy. It is essential to mention that as Banham⁵ wrote that there is a major difference between the brutalism that Hans coined and transferred to the UK by his English friends while visiting Sweden and the new brutalism. The first is more aesthetic and the latter is more ethical. The latter is the effect of a Russian architect working in one of the London Councils and the architect’s political beliefs of the communist agenda. That was strengthened by the Labor party takeover in the fifties of the British government. One of the biggest projects is the park hill project in Sheffield see figure 4.

Some UK and critics and writers such as Banham⁵, Clement⁶ provided contradicting and false ideas. For example, Banham in discussing the new brutalism in his book says that it’s not le courbiser ( see figure 3) early works that influenced and participated in the initiation of the brutalism style but Mies Van de Rohe’s design for the MIT building. Here he argues that Mies building exposed steel columns in its brutalist surfaces expresses the brutalist style character. Mies is the inventor of the international style presented in using the steel structure system and open plan system whereas what Banham said is wrong.

In other areas of the book, he describes the style of objectivity about reality. Brutalists presented the cultural objectives of the society and its techniques; brutalist tries to face up to the mass-production society. The contradiction in his view and thoughts is the 1950 period in the UK as I have shown was affected by the Russian architecture thoughts working in their councils and the political labor government’s communist approach to society and work. At the beginning of my article about constructivism which was greatly affected by the political approach of the USSR and the communist party, they considered any machine product as a standard of excellence. That means the work of the new brutalism cannot represent the constructivist style vis-versa.  Banham has pointed out in his book naïve, dull, and false ideas and thoughts about the UK’s new brutalist architecture.

Clement says that the brutalist style started in the UK and spread out to many countries such as Japan, France, eastern Europe, and the USA. Here there is no evidence of the spread of this style to other countries in the architectural literature. This is also misleading thoughts and ideas just to give value to the architecture circle in the UK that has been always a follower of other architectural innovations in Europe and the USA.

In assessing this style, I conclude that it does not represent a style because using the material in its natural form such as concrete does not represent an architectural character or style character. Here there is no need to go further in assessing the architecture of this style.

References

1. Gough, M. (2014) Artist as producer Russian Constructivism in revolution. University of California Press.
2. M., A.s J. (1964) Encyclopedia of modern architecture. N.Y: Harry N. Abrams.
3. Davies, C. (2017) A new history of modern architecture. London: Laurence King.
4. Lodder, C. (1948) Russian constructivism. New Haven: Yale University Press.
5. Banham, R. (1968) The new brutalism: Ethic or aesthetic? London: Architectural P.
6. CLEMENT, A.L.E.X.A.N.D.E.R. (2011) Brutalism: Post-war British architecture, Second edition. THE CROWOOD Press LTD.
7. Frampton, K. (2007) Modern Architecture: A critical history. Thames & Hudson.