Paradigm shift in architecture: Post-Modern Architecture

Paradigm shift in architecture: Post-Modern Architecture is the sixteenth article of a series of articles investigating the paradigm shift in architecture. In the previous fifteen 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 post-modern architecture is the subject of my discussion here.

Post-modern architecture appeared in the USA in the 1960s. This type of architecture like its sister, as we may say, had lots of styles operating under its umbrella. For example, Hightech architecture, deconstruction, neo-futurism, and neo-classical architecture.

The style or movement has its roots in modern literature. The post-modern movement helped researchers, academics, and students to understand more and be more innovative in analyzing modern text whether it’s in poetry or writing.

Véronique¹ says postmodernism is defined in different ways. The philosopher Jean-François Lyotard describes it as it rises when the universal metanarratives collapse in modern literature which represents progress. So, instead of a single narrative that explains human development, it is replaced by a multiplicity of different stories that can no longer be summarized.

A French sociologist Jean Baudrillard defines the post-modern world as a world in that experience and reality are codified and mediated so that they cannot be separated.

So, what is post-modern architecture?

Jorge²  defines it as the style that replaces the piloting concepts of modernism, from the abstract ideas of form and space towards the new notions of history and theory. It’s the style that conceives experience in terms of historical continuity rather than rupture.

Jencks³ defines post-modern architecture differently. The work of architecture is done tentatively either by adapting a mixture of modern styles or mixing these with previous modes. It’s the style in that an architect uses different aesthetic systems in a semantic way when designing a single building.

There are many contributors to this architecture because it has several tendencies or architectural directions like deconstruction, high-tech architecture, and so on. These are Phillip Johnson, Michael graves, Charles Moore, Denise Scott Brown, Robert Venturi, and Henry-Russell Hitchcock. A sample of post-modern architecture is in figure 1.

Jencks believes and analyses that post-modern architecture appeared because of the failure of modern architecture or the crisis of modern architecture. He provides several causes and reasons for the rise of post-modern architecture. He says that the demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe Housing in St Louise Missouri though the project witnessed many attempts to save it, but it all failed. The housing project was built for black immigrants in the USA. When it was turned down it took with it all the social and economic problems like drugs and poverty.

The causes of the crisis of modern architecture are eleven. These causes are within the three systems that Jencks has provided. The systems are related to the production of architecture where the players are the private, the public, and the developer sectors. As he presented in his book that the eleven causes of the crisis that are directly linked to the production of architecture within the three systems are: economic sphere, motivation, recent ideology, relation to place, client’s relation to architect, size of projects, size/type of architect’s office, method of design, accountability, types of buildings and style.

In  analyzing his text in detail it’s evident to me that the main problem is Money. The three systems he presented which are the private, public, and developer have a main target, goal, or ambition. The three systems want to create benefits either for the private sector or for the public sector even if the projects are to support society’s low-income people. Money has a great effect on business operations, size, quality of production and people, and even the number of clients the practice has. Many offices in the world use advanced technology to produce architecture starting from making a model and transferring concept designs to other software and to reality like using a combination of 3d and BIM software which costs the office lots of money. Employing responsible people that are aware of their duty to produce innovative architecture and building design demands the company to select motivated people who need to be paid high salaries.

Jencks illustrates that in practice in large-scale companies their failure to produce high-quality architecture is due to the loss of control over the system of production as no one has control of the whole process. Here the client wants his benefit at the end of the day and he is willing to sacrifice something for that sake, the approval from the government to build the project comes after a careful assessment that it will benefit the people, community, city, and the local council, the consultant or the architect in charge of the project also requires the project to produce a benefit to cover operations and company cash required.

Jencks elaborates that to solve the failure of modern architecture is to change the whole system of architecture production which in reality and practice did not change.

In studying and investigating the whole movement or style of work or architecture produced by the architect’s contributors reveals that the connection between its philosophy and ideas to what is produced is weak. First, the architecture of postmodernism does not illustrate clearly its relation to the history of architecture or philosophy. Second, the architecture produced by its contributors is not a mix of styles from previous periods and there is no clear support for that see figure 2 which is one of the movement architecture in the Italian canton of Switzerland.

Third, modern architecture and post-modern architecture are not different in the new notion of history and theory. The previous articles define how modern architecture presented new notions, philosophy, and individualism in producing architecture. Fourth, postmodernist architecture through its contributors seeks to produce architecture of mixed styles or with previous modes. In my previous article on eclecticism in architecture, I have presented that the architects of that period influenced by many schools of philosophy have combined different concepts that suit their work and life. The man decides the standards for a decision between the true and false, he chooses from the various systems that are true for his own use.

Postmodernism has not come with something new in terms of philosophy, thinking, concepts, and even production. We have noticed together that architecture has protested against antiques many times and the world of architecture has given us the eclecticism to produce attractive and more liberated architecture. The architect chooses what is true and suitable for his use by combining different architectural styles to produce a building design.

Modern architecture started a revolution against antique and classic architecture and reached a level of rejecting all historical works that do not fit the modern and industrialized society and the new modern spirit.

As I may say – History repeats itself- postmodern architecture and its contributors have initiated a revolution against the variety of styles in modern architecture regardless of the reason for that. Now postmodernism repeats the same procedure that happened in the past with eclectic architecture by adapting the same philosophy, thinking, and concepts of combining the various styles of modern architecture like the international style, expressionism, futurism, organic architecture, and other styles for the architecture production.

Jencks in his book does not underpin his discussion and analysis of the change of the three systems in architecture production. He did not present how post-modern architecture changed the production of architecture. He discusses in detail every architect’s work and provides some text from their writings and adds his opinion and point of view on the architecture produced in the 20^th century.

Returning to our investigation and the main purpose of it which is to stand on the paradigm shift in architecture postmodern architecture and its tendencies of deconstruction, high-tech, and Neo-futurist architecture did not provide a fundamental change in architecture production, or the way people think of doing architecture. Postmodern architecture is a copy of everything in terms of philosophy, thinking, and concepts of the previous architecture. Postmodern architecture in reality is not different than the eclectic architecture of previous years.   

References

1. Patteeuw Véronique and Szacka Léa-Catherine (2020) Mediated messages: Periodicals, exhibitions and the shaping of postmodern architecture. London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
2. Otero-Pailos, J. (2010) Architecture’s historical turn: Phenomenology and the rise of the Postmodern. Minneapolis, Minn: University of Minnesota Press.
3. Jencks, C. (1981) The language of post-modern Architecture. London: Academy Editions.
4. Urban, F. (2021) Postmodern architecture in Socialist Poland: Transformation, symbolic form, and national identity. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
5. Brunette, P. and Wills, D. (1994) Deconstruction and the visual arts: Art, media, architecture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Wigley, M. (2010) The architecture of deconstruction. Cambridge, Mass. u.a: MIT Press.
7. Davies, C. (1991) High tech architecture. London: Thames and Hudson.