Modern times
Abode’s architectural expert, Greg Young, asks if modernist architecture still retains its relevance today.
Farnsworth House Designed by Mies Van De Rohe, the steel and glass house is recognised as an iconic masterpiece of modern architecture.
Firstly, it needs to be explained what modern architecture actually is, as there is a lot of misunderstanding around it. In architectural terms, just because something is ‘new’ doesn’t mean it’s ‘modernist’.
With the emergence of modernism, the definition is as much about the ‘why’ as it is about the ‘how’. Modernism was more than just architecture. Its influence showed up throughout the arts and philosophy, in response to the horrors of World War One, and an embrace of an industrialised world. Modernism reflected a social turning point throughout the world, which caused tradition to be discarded if it was no longer relevant. People were educated, disillusioned and wanting change. They moved on in ways that directly contrasted with the decorative art nouveau movement that preceded the modernist period.
Architectural theorist and historian, Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, urged the population in 1872 to, “Use the means and knowledge given to us by our times, without the intervening traditions which are no longer viable today, and in that way, we can inaugurate a new architecture. For each function, it’s material; for each material, it’s form…” In many ways, this philosophy set the rules for one of the masters of modernist architecture, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, the designer of the iconic Farnsworth House, who emigrated from Germany to the USA after World War One.
There is no ‘one size fits all’, and different architects explored modernism in varied ways. Le Corbusier’s designs are clearly different to Frank Lloyd Wright’s, which again vary from those of Mies van der Rohe’s. Equally, artists who follow a similar philosophy each take a unique approach; the works of Pablo Picasso, for example, differ significantly from those of Henri Matisse.
Modernist architects also often worked to integrate their designs into their environment. Philip Johnson’s Glass House is a classic example of this, with all external walls constructed from glass. Johnson described it as, “A platform for viewing nature”. Frank Lloyd Wright, who also designed gardens, said, “No house should ever be on a hill, or on anything. It should be of the hill. Belonging to it”. Wright meant that architecture should be part of the landscape, not dominate it. This strongly resonates with how we New Zealanders love our environment and our ‘indoor-outdoor flow’.
Why is this style of architecture still so valid?
The reasons for it now have evolved past the philosophical. Our lives are busy and complicated. In order to relax, our homes need to be the opposite – they need to be a haven, an oasis. Modernist architecture is simple, with form following function. The material palette is clean and honest, expressing the building materials’ natural beauty rather than concealing it or fluffing it up. There is a lack of adornment, but the result does not appear sterile.
Concentrating on symmetry and proportion brings as much beauty as is needed – having to rely on complexity of form and detail is admitting defeat. Let’s not stray back into the post-modernist traits of the eighties, putting complexity in for interest’s sake. Let’s keep it simple.
03 384 7879 | young.co.nz
