Pandora
and the Modern Scale Model Machine discusses the imposition of a set of constraints
over the architectural process by exploring the scale models of Gaudi, Tatlin,
El Lissitzky, Kahn, and Liebeskind. Each architect can be seen to use the scale
model as a way to set up reference standards for their own architecture and
world view. The scale models could be used as prototypes against which to
measure architecture and set up constraints to govern their own work.
For
Gaudi, scale models were used as way to generate new forms influenced by the
geometry of nature. As a pious Catholic,
he lived his life by the rigid constraints of the church, and his architecture
reflected his religion. He believed that the use of math and natural geometry
would better allow his churches and buildings to glorify God. Gaudi’s hanging
chain models allowed him to develop catenary curves in his buildings, and
therefore to derive his forms from the forces of nature, which he defined as
the forces of God.
In
contrast to Gaudi’s Catholic centered system of reference standards, El Lissitsky
and Tatlin believed in Communism and worked within the constructivist movement.
Tatlin’s tower, a centerpiece of the constructivist movement, served as a model
of the new social order. The tower symbolized a fulcrum to be moved by the will
of the masses, and the blank screens thoughout it were also meant to distill
the will of the Soviet people and project it back to them. The tower also
symbolized an ideal human, with spines, ribs, and moving inner organs. This
tower, therefore, was created not as a geometrical model, but as an emotional
or ideological model of what communist Russia could be. El Lissitzky, working
under a similar reference standard, created sculptural objects called Prouns that
symbolized the continual creation of the new. These Prouns emphasized order,
rationality, and a constant movement forward.
For
Louis Kahn, in the design of the Memorial to the Six Million Jewish Martyrs in
New York, the use of the scale model proved insufficient in the face of the
social chaos that his project discovered. He began by creating a model of a
glass structure, because of the unaccusing character of the material. However,
he soon decided that the glass was too chaotic, and created steel edges to the
structure in an attempt to define the space and create some sort of order in
the face of the social ills that the Holocaust Memorial represented.
Daniel Libeskind’s
drawings represent examples of models that have been taken even further into
chaos than Louis Kahn’s models. Unlike the architects mentioned at the
beginning of the chapter, Libeskind rejects reference standards for his
drawings, giving him total control but also opening up the possibility of total
chaos. The author describes how Libeskind eventually moved from his drawings to
the creation of machines to help read, remember, and write architecture. These
machines were used to once again establish order and a set of reference
standards, and were a refreshing contrast from the exhausting freedom of his
conventionless drawings.
The
description of this varied array of architects helps to point out that rules,
baselines, and standards are important tools in the creative process. Some sets
of rules, whether imposed by a religion, a government, or pure geometry, are
useful ways to direct creativity. When an architect has no rules, he or she
must answer for every decision made. Total freedom without reference standards eschews
order and invites chaos.
No comments:
Post a Comment