Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Monica Reading Response 001: Pandora and the Modern Scale Model Machine

                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