Architecture and Transgression: An Interview with Bernard Tschumi - Jonathan Mosley, Rachel Sara

Most definitely one of my favourite reads. I felt the text was laid out in a very clear way, making it easy to understand and to read. I am also a fan of the artwork throughout the article. It makes it stand and different from other pieces I have read, making it more abstract. Tschumi’s concepts and ideas I found I could relate closely too. He takes a completely different spin on how to look architecture, and the fundamental thoughts that go behind the way he thinks. Being a huge fan of Le Corbusier, it was interesting to see the links between his work and Corbusier’s, seeing what he had taken from his work and how he had used it within his own.

Predominantly I found the section on Tschumi’s idea of ‘Ropes and Rules’ fascinating. No one has ever referred to architecture as potentially being something sexual, and felt with all the senses. It was interesting to see how this came into play, but also showed his sheer passion for what he does and his love for architecture.

‘Just as eroticism means a double pleasure that involves both mental constructs and sensuality, the resolution of the architectural paradox calls for architectural concepts and, at the same instant, the immediate experience of space.’

Tschumi had a strong interest in the Tower of David, which also proved to be a catalyst for many of his later works. Again he refers to the building as being erotic in a sense, or at least to him. It is interesting how so many people have come and gone through the building, each using it for very different purposes. The way it is situated within the city is also fascinating, how it is positioned within the city, again, Tschumi describes it as ‘erotic’ and states that he does not think any other piece of architecture will be able to follow in its footsteps.

The article was inspiring, it was amazing to see how someone can have such a strong passion for what they do and the fundamental reasons as to why they are doing it.

Radical Post-Modernism and Content: Charles Jencks and Rem Koolhaas Debate the Issue

It was interesting to have a different style of text; I found it generally easier to relate to as they were having a conversation. It meant the text was split up therefore easier to read, and easier to take in. The debate between the two is about the Venice Biennale, Reviving Surrealism. The questions being asked does put Koolhaas in an uneasy situation, he challenges him with difficult arguments. They speak about post modernism. Described as the ‘future of the past’ by Jencks. The Venice Biennale is a contemporary exhibition in Venice which the International Architecture exhibition began in 1980. The debate speaks about this year, which is of great interest to Jencks and Koolhaas. The exhibition also featured the work of Koolhaas himself who is speaking within this debate.

The ‘future of the past’ saying is something that does not fit with Koolhaas at all. He argues back to Jencks saying that it was very difficult to design a facade, and this being something he focused on predominantly through the whole of his career. He has a large interest with the interior space which is now something he has shown greatly through his work since.  There are not many points when both people agree within this argument. They have very conflicting opinions.

As the debate continues it is mentioned that Koolhaas has a negative link with ‘iconic’ architecture. Which again, is something that Jencks strongly does not agree with; Koolhaas is saying he does not like the architecture which followed the second world war. Although it is not something that Koolhaas enjoys, Jencks argues that it is still part of the past even though if it is not relevant in the present.

The text was hard to follow at some point as both were very dismissive with each other, it would jump from each of them very quickly, which made the text slightly more difficult to read.  However, the content of the text was very interesting, and it was good to see how passionate both people are about their own opinions, something that I know I also am.

Pruitt-Igoe, Now - Nora Wendl, The Unmentioned Modern Landscape

I found this an interesting read. The content of the text wasn’t too overwhelming so made it easier to read than some of the other readings. It was interesting to learn about how it would have been like in the time of Pruitt and Igoe and also the new plans that are to be implemented after the demolition that took place after all these years. The whole concept of the complex being knocked down is pretty disheartening. I imagine one standing in the area where the architecture was once built it would feel quit eerie and unsettling. I learnt quite a lot from this reading. In the sense of modern architecture that is.

People still move towards the land that has been left behind, however with the security there is now this is increasingly being stopped. If the site was tidied up and sorted out, perhaps something going in its place, it would really be quite beautiful. Still not forgetting what was there but putting something it its place maybe to represent it or to perhaps just completely erase it. The memories of the site will forever live on.

At the beginning of the article, stated at the very top of the page it is mentioned that when the site was detonated, it was the ‘death of modernism’. I wouldn’t say this was a true statement necessarily. People are still unable to move on from what was there as it just is the demolition site that has been left for people to see. A rather sad and depressing site if you ask me.

In my personal opinion, I believe that something needs to be left in the place of the demolished buildings. The town needs to move forward and not dwell on the past. Perhaps not replacing it completely but as said before, putting something in its place in order to not forget what was once there. Personally, brutalism and the style of the building that was once there is not to my personal taste, but if I put myself in the shoes of someone who had potentially grown up there, I have a very different opinion on the building as I’m sure some people have had some very beautiful memories, making the building special in its own way to many people.

Modernity, space and national representation at the Tokyo Olympics 1964

Following the Olympics in 1964, there was a great development in the urban parts of the city. I found it interesting hearing how much the Olympics had actually influenced the city into what it is today. The buildings that were added in the years leading up to the Olympics were the fabrication for the city itself. The intentions were to improve the city, modernising it from what it was before, showing off the city and country to the rest of the world. Architecture which had been used in the games was ‘tokens of modernity’. Many developments were made, especially in the bullet-train, which runs through Japan. In 1964, the focus was the capital, which now was very architecturally diverse compared to other cities at the time.

After the redevelopment, Japan began to hold major sports events, which previously were not approved as it was too commercialised. This was a way in which the countries popularity could be vastly improved. I could relate this to today with the Olympics as they are now. Each country that holds the Olympics sees it as a way of being able to show off their country to everyone else in the world.

The work that was created for the games themselves is of a very modern style, with the Deconstructivist movement coming into play in the late 20^th century, a post modern  movement which was held in an exhibition at the MoMA in 1988, was something of its time. Very rectilinear shapes were used, with different angles. It was more a type of art that architecture and the artists of this movement were trying something that had never been tried before. Zaha Hadid was someone that I could relate to this style of work as I felt a lot of the shapes used in the 1964 build was closely related to her work.

The gymnasium, which was built at the time, grabbed my interest the most. I felt like it was extremely ahead of its time and could have potentially been built today. There could be links made with this style of architecture and the work of people such as Mies van der Rohe due to its very rectangular appearance.

Overall the reading wasn’t as interesting personally to be as some of the others have been. However I did find the style of architecture that was used in 1964 interesting, and I do feel like the architecture that was added to Japan in those years has shaped the country to what is it today.