An Analysis of Contemporary Architecture through Historical Precedent
Loading...
Date
1981
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Contemporary architecture is in a state of confusion, confusion over its own identity. The architecture currently being produced, because of the abundance of the disjointed, directionless, subordinate styles of which it is composed, has no obvious direction or strong leadership. The inconsistency and disorder resulting from this seemingly directionless architectural style has confounded both trained architectural critics and untrained viewers alike. I believe, however, that by understanding history, one can understand contemporary architecture.
My basic hypothesis has been that abstract political, social and philosophical attitudes have been repeating themselves for centuries. As an example, the same basic issues that were settled at Runnymede in England in 1215, the creation of a truly representative government and the curbing of strong tyrannical authority, through the Magna Carta, were the same deeply rooted issues being argued during the American Revolution and to an extent are the same issues being argued in the 1980's in the United States.
The question I will explore in this paper is the relationship of architectural form to historical patterns. Does architectural form follow certain political or social trends over the course of time? Are periodic reoccurrences of architectural form cyclic in nature? By cyclic, I mean does architecture swing between opposites or poles of thought or theory over the course of time? More important, is it possible to project certain trends in architecture based on known cyclic patterns once a current pattern has been established?
I understand of course that linking historical events through abstract comparisons is very tenuous and is perhaps taking historical events out of context. I am not interested, however, in comparing specific influences that architecturally or socially affected a particular period in time but in the way that these influences affect architectural form. As an example, it would be improper to compare the rise of the Counter Reformation Church in terms of Mannerist and Baroque architecture with the rise of technology in modern architecture except in the manner with which both influences affected architectural form. I mean to compare the spirit from which the end product, the building was created, not the influences themselves.
In the first part of my paper, consequently, I plan to view key periods in architectural history and key buildings and architects in each period in terms of their possible correlations with modern architecture. Key styles that I will discuss in the first half of my research are: the classical style of Roman antiquity; the Italian Renaissance, from 1400-1520; the Italian Mannerism, from 1520-1600; and lastly, the early Italian Baroque, from 1600-1660. It should be noted that these eras are not the only historical examples applicable to my overall argument. They are simply the most obvious and the clearest in terms of parallel comparisons with modern architecture. No direct comparisons will be made, however, between the Renaissance- Baroque architectural phase and the modern architectural phase until the modern phase is presented.
With the data drawn from these particular styles and applying these terms, I plan to ask whether the progression from the Italian Renaissance to Italian Mannerism to Baroque is comparable, on an abstract level, to the transition from Modernism, the style of the 1920's through the 1950's to both Post and Late Modernism, the combination of styles that has existed in the United States since approximately 1960. All of the modern architectural styles will be examined in the latter phase of this paper.
Description
Program year: 1980-1981
Digitized from print original stored in HDR
Digitized from print original stored in HDR
Keywords
Contemporary architecture, historical architecture, social trends, political movements, historical events