Modernism and modernist context theory

Modernism

Modernist architectural theory held that the appearance of structures should be a consequence of social function and abstract artistic principles, not contexts. Modernist buildings contrasted with their Victorian predecessors. Their planning was determined by internal social function. Their exteriors were a consequence of internal function but were also influenced by the principles of abstract art. They were compositions of mass and void, line and colour, without deliberate meaning. Modernism rested on universal principles and severed the link between buildings and contexts. Le Corbusier was the urbanist who gave most thought to form in the modern city. Coming from Switzerland , he admired mountain scenery. Working in Paris , he saw the need for high density development. The Corbusian dream was to set great towers, as mountains peaks, against a backdrop of verdure, like valley floors [Fig 3.13]. The architectural style he advocated was unrelated to the local context. External forms were strongly influenced by internal structure and function. Corbusier and other Modernist designers worked 'from the inside out'. This stands in total opposition to the picturesque approach, which worked 'from the outside in', to give buildings a site-related style and character. Let us consider examples. The starting point for outside-in design, say for a country house, would be a full appreciation of the local context. This would include access, views, microclimate, vegetation, materials and local character. The dwelling would be placed to take advantage of 'prospect and aspect': good views would be valued but not to the extent of placing the villa in an exposed position. Where appropriate, the building would be constructed in a local stone. If the setting was rugged, the style would be rugged. If the site was beautiful, the style would be beautiful, or else a deliberate contrast would be made. Plants would be chosen to harmonize with the local vegetation. An inside-out design procedure for the same house would work in the opposite direction. It would begin with the lifestyle of the inhabitants. If they were a strong family unit, one large living space would be designed round a hearth. If the parents wanted a degree of separation from the children, the bedrooms would be placed at opposite ends of the house. When the functional pattern was set, it would be wrapped in an external skin. Glass and concrete were favoured because of their flexibility as 'wrapping' materials. Internal structures were expressed. The shape and appearance of the building envelope was, in theory, a product of the activities it was designed to contain. The resultant style was known as functionalist, because the form derived from the function. Functionalism did not stop at the front door. Paths were designed to follow 'desire lines'. Roads were designed according to geometrical criteria for maximising traffic flow, rivers for maximising water flow. Universities were designed for education, farms as food factories. Functionalist doctrine, allied to the scientific method, was a powerful contributor to the single-purposism which was criticised in Chapter 1. Functional matters were privileged over both nature and society. Unfortunately, neither science nor the designers' craft could supply a sufficiently wide knowledge-base. Quantifiable functions, like traffic flow, were privileged over both natural and social processes. This was a major contributor to the poverty of modernist cityscape and landscape. Our Australian would have had few problems with planners who based their judgement on modernist theory. Stainless steel would have been valued for its modernity and durability, Eucalypts for their speed of growth and whitish colour.