Impact of Technology on Traditional Architecture - Coursework Example

Architecture and Tradition Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Introduction Tradition can be defined as a ritual, belief or practice that which are handed down or transmitted from generation to generation1. It can also be defined as a long established and generally accepted method or custom which almost commands the force of a law, an immense utilization; the body of experiences and usages of any school or branch of art or literature that is handed down by predecessors and generally followed2. Anthropologically and in social studies tradition refers to continuity of culture throughout time. The report takes a look at the debate that emerged in 1910s and 1920s about the role of tradition in architecture. The paper looks critically at the buildings that emerged at this time to try and establish whether some form of tradition were entrenched in their design and construction. The paper questions whether these architects really broke with a tradition without taking a stand from the discipline they practiced. In this report I argue that it is not possible for one to completely severe links to the tradition of his practice and creates an idea free of reference. The argument of this paper agrees with Siza’s view that there is a certain form of tradition that is not stagnant but can change via compromises, hybrids and transformations. Innovation is the use of new ideas or current thinking applied in basically different ways that lead to significant change. Tradition and innovation As referred to above, innovation is the use of new ideas or current thinking applied in basically different ways that lead significant change. This does not imply a complete departure from or repudiation of tradition as conceived in some corners3. Modern buildings have significant aspects of tradition that have existed in architectural work since time immemorial. However, changes have taken place through integration of innovative ideas into the traditional architectural designs and construction. As such many changes have been witnessed in architectural work. Thus the notion that tradition is a challenge to innovation is misplaced because new ideas cannot be able to stand alone without being integrated into what already exists. Baudelaire conceives modern works as just a single aspect or half of the piece of art. The remaining part is the eternal and immovable4. This seems to support my view that innovation must start on a certain foundation in this case traditional aspects of architectural work. This implies that the great work of architecture that we see today have some aspects of traditional architecture even though they seem to depart from the traditional buildings. According to Baudelaire argument, each past painter had some form of modernity and that most of fine portraits that are still in existence from past are just clothed in the dress of their own day and that the dress, the hairstyle and the gesture, the expression and the smile create a whole full of vitality5. This implies that innovations are like clothes which are worn to create an illusion that an object looks totally different but inside it is still the same object6. Thus, even though various innovations have been experienced over time in architectural works, the underlying traditions of architecture still exists in the design and construction of these new objects7. This is in congruent with my argument that it is not possible for one to completely severe links to the tradition of his practice and creates an idea free of reference8. Furthermore, this argument implies that Siza’s notion that tradition is not stagnant does hold water since new forms of architecture have emerged since the 1910s and 1920s which have integrated various innovative ideas. Some authors have argued that the object and characteristics of traditions is invariance. This argument is in line with my view that innovation has to be based on something that already exists. It also provides some clarity in relation to the notion alluded to in social studies that tradition is continual and repetitive. This implies that even though architecture may be seen as changing, it does so within a continual context implied by the definition of tradition. Within anthropology, it has been proposed that there is a possibility of invented traditions. This view has received much debate9. Thus questions have arisen as to whether invented tradition can be applied in the field of architecture10. Invented tradition has been defined as a set of practices governed by tacitly or overtly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature which seek to integrate certain norms and values of behaviour through repletion which automatically implies continuity with the past11. From this definition, invented tradition involves an insertion of a historical past to a new practice. This definition is further clarified to imply that inventing traditions involves formalization and reutilization that is characterized by reference to the past that imposes some repetition12. According to this argument pragmatic conventions and routines do not have a significant symbolic or ritual function as such but instead they emerge as social practices which need to be repeated over and over again. In architecture there exists designing and building construction practices which change radically because of ideological and technical considerations. Even though these changes may be considered different from what used to be there in the past, there are still some aspects of traditional architecture13. It is apparent that innovation seen in architectural works today is an integration of technology and other ideological concepts into architecture14. This results in new styles and aesthetics that cloth the traditional forms of architecture making them look different. Impact of technology on traditional architecture Some early architectural designers such as Le Corbusier argued that the aesthetic of an engineer and architecture are two different aspects that march together and follow one another where one this aspect is in its full height while the other is retrogressing. From this argument the designs of architects and architectural traditions were no reacting to advances in technology at that particular time15. This implies that new technology was not being fully utilized in architecture. According to Le Corbusier’s views the design and construction of buildings was being surpassed by design and production of cars, ocean lines and airplanes. His argument was that architects were creators of organisms who if they looked seriously to an ocean liner could find freedom an age long but contemptible enslavement to the past16. He further argued that this enslavement results in a lazy respect for tradition and the narrowness of commonplace conceptions. According to him architecture is stifled by custom and that the tradition itself is not bad. This tends to be congruent with Siza’s argument that tradition is not stagnant but can change via compromises, hybrids and transformations17. Thus, according to Le Corbusier, it is the custom of ignoring the new technologies and industrial methods that inhibits integration of new ideas into traditional architecture but not the architectural tradition itself18. Thus, Le Corbusier view seems to consolidate my argument that traditions are not an inhibitor to innovations. In fact his argument6 tends to imply that tradition and innovation go hand in hand via the integration of new technologies into traditional architectural designing and construction of buildings19. To exemplify his argument, Le Corbusier argues that even though the use of thick walls still persists, thin partitions of glass or brick can be used to enclose a ground floor with 50 storeys above it20. From this argument architects were not responding to the level of tools being developed. In early 20th century, Walter Gropius advocated for the training of artists for future advisors for the industry, the crafts and the trades21. Before then artists training aimed at producing sculptors and painters who were insensitive to advances in technological advancement in crafts and industry. Thus, Gropius argued that there was need for cooperation between designers, artists and the industry22. Gropius argued that there had arisen demand for beauty of external form and technical and economic perfection in the entire field of trade and industry. He further argued that material improvements of products alone could not suffice to bring about victories in international competitors23. He thus proposed the need for a technically excellent product in all respects that integrated intellectual idea with form in order to attain preference among the large quantity of products of the same kind24. A critical look at this argument implies that Gropius advocated for integration of new technological advances in the traditional artistic works but not entirely abolishing the traditional architectural designs and coming up with completely new architectural designing and construction of building using new technologies25. Even though Gropius seemed to disagree with Siza’s argument when he stated that architecture to a great extent ought to bring solutions to problems that are related to housing and urbanization and as such the study of an old, successful house type or an old successful town structure would not necessarily equip an architect to construct a house or city fit for this century, he never saw any break of his works from the tradition. Unlike Siza, Gropius hade argued that the past could hinder real and adequate solutions to modern problems26. To defend himself from his critics who argued that his work had some aspects of tradition, Gropius stated that his work was an uninterrupted and logical development that had to take place and was already taking place. He further stated that a change within tradition, but a tradition which was made out of contingent elements that worked as a linkage component of a whole27. This implies that traditional aspects were required to link the architectural designs with new technologies. This consolidates my argument that even in the most innovative practices; the traditional practices cannot be erased as a whole. Thus, the new advances in technology that are integrated into architectural works are only like clothes that make them look beautifully and spectacular as argued by Le Corbusier28. It can also be argued that Gropius conception of bringing together crafts, art and industry was not a completely new idea that came from his mind. This is because Gottfried Semper, a German architect, had written about the concept in 19th century in his Wissenchaft, Industrie und Kunst in 1852. The need for integration of arts and crafts was also seen in the American and the English arts and crafts inspired by John Ruskin (1880-1900) writings29. Some of the architects who advocated for the integration of arts, crafts and industry before Gropius included Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959) and William Morris (1836-1896). The works of these two individuals are said to have influenced Gropius’, Le Corbusier’s and Mies’ designs30. Given that Gropius used some idea past to him from some fore-architects and that his works were not a complete departure from traditional designing and construction of buildings, it is right to argue that innovation and new techno logy adoption do not erase what is in existence and create a new practice or product but rather it helps in bringing improvement to the traditional practices without completely erasing them31. For his part, Mies Van der Rohe advocated low cost materials, construction, manufacture of new building materials and the need for prefabricated elements that could be assembled in the construction site. According to Mies’ writings, it was not so much a question of rationalization of working methods that were in existence as of basically remoulding the whole building trade. He argued that utilization of the same materials would ultimately result in the same building. He said that industrialization of the building trade depended on the material used32. Thus Mies Van der Rohe seemed to demand for the integration of technological advances in building materials in the building industry. He further argued that technology will be able to invent a building material that could be technologically manufactured and industrially utilized33. He added that such materials ought to be light in order to invite industrialization. He thus stated that such technological adoption would result in complete destruction of the building trade in the form that existed before then34. This implied that Mies Van der Rohe wished to have a complete modernization of the building trade. From his argument it is clear that Mies wanted to depart from traditional ways of designing and constructing. This need was driven by industrial development and architectural tradition that existed at that time35. It is apparent from the arguments above that the need to adopt technology and adapt it to the existing architectural works is essential36. However, this does not call for complete overhaul of the existing traditions to enable adoption but rather tailoring the traditions to be in harmony with the new technological changes. This is in line with my argument that traditions are not an impediment to innovation and that it is impossible to come up with a completely new practice that is not based on what is traditionally in existence37. Architectural designs of buildings and tradition According to modern architects, the goal of traditional academy and the function of artistic expression in buildings and houses was art for the sake of art’s sake. Thus modern architects sort to oppose tradition by employing various points of view and arguments38. For instance, Adolf Loos (1870-1933), Australian architect, saw ornaments as a sign of cultural decadence. He stated that the evolution of culture is identical to removal of ornamentation from objects of everyday use and that the greatest of their age resided in their inability to create new ornaments39. He argued that architects had gone beyond ornament and had attained plain, undecorated simplicity. From this argument it can be said that Loos saw modern architecture as a complete departure from tradition40. It is apparent that to Loos, modernity was evolutionary that resulted in inherent perfection and away from decadence in style. Thus Loos argument seems to discredit my argument that modern architectural designs have some aspects of tradition that have been passed down from fore-architects41. However, Le Corbusier stated that civilizations advance and that they pass through age of the soldier, the peasant and the priest and achieves culture and that culture is the flowering of the effort to select. He defined selection as a means of rejection, pruning, cleansing which results in a clear and naked emergence of the essential42. From this argument of Le Corbusier it can be interpreted that something pervades through and transcends the selective process. In this case what transcends time and development includes aesthetical and practical qualities that an architect must use. These include the sense of relationship, arrangement, unity of intention, contour and profile and fixing of standards43. The qualities that transcends in this case are those which bring about harmony and order that makes one experience a sense of beauty. Thus an aesthetical and practical quality that transcends time and development is like the architectural tradition that is passed down to new artists. This implies that modern architectural works are not devoid of architectural traditions hence supporting my notion that advancement in architecture are based on some traditional forms of architecture and that innovations are used to bring about civilization to the architectural styles and designs44. According to Le Corbusier, architecture is a thing of art, emotional phenomenon which lies outside questions of construction and beyond them. He argues that the purpose of architecture is to move people whereas that of construction is to hold things together. He further states that architecture’s purpose is based on a fundamental part or condition that ought to respond to a need. He argued that functionality is a perquisite for beauty and that beauty is not related to styles but it is instead related to proportions45. To him styles in architecture are synonymous to a feather on a woman’s head which sometimes could be pretty although not always. Thus for him beauty goes beyond style and it is all about proportions that are well established through basic forms such as cones, cubes, spheres, pyramids or cylinders46. Thus, Le Corbusier clearly placed the aesthetics of his architecture within the tradition through argument for universal aesthetical techniques and values that transcend cultures and time47. His argument is augmented when he discuses the benefit of using regulating lines and its use throughout history. Thus, it is apparent that some aesthetics cannot be done away with in architecture and they are passed down from fore architects48. This implies that modern architecture still has such aesthetic traditions that have transcended cultures and time to be used in today’s architectural works. This consolidates my argument that traditions are still essential for modern architectural developments and that they are not impediments to innovations since many innovations have been taking place for long in designing and construction industry49. The following pictures from Vers Une Archtecture were used by Le Corbusier to show the relevance of compositional techniques throughout history and his works. Michelangelo’s Capital in Rome House designed by Le Corbusier in 1923 House designed by Pierre Jeanneret Unlike Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius saw form as a representation of the spirit of the time. He wrongly states that the past is gone and there is now a new spirit in harmony with reality which needs to be expressed. Like Loos, Gropius sees the modern in evolutionary fashion. He argues that modern is the present and the future. However, pragmatically Gropius was well aware of that his present was a period of transition in which the forms of spirit required to be defined and to become the will of the whole community50. On his, Gropius defines architecture as a collective art whose welfare is dependent on the whole society. Thus for him, a relevant architecture is the one which originates from the community. He argued that they needed an architecture that was adapted to their world of radios, machines and cars and that one whose functions was recognizable in the relation of its forms51. The term adaptation does not imply full overhaul of what is already in existence but implies that what is in existence need to be tailored to be in line with what the society wants52. Thus, this shows that even though some aspects may be eliminated, some core elements may remain and persist doing so irrespective of time. Therefore, Gropius argument that modernity is a repudiation of tradition in architecture is not right53. Mies van der Rohe argued about his Seagram building that abstraction ought to be understood as an absence of representation or figure but instead it need to be understood as attainment of the limit condition of representation at a specified moment in time where consumer culture expands explosively54. However some authors have argued that the abstraction of Seagram’s empty plaza and glass curtain wall was an architectural figure. This is a contradiction to Mies desire of maintaining the fullness of aesthetic profundity in total reification context. It is argued that Seagram building was a series of transductions where abstraction is seen to change its nature from the social to the aesthetic and back again55. Thus, this shows that the building was not a complete departure from departure but instead several traditional aspects were incorporated in its design and construction. Philosophers have argued that the contemporary view of the world is a continuation of Platonism which is based on dualism. This separates appearance and reality, the mind and the senses and subject and object. The struggle to abolish dualism ideology has not succeeded according to these philosophers. Dualism arises in architecture on whether it is a representation or experiential. The need for autonomy is what has dominated debate in architecture as to whether is possible to pursue an architecture without being answerable to tradition56. Thus instead of the 19th century architects defining modernity in terms of the relationship between antiquity to the present day or a continuation of tradition, they defined modernity in terms of transient moment that is separate from the flow of time while still maintaining a connection to the past but not repetitive of a tradition. Thus, these architects attempted to use autonomy to disconnect their present work from the historical flow in order to be contemporary. The continued strong vector in post-modern architectural theory of self referentiality aims to disconnect practitioners and theorists from any ontological purpose in order to step outside of tradition. However this struggle for autonomy has resulted in political movements such as believe in an avant-garde position and introduction of the concept of modernity and awareness of history57. It is apparent that philosophically the ongoing debate on autonomy of architecture has been ongoing and has not been able to free architects from the chains of tradition that is embedded in architecture58. This argument is in line with my position that architectural innovation cannot be devoid of traditions that have transcended from time immemorial and have withstood various changes in architecture59. The collaboration between artists and photographers with architects has been said to be capable of transforming architecture. The amalgamated union of ideas from such collaboration results in a unique architectural work60. However, such work is not devoid of traditional architectural ideas. For instance, one photographer argues that in the past painters worked directly on the walls of the buildings61. When this was slowly detached from the building and instead panels were made that were mobile something different was created. This does not imply that the picture created on movable panels is devoid of traditional practice that was used to create a picture on the wall. Thus, even though new techniques may be adopted in architecture, they do not function devoid of traditional knowledge62. It has also been argued that art work gets more intriguing when it ages. It has also been argued that aesthetic value of a work of art is not immediately apparent and only becomes apparent as it ages. This implies that old buildings have some architectural value and aesthetic that is valued today63. I wonder if architects will ignore a valuable tradition that is found in an old building and instead strive to come up with a new and completely different building that is devoid of such valuable features64. In my opinion most architects will strive to use some features of such unique architectural tradition and try to improve on them instead of ignoring them altogether. This substantiates my point of argument that architecture cannot be devoid of traditions passed down to us65. Conclusion This report argued that architectural tradition is not an impediment to innovation and that architecture cannot repudiate tradition completely and develop autonomously. When new modernist buildings began to be designed in 1910s to 1920s spear headed by architects such as Walter Gropius, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier and new ways of educating architects and artists were being proposed as new forms of cooperation between these architects and the industry many people could have seen such moves as a repudiation of traditional values and praxis. However, from the discussion above, architecture cannot develop from nowhere without referring to architectural traditions embedded in its practice and values. In fact it has been found out that some traditions in architect such as aesthetical and practical quality transcends throughout architecture time and development and has withstood various changes in the field. Furthermore, technology has been found to be essential for the development of architecture although it requires the embedded tradition of architecture to bring about innovations in the field. The styles seen in buildings have also been attributed to architecture is all about proportions that are well established through basic forms such as cones, cubes, spheres, pyramids or cylinders. It is apparent that architecture is a complex practice that employs different traditions, such as styles, crafts and construction-techniques. Architecture employs different practices and traditions in different contexts to attain its purpose. Thus, architecture cannot be devoid of tradition and tradition does not impede innovation in architecture but instead tradition is not stagnant but can change via compromises, hybrids and transformations as stated by Siza. Reference Arsalides, C. Architecture and tradition: conflict, co-existence, integration: inserting new structures into historic context in Greece and Cyprus. Texas: University of Texas at Austin, 1996. Coaldrake, W. Architecture and authority in Japan. London: Routledge, 1996 Giedion, S. Space, time and architecture: The growth of a new tradition, 13th Ed. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1997 Good, W. Wayne L. Good architect: tradition, elegance, repose. Oxford: Images Publishing, 2004 Gruber, P. Biomimetics in Architecture: Architecture of Life and Buildings. London: Springer. Hawkes, D. The environmental tradition: studies in the architecture of environment. London: Taylor & Francis, 1996. Hunt, J., and Conan, M. Tradition and innovation in French garden art: chapters of a new history. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. Kirk, T. The Architecture of Modern Italy: The challenge of tradition, 1750-1900. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 2005. Krier, L., Krier, L., and Thadani, D. The architecture of community. London: Island Press, 2009. Rowe, P., and Kuan, S. Architectural Encounters with Essence and Form in Modern China. New York: MIT Press, 2004. Seaborne, M., and Lowe, R. The English School: Its Architecture and Organization: 1370-1870. London: Taylor & Francis, 1971 Thompson, J., and Sorvig, K. Sustainable landscape construction: a guide to green building outdoors. London: Island Press, 2000. Read More