Hello everyone!
I just got this idea of my work for the show and sharing with you guys.
When we talking about Haiku, another traditional Japanese art popped up
in my head.
It is Kakizome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakizome
It is a term for the first calligraphy written at the
beginning of a year. Since, this show is in January, I think it fits this tradition.
I've been doing this since elementary school, so have many experiences.
here's some image of it.
http://www.google.co.jp/search?q=%E6%9B%B8%E3%81%8D%E5%88%9D%E3%82%81&hl=ja&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=I30&rls=org.mozilla:ja-JP-mac:official&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=t7vLUOvoJsfy0gHzqYGoDw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1176&bih=558&sei=b8vLUOi2HJCy0AG0oIHACQ
Friday, December 14, 2012
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Brutalism Is A Failed Style
I’m interested in Brutalism as a failed architectural style. Here’s why I think it fails:
Brutalism is supposed to shun traditional architecture by removing tradition from its construction. Its formal qualities aren't decorative. In fact, its incorporation of the materials of construction––usually concrete and steel––is meant to stand in opposition to what we usually conceive of as decoration.
Brutalist architecture also tries to avoid continuing the threads of previous architectural styles (for example, it's not influenced by classical, gothic, etc). In other words, it is supposed to spawn original structures that are not locked down by an inherited history; it looks forward, not backward.
Both of these attributes, or more accurately philosophies, attempt to make brutalism a subversive architectural style. And in theory, it is. Yes, its insistence on revealing the concrete and steel is a break from ornamental architecture ("concrete is an honest material", someone was quoted saying in the Mitch Jordan article). And yes, it does reject tradition and the aesthetics of its environment (as we all know, Faner Hall ignores both the natural, forested aesthetics of the campus and the antique buildings nearby). It spits in the face of its surroundings and refuses to be part of the brand.
Yeah, in theory, it's subversive.
Somehow, despite all of these dissident qualities, it still feels oppressive. I'm not totally sure why. Its massive concrete walls just evoke "The Man" to me. Maybe it just seems like a government-constructed WWII bunker. It is true that many famous brutalist structures are government buildings––Boston City Hall, The J. Edgar Hoover Building (you don't get any more "Man" than that). Hell, technically Faner Hall is a government building as it's on a state school campus.
Its scale, though not its lack of ornamentation, also reminds me of Art Deco, another style that often utilized a great deal of visible concrete in its architectural varieties. Art Deco, despite being a manifesto-less, largely theory-less style, often evokes feelings of fascism. This is probably related to its influences that come from Futurist aesthetics. The Nazis also used Art Deco as a design inspiration for their uniforms and propaganda. The old National Guard building on Sycamore street here in town is a good example of an Art Deco building that bears resemblances to Faner Hall. Ironically, Brutalism's (perhaps unintentional) similarity to Art Deco creates a problem here that contradicts its supposed intent, all of this in spite of the fact that it attempts to be uninfluenced by other styles.
So, despite its very subversive intentions, its aesthetics fail to deliver and in fact achieve the opposite effect. But maybe that's just me! Thoughts?
Brutalism is supposed to shun traditional architecture by removing tradition from its construction. Its formal qualities aren't decorative. In fact, its incorporation of the materials of construction––usually concrete and steel––is meant to stand in opposition to what we usually conceive of as decoration.
Brutalist architecture also tries to avoid continuing the threads of previous architectural styles (for example, it's not influenced by classical, gothic, etc). In other words, it is supposed to spawn original structures that are not locked down by an inherited history; it looks forward, not backward.
Both of these attributes, or more accurately philosophies, attempt to make brutalism a subversive architectural style. And in theory, it is. Yes, its insistence on revealing the concrete and steel is a break from ornamental architecture ("concrete is an honest material", someone was quoted saying in the Mitch Jordan article). And yes, it does reject tradition and the aesthetics of its environment (as we all know, Faner Hall ignores both the natural, forested aesthetics of the campus and the antique buildings nearby). It spits in the face of its surroundings and refuses to be part of the brand.
Yeah, in theory, it's subversive.
Somehow, despite all of these dissident qualities, it still feels oppressive. I'm not totally sure why. Its massive concrete walls just evoke "The Man" to me. Maybe it just seems like a government-constructed WWII bunker. It is true that many famous brutalist structures are government buildings––Boston City Hall, The J. Edgar Hoover Building (you don't get any more "Man" than that). Hell, technically Faner Hall is a government building as it's on a state school campus.
Its scale, though not its lack of ornamentation, also reminds me of Art Deco, another style that often utilized a great deal of visible concrete in its architectural varieties. Art Deco, despite being a manifesto-less, largely theory-less style, often evokes feelings of fascism. This is probably related to its influences that come from Futurist aesthetics. The Nazis also used Art Deco as a design inspiration for their uniforms and propaganda. The old National Guard building on Sycamore street here in town is a good example of an Art Deco building that bears resemblances to Faner Hall. Ironically, Brutalism's (perhaps unintentional) similarity to Art Deco creates a problem here that contradicts its supposed intent, all of this in spite of the fact that it attempts to be uninfluenced by other styles.
So, despite its very subversive intentions, its aesthetics fail to deliver and in fact achieve the opposite effect. But maybe that's just me! Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)