Bernard Rudofsky’s 1964 MoMA exhibition Architecture Without Architects differentiated itself as an intellectual counterpart to the unquestioned authority of the architect as the only valid form-giver. The show and its accompanying publication provided images of a rich history of building cultures across the world that operated entirely outside of the professional design practice. It gave credence to the notion that owner-built communities were a perfectly valid form of architectural and social development, an important underlying assumption in the support of informal settlements. But Rudofsky’s exhibition not only provided impetus for the architectural legitimacy of vernacular, owner-built structures; it also provided insight into longstanding methods of passive cooling and heating techniques in various parts of the world, insight that may well have likely informed the forthcoming eco-design movement.
For the purposes of assembling a dual history of informal housing and sustainability, Rudofsky’s exhibit provides an invaluable departure point for both topics. An ardent travel and an outspoken critic of modernist dogma, Rudofsky sought with his MoMA exhibition to step outside of the dogmatic architectural history of “a full-dress pageant of ‘formal’ architecture, as arbitrary a way of introducing the art of building as, say dating the birth of music with the advent of the symphony orchestra.”[1] This was an attempt at realigning the history of the field with its truer origins, and with this came the harsh truth that architects had little to do with the beginnings of architecture.
Included in this catalogue of vernacular and anonymous architecture is “the architecture of nomads, portable houses, houses on wheels, sled-houses, houseboats, and tents.”[2] Dense settlements from various parts of the world are displayed without judgment of their informal nature, but rather with honest admiration of their innovation and contribution to so-called “pedigreed architecture.” Densely clustered houses are shown unapologetically; aerial photographs of these settlements are no longer viewed as disorderly and haphazard assemblies, but rather as variations on a unified theme of design. The combined effect of houses in Zanzibar is explained as having an “almost pointillistic pattern,” while a settlement in Marrakesh is regulated by a “relaxed geometric” organization.[3] Rudofsky assigns the terminology of formally trained designers to structures that were constructed without them, at once undermining the authority of the architect and restoring the dignity of informal housing.
'marrakesh (morocco) is the archetype of an islamic town with its quadrangular houses organized around interior courts. there are no traffic arteries to speak of; the cool narrow alleys of broken course often lead to dead ends.'
Rudofsky’s exhibition also imparts the growing sensibility of vernacular design, a concept that would increasingly align itself with environmentalism over the following decades. The photographs display various construction materials and methods throughout the world, from wood and masonry to woven straw and stereotomy. Each is explained within the context of its particular usefulness and practicality, as “’primitive solutions [that] anticipate our cumbersome technology.”[4] For instance, in the Chinese loess belt, villages are comprised of assembled pit homes, each of which was easily carved from the soft silt of the landscape. Various building components offer practical means of thermal regulation against harsh temperatures. Images of large, sailing windscoops atop dense houses in Pakistan, which Rudofsky terms the “air-conditioners of Hyderabad Sind,” channel cool breezes down into the dwellings.[5]While his exhibition may not have intended to expose these sustainable systems to a budding batch of young architects, it certainly did so, and the concepts shown here would soon become integral to the emerging environmentalist movement within architecture.
'the air-conditioners of hyderabad sind'
Responses to the exhibition were varied across the field of architecture. As Felicity Scott recounts, whenArchitecture without Architects first opened on November 11, 1964, the reactions by critics were pronounced and polarized: “the exhibition was both hailed as a timely and insightful critique of the state of modern architecture and rejected as an exasperating and unwarranted attack on an already troubled discipline.”[6] It was no secret that Rudofsky despised the dogmatic functionalism and aesthetic rigidity of modernism that had recently dominated Western architecture, and the popular exhibition was certainly providing exposure and appreciation of designs that existed outside of this rigidity. As the show continued to travel around the world for eleven years, the response of the mainstream architectural press was decidedly defensive: “dismissing the show as antimodern or nostalgic, and as having little bearing on the practicalities of contemporary urban development.”[7] Rather than conforming to the narrative of modernism, Rudofsky sought to uncover the true precedents for the modernist aesthetic, revealing the source of such “refined” forms to be considerably “primative”: the informal and environmentally-sensitive constructions of the common owner-builder.[1] Bernard Rudofsky, Architecture Without Architects: A Short Introduction to Non-Pedigreed Architecture(University of New Mexico Press, 1964).
REFERENCES
For the purposes of assembling a dual history of informal housing and sustainability, Rudofsky’s exhibit provides an invaluable departure point for both topics. An ardent travel and an outspoken critic of modernist dogma, Rudofsky sought with his MoMA exhibition to step outside of the dogmatic architectural history of “a full-dress pageant of ‘formal’ architecture, as arbitrary a way of introducing the art of building as, say dating the birth of music with the advent of the symphony orchestra.”[1] This was an attempt at realigning the history of the field with its truer origins, and with this came the harsh truth that architects had little to do with the beginnings of architecture.
Included in this catalogue of vernacular and anonymous architecture is “the architecture of nomads, portable houses, houses on wheels, sled-houses, houseboats, and tents.”[2] Dense settlements from various parts of the world are displayed without judgment of their informal nature, but rather with honest admiration of their innovation and contribution to so-called “pedigreed architecture.” Densely clustered houses are shown unapologetically; aerial photographs of these settlements are no longer viewed as disorderly and haphazard assemblies, but rather as variations on a unified theme of design. The combined effect of houses in Zanzibar is explained as having an “almost pointillistic pattern,” while a settlement in Marrakesh is regulated by a “relaxed geometric” organization.[3] Rudofsky assigns the terminology of formally trained designers to structures that were constructed without them, at once undermining the authority of the architect and restoring the dignity of informal housing.
'marrakesh (morocco) is the archetype of an islamic town with its quadrangular houses organized around interior courts. there are no traffic arteries to speak of; the cool narrow alleys of broken course often lead to dead ends.'
Rudofsky’s exhibition also imparts the growing sensibility of vernacular design, a concept that would increasingly align itself with environmentalism over the following decades. The photographs display various construction materials and methods throughout the world, from wood and masonry to woven straw and stereotomy. Each is explained within the context of its particular usefulness and practicality, as “’primitive solutions [that] anticipate our cumbersome technology.”[4] For instance, in the Chinese loess belt, villages are comprised of assembled pit homes, each of which was easily carved from the soft silt of the landscape. Various building components offer practical means of thermal regulation against harsh temperatures. Images of large, sailing windscoops atop dense houses in Pakistan, which Rudofsky terms the “air-conditioners of Hyderabad Sind,” channel cool breezes down into the dwellings.[5]While his exhibition may not have intended to expose these sustainable systems to a budding batch of young architects, it certainly did so, and the concepts shown here would soon become integral to the emerging environmentalist movement within architecture.
'the air-conditioners of hyderabad sind'
Responses to the exhibition were varied across the field of architecture. As Felicity Scott recounts, whenArchitecture without Architects first opened on November 11, 1964, the reactions by critics were pronounced and polarized: “the exhibition was both hailed as a timely and insightful critique of the state of modern architecture and rejected as an exasperating and unwarranted attack on an already troubled discipline.”[6] It was no secret that Rudofsky despised the dogmatic functionalism and aesthetic rigidity of modernism that had recently dominated Western architecture, and the popular exhibition was certainly providing exposure and appreciation of designs that existed outside of this rigidity. As the show continued to travel around the world for eleven years, the response of the mainstream architectural press was decidedly defensive: “dismissing the show as antimodern or nostalgic, and as having little bearing on the practicalities of contemporary urban development.”[7] Rather than conforming to the narrative of modernism, Rudofsky sought to uncover the true precedents for the modernist aesthetic, revealing the source of such “refined” forms to be considerably “primative”: the informal and environmentally-sensitive constructions of the common owner-builder.[1] Bernard Rudofsky, Architecture Without Architects: A Short Introduction to Non-Pedigreed Architecture(University of New Mexico Press, 1964).
REFERENCES
No comments:
Post a Comment