Ali K. Qureshi

Amazing movie, best one i’ve seen in a while.

Thassssit.

Form Follows Fiasco – Why Modern Architecture Hasn’t Worked (Peter Blake)

This book written by Peter Blake cross examines all the myths and ideals claimed to be accomplished in light of the modern movement. By challenging all the core components of the modern movement’s ideology, Blake sets in place a new sort of rationalization to occur. As an architect practicing in the late 1950’s and onward, Blake uses very tangible and industry specific examples to construct his arguments. In fact, much of the premise of the book is derived from the idea of questioning every single assumption that the industry has made and to examine the potentialities of a scenario where the exact opposite of that assumption might be true.

What made the book so interesting to me was the author’s willingness to question everything which he had been taught, as a student of architecture and a practitioner, which I found to be extremely relevant as these are, in many cases, the same concepts and dogma which we are taught as designers even today. Blake presents a series of questions which he systematically answers to make this case.

One of the main issues which the author brings into concern is how the idealistic mentality the original thinkers of modern architecture believed that this new type of architecture would resolve the ailments of society. This idealism has fallen short in multiple ways. One of the most compelling evidences of these shortcomings he puts forth are the failure of well-intentioned zones proposed by modern city planners, which have had negative impacts by creating some of the worst ghettoes in history. This ill-fated reality can also be observed in the outcomes of some of the best planned schools and public housing projects. Being an architect practicing the late 50’s onward, the author also draws notice of the decaying nature of several of the early works of modern architecture. As he described it, to him, modern architecture was literally crumbling. All these factors point to the fact that there is obviously some discrepancies with the conceptual and actual dimensions of the modernist movement.

Another device the author used effectively is using statements made by important figures which where contemporaries to him, as well as others who were pivotal in the development of modern architecture. He mentions how Philip Johnson, one of the great American modern architects, self admittedly announced that “Modern Architecture is a flop … there is no question that our cities are uglier today than they were fifty years ago …”. His use of these insider is useful in convincing readers that there is, to a certain degree, a censorship of the way in which this movement is presented.

The book is composed of several short chapters which focus specifically on one ‘modern’ ideal, and presenting it as a ‘fantasy’. Some of these chapters include ‘The Fantasy of Function’, ‘The Fantasy of the Open Plan’, ‘The Fantasy of Purity’, and so on. In his chapter ‘The Fantasy of Function’, Blake challenges the claim of modern movement to develop architecture in accordance to ‘function’. Ironically enough, the building in which he studied Architecture was originally designed to be a school of dentistry. On top of this, the acoustics of the building were not fitting at all for a dentistry school. The main argument that Blake was trying to make by drawing these parallels to his real life experiences was that the modern premise of designing for function was somewhat flawed, as most cases the architect’s intended function for a building is significantly altered within a short time of the building being constructed. Another point he makes is how in examples of buildings all over the world, buildings are often recycled from their intended function, and often serve the users better. He summarizes his argument about the fantasy of function by dissecting the dearly held quote of early modernist, ‘form follows function’. According to Blake, most of the time form is merely an educated guess about what the actual function of the building may be. In this sense, he argues, form within modern architecture is actually anti-functional. 

This sort of disection is found throughout the chapters of the book. In his final chapter, ‘The fantasy of Architecture’, Blake makes some seemingly harsh conclusions about his observations as a whole. He explains that the masters of modern movement were, in a way, unaware of what they were actually doing. Their movement and its followers ‘became advocates and promoters of ugliness, of venality, of greed, of social disintegration, of land exploitation”. Blake draws the analogy of the modern movement being comparable to a religion or cult. Some examples of this comparison is justified can be seen in the way people who prescribe to the modern movement respond to critics in a condescending manner. People who dont blindly conform to its ideals are looked upon as if they dont know any better. The author continues the analogy by explaining how Modernists feel like the have in some way stumbled upon ‘truth’, and feel it is necessary to enforce their ideals upon ‘non-believers’.

I think Blake’s well constructed critique of modernism was important in helping architects move forward. By understanding its various shortcomings, his work serves to inform future architects in which directions to advance in within both the education and practical realms. In his conclusion, the author eludes to the notion of sustainable architecture when he calls into concern the uncertainty of his time in being able to predict the consequences of the modern city and high-rise structures on the environment. Much of the driving force behind the movement neglected these aspects for the sake of ‘generating maximum profit for a handful of hit-and-run speculators who consider the surface of the earth their private preserve. The book, as stated by the author, was a way ‘to question, to reexamine, to slaughter some of our sacred cows, and to perform autopsies long overdue’.

(An old essay I wrote God knows when, I cringe as I re-read this)

The implications of the ‘notch’ are vast. It is found in almost every scale in architecture, from the volumetric conditions of a building, to the circuit boards of modern day electronics. In fact, the origins of the notch are derived from the circuit board. The notch’s signifigance is due to the pivotal role of computers and how it has launched society’s imagination of the future. 

If this is the case, then why is circuitry arranged in notched configurations? Circuits are pathways for electrical currents. How do electrical currents move? How does electricity move? The almost ‘random’ qualities of lightning.. However, in science, nothing is random. Electricity moves in networks. An impulse of information doesn’t take a a direct path to the brain. Information bridges between nerves. Actually, recent studies have discovered that there are even instances where information bridges through nerves without a physical connection between the nerves. It jumps from nerve to nerve, maintaining its kinetic route to the various parts of the brain.

I think thats where the notch comes from. This almost impulsive desire to maintain kinetic flow. 

At an architectural level, the notch is really about kinetic energy, capturing motion in architecture. Its almost as if the implied forces in architectural gestures are pulling orthangonal conditions and skewing them along the axis of energy in a building.

However, as much as I hate to say it, the notch will get outdated. Not because its been used too much, but because the way we percieve energy will change as technology progresses. What happens when the main conduit for information becomes light. All of the sudden, the notch doesn’t make sense anymore. Like I’ve said before, the future of architecture is light!

Tumblr decided to delete a short essay that I posted, wtf!

I’ve been so pissed about it that I haven’t posted since.

I hesitate to express my views, as it is so difficult to decipher tone and intention through text. So before beginning to post, here are a few disclaimers:

I’d like to write in order to archive my personal thought process, as well as clarify/refine my position on matters for myself.

I’m not interested in positioning my opinions above the opinions of any other individual. I am in no way qualified to impart judgement on life/religion/architecture or any other matters which I hold with regard. What I will be expressing is raw observations and intuitive understanding/interpretations of the aforementioned matters.

I chose to emphasize these 3 particular words because I am convinced that they will encompass everything I will ever discuss.

This will change everything. Okay, not really.

Thank you for showing me this habibtah.

Need these.