Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture Robert Venturi with an introduction by Vincent Scully The Museum of Modern Art Papers on Architecture The Museum of Modern Art, New York in association with the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts, Chicago Distributed by New York Graphic Society, Boston Contents Acknowledgments 6 Foreword 8 Introduction 9 Preface 13 1. Nonstraightforward Architecture: A Gentle Manifesto 16 2. Complexity and Contradiction vs. Simplification or Picturesqueness 16 3. Ambiguity 20 4. Contradictory Levels: The Phenomenon of "Both-And" in Architecture 23 5. Contradictory Levels Continued: The Double-Functioning Element 34 6. Accommodation and the Limitations of Order: The Conventional Element 41 7. Contradiction Adapted 45 8. Contradiction Juxtaposed 56 9. The Inside and the Outside 70 10. The Obligation Toward the Difficult Whole 88 11. Works 106 Notes 132 Photograph Credits 133 Preface This book is both an attempt at architectural criticism and an apologia-an explanation, indirectly, of my work. Because I am a practicing architect, my ideas on architec- ture are inevitably a by-product of the criticism which accompanies working, and which is, as T. S. Eliot has said, of "capital importance. in the work of creation itself. Probably, indeed, the larger part of the labour of sifting, combining, constructing, expunging, correcting, testing: this frightful toil is as much critical as creative. I maintain even that the criticism employed by a trained and skilled writer on his own work is the most vital, the highest kind of criticism . . ." ¹ I write, then, as an architect who em- ploys criticism rather than a critic who chooses architecture and this book represents a particular set of emphases, a way of seeing architecture, which I find valid. 1 In the same essay Eliot discusses analysis and compari- son as tools of literary criticism. These critical methods are valid for architecture too: architecture is open to analysis like any other aspect of experience, and is made more vivid by comparisons. Analysis includes the breaking up of archi- tecture into elements, a technique I frequently use even though it is the opposite of the integration which is the final goal of art. However paradoxical it appears, and de- spite the suspicions of many Modern architects, such disin- tegration is a process present in all creation, and it is essential to understanding. Self-consciousness is necessarily a part of creation and criticism. Architects today are too educated to be either primitive or totally spontaneous, and architecture is too complex to be approached with carefully maintained ignorance. As an architect I try to be guided not by habit but by a conscious sense of the past-by precedent, thoughtfully considered. The historical comparisons chosen are part of a continuous tradition relevant to my concerns. When Eliot writes about tradition, his comments are equally relevant to architecture, notwithstanding the more obvious changes in architectural methods due to technological innovations. "In English writing," Eliot says, "we seldom speak of tradi- tion. . . . Seldom, perhaps, does the word appear except in a phrase of censure. If otherwise, it is vaguely approbative, with the implication, as to a work approved, of some pleasing archeological reconstruction. . . . Yet if the only form of tradition, of handing down, consisted in following the ways of the immediate generation before us in a blind or timid adherence to its successes, 'tradition' should be positively discouraged. Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour. It involves, in the first place, the historical sense, which we may call nearly indis- pensable to anyone who would continue to be a poet beyond his twenty-fifth year; and the historical sense in- volves perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence; the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the whole of the literature of Europe . has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous or- der. This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal and of the timeless and temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional, and it is at the same time what makes a writer most acutely conscious of his place in time, of his own contemporaneity. ... No poet, no artist of any kind, has his complete meaning alone." 2 I agree with Eliot and reject the obsession of Modern architects who, to quote Aldo van Eyck, "have been harping continually on what is different in our time to such an extent that they have lost touch with what is not differ- ent, with what is essentially the same." ³ 4 The examples chosen reflect my partiality for certain eras: Mannerist, Baroque, and Rococo especially. As Henry-Russell Hitchcock says, "there always exists a real need to re-examine the work of the past. There is, presuma- bly, almost always a generic interest in architectural history among architects; but the aspects, or periods, of history that seem at any given time to merit the closest attention cer- tainly vary with changing sensibilities." * As an artist I frankly write about what I like in architecture: complexity and contradiction. From what we find we like-what we are easily attracted to-we can learn much of what we really are. Louis Kahn has referred to "what a thing wants to be,” but implicit in this statement is its opposite: what the architect wants the thing to be. In the tension and balance between these two lie many of the architect's decisions. The comparisons include some buildings which are nei- ther beautiful nor great, and they have been lifted abstractly from their historical context because I rely less on the idea of style than on the inherent characteristics of specific buildings. Writing as an architect rather than as a scholar, my historical view is that described by Hitchcock: "Once, of course, almost all investigation of the architecture of the past was in aid of its nominal reconstitution-an instru- ment of revivalism. That is no longer true, and there is little reason to fear that it will, in our time, become so again. Both the architects and the historian-critics of the early twentieth century, when they were not merely seeking in the past fresh ammunition for current polemical warfare, taught us to see all architecture, as it were, abstractly, false though such a limited vision probably is to the complex sensibilities that produced most of the great architecture of the past. When we re-examine or discover-this or that aspect of earlier building production today, it is with no idea of repeating its forms, but rather in the expectation of feeding more amply new sensibilities that are wholly the product of the present. To the pure historian this may seem regrettable, as introducing highly subjective elements into what he believes ought to be objective studies. Yet the pure historian, more often than not, will eventually find himself moving in directions that have been already determined by more sensitive weathervanes." 5 I make no special attempt to relate architecture to other things. I have not tried to "improve the connections be- tween science and technology on the one hand, and the humanities and the social sciences on the other . and make of architecture a more human social art." I try to talk about architecture rather than around it. Sir John Summerson has referred to the architects' obsession with "the importance, not of architecture, but of the relation of architecture to other things."" He has pointed out that in this century architects have substituted the "mischievous analogy" for the eclectic imitation of the nineteenth century, and have been staking a claim for architecture rather than producing architecture. The result has been diagrammatic planning. The architect's ever diminishing power and his growing ineffectualness in shaping the whole environment can perhaps be reversed, ironically, by narrowing his con- cerns and concentrating on his own job. Perhaps then relationships and power will take care of themselves. I accept what seem to me architecture's inherent limitations, and attempt to concentrate on the difficult particulars within it rather than the easier abstractions about it ". . . because the arts belong (as the ancients said) to the prac- tical and not the speculative intelligence, there is no sur- rogate for being on the job." 8 9 This book deals with the present, and with the past in relation to the present. It does not attempt to be visionary except insofar as the future is inherent in the reality of the 14 present. It is only indirectly polemical. Everything is said in the context of current architecture and consequently certain targets are attacked-in general, the limitations of orthodox Modern architecture and city planning, in particular, the platitudinous architects who invoke integrity, technology, or electronic programming as ends in architecture, the popularizers who paint "fairy stories over our chaotic reality" "10 and suppress those complexities and contradic- tions inherent in art and experience. Nevertheless, this book is an analysis of what seems to me true for architecture now, rather than a diatribe against what seems false. Note to the Second Edition I wrote this book in the early 1960's as a practicing architect responding to aspects of architectural theory and dogma of that time. The issues are different now, and I think the book might be read today for its general theories about architectural form but also as a particular document of its time, more historical than topical. For this reason the second part of the book, which covers the work of our firm up to 1966, is not expanded in this second edition. I now wish the title had been Complexity and Con- tradiction in Architectural Form, as suggested by Donald Drew Egbert. In the early '60's, however, form was king in architectural thought, and most architectural theory focused without question on aspects of form. Architects seldom thought of symbolism in architecture then, and social issues came to dominate only in the second half of that decade. But in hindsight this book on form in architecture comple- ments our focus on symbolism in architecture several years later in Learning from Las Vegas. To rectify an omission in the acknowledgments of the first edition, I want to express my gratitude to Richard Krautheimer, who shared his insights on Roman Baroque architecture with us Fellows at the American Academy in Rome. I am grateful also to my friend Vincent Scully for his continued and very kind support of this book and of our work. I am happy that The Museum of Modern Art is en- larging the format of this edition so that the illustrations are now more readable. Perhaps it is the fate of all theorists to view the ripples from their works with mixed feelings. I have some- times felt more comfortable with my critics than with those who have agreed with me. The latter have often misapplied or exaggerated the ideas and methods of this book to the point of parody. Some have said the ideas are fine but don't go far enough. But most of the thought here was intended to be suggestive rather than dogmatic, and the method of historical analogy can be taken only so far in architectural criticism. Should an artist go all the way with his or her philosophies? R.V. April, 1977/n 9:27 .5G 214 < To Do MH Assignment Details ARCH 3214-001: Hist & Thry of Architecture 2 Marianne Holbert 16 Apr 2024 at 4:25 PM Prompt #1: Metabolism proposed radical ideas for urban renewal and regeneration. "A key passage in the Metabolist declaration reads. 'We regard human society as a vital process, a continuous development from atom to nebula. The reason why we use the biological word metabolism is that we believe design and technology should denote human vitality. We do not believe that metabolism indicates only acceptance of a natural, historical process, but we are trying to encourage the active metabolic development of our society through our proposals.' This is an important element in our declaration for two reasons. First, it reflects our feelings that human society must be regarded as one part of a continuous natural entity that includes all animals and plants. Secondly, it expresses our belief that technology is an extension of humanity." (Kurokawa 1971, 27). Are humans an extension of technology or separate from it? Refer to and cite specific passages as you engage the discussion. - What demonstrates the Metabolists' belief that technology is an extension of humanity? - How did Metabolism address the need for change and transformation within urban environments? - Analyze passages Metabolism in Architecture and View Discussion 1 6 000 DOO Dashboard Calendar To Do Notifications Inbox 9:27 < To Do Assignment Details . 5G 214 ARCH 3214-001: Hist & Thry of Architecture 2 process, a continuous development from atom to nebula. The reason why we use the biological word metabolism is that we believe design and technology should denote human vitality. We do not believe that metabolism indicates only acceptance of a natural, historical process, but we are trying to encourage the active metabolic development of our society through our proposals.' This is an important element in our declaration for two reasons. First, it reflects our feelings that human society must be regarded as one part of a continuous natural entity that includes all animals and plants. Secondly, it expresses our belief that technology is an extension of humanity." (Kurokawa 1971, 27). Are humans an extension of technology or separate from it? Refer to and cite specific passages as you engage the discussion. - What demonstrates the Metabolists' belief that technology is an extension of humanity? - How did Metabolism address the need for change and transformation within urban environments? - Analyze passages Metabolism in Architecture and highlight design proposals that highlight the movement's vision for reshaping cities to accommodate evolving social, economic, and cultural needs. - Kurokawa speaks of the Characteristics of Japanese culture that are the most influential in the design thinking beneath the Metabolist movement. View Discussion 1 6 000 DOO Dashboard Calendar To Do Notifications Inbox 9:28 < To Do Assignment Details . 5G 214 ARCH 3214-001: Hist & Thry of Architecture 2 Prompt #2: Metabolism ideology suggested a cyclical process of construction, destruction, and reconstruction. Kurowaka wrote: "This philosophy of continuity, characteristic of wood-based culture, is lacking in stone-based culture. Instead of using the material in such a way as to make full use of its natural characteristics, stone-based culture processes the material, and physically alters it... Furthermore, unlike wood-based culture, stone based culture opposes nature, its architecture uses walls to protect the interior from the exterior. According to this approach, architecture and nature are discontinuous. Human beings do not live with architecture for architecture is only a container for human beings. This aspect of the traditional stone-based culture is directly connected to modern rationalism and to functionalist architecture" (Kurokawa 1971, 34). Probe the ideas of change in architecture. Refer to and cite specific passages as you engage the discussion. - Explore passages from Metabolism in Architecture that examine the role of destruction, construction, and reconstruction in the evolutionary process of architecture. - Consider how this perspective challenges conventional notions of permanence, durability, or conservation. -Should architecture more naturally embody cyclical View Discussion 1 6 000 DOO Dashboard Calendar To Do Notifications Inbox 9:28 . 5G 214 < To Do Assignment Details ARCH 3214-001: Hist & Thry of Architecture 2 wood-based culture, is lacking in stone-based culture. Instead of using the material in such a way as to make full use of its natural characteristics, stone-based culture processes the material, and physically alters it... Furthermore, unlike wood-based culture, stone based culture opposes nature, its architecture uses walls to protect the interior from the exterior. According to this approach, architecture and nature are discontinuous. Human beings do not live with architecture for architecture is only a container for human beings. This aspect of the traditional stone-based culture is directly connected to modern rationalism and to functionalist architecture" (Kurokawa 1971, 34). Probe the ideas of change in architecture. Refer to and cite specific passages as you engage the discussion. - Explore passages from Metabolism in Architecture that examine the role of destruction, construction, and reconstruction in the evolutionary process of architecture. - Consider how this perspective challenges conventional notions of permanence, durability, or conservation. Should architecture more naturally embody cyclical processes of impermanence? - Do you agree with Kurokawa's differentiation between wood-based and stone-based architecture cultures? View Discussion 1 6 000 DOO Dashboard Calendar To Do Notifications Inbox 9:28 < To Do Assignment Details .5G 214 ARCH 3214-001: Hist & Thry of Architecture 2 Prompt #3: Metabolism emerged during a period of rapid technological advancement. Kurokawa wrote "At the same time that the rapid economic development of Japan began, in 1960, the Metabolist group advocated the creation of a new relationship between humanity and technology. Thinking that the time would come when technology would develop autonomously to the point where it ruled human life, the group aimed at producing a system whereby man would maintain control over technology" (Kurokawa 1971, 31). Examine the words and ideas connected to the Metabolists attitudes and approach to technology. Refer to and cite specific passages as you engage the discussion. - Examine examples from Metabolism in Architecture that demonstrate how technology was harnessed to create flexible, adaptable structures capable of responding to changing societal needs and technological developments. - Discuss examples from Metabolism in Architecture that illustrate the movement's approach to designing buildings that could adapt and evolve over time, challenging traditional notions of permanence. -Should buildings be easily reconfigured, expanded, or altered as needed to more truly reflect the realities of natural systems? View Discussion 1 6 000 DOO Dashboard Calendar To Do Notifications Inbox

Solved: Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture Robert Venturi with an i

Home
questions and answers
complexity and contradiction in architecture robert venturi with an in

Question

Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture Robert Venturi with an introduction by Vincent Scully The Museum of Modern Art Papers on Architecture The Museum of Modern Art, New York in association with the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts, Chicago Distributed by New York Graphic Society, Boston