Posted by Paul Malo on February 28, 2002 at 16:23:54:In Reply to: help posted by Fábio Belfort on February 28, 2002 at 15:32:12:
What a good question (for an architectural historian). Terminology has nuances of approval or disapproval. What one calls this work depends on one's biases.
Is it representative of modern rationalism? Hardly. The form is abritrary and capricious--hardly the rational way to build a building. So what is it then, if not "functional,'" in the narrow sense of form evolved logically from need?
I would categorized this as "expressionist," in the lineage of Mendelsohn's Einstein Tower and, subsequently, Sarinen's TWA Terminal (the "Big Bird") or, more currently, the work of Caletravas.
What's the difference between this sort of caprice and the postmodernism of, say, the Gehry mode? Well, Niemeyer retained some what more a sense of "form" as a coherent, conceptual identity. In this instance we're looking at what is called a "compote" in the china trade--a footed bowl used to display fruit on the table. Niemeyer is appropriated a concept, reinterpreted it. He's not merly modeling arbitrary forms.
In this sense, this work may be considered "surreal"--a topic of a recent thread. One might propose this to be "surrealist expressionism," if lables are necessary. Architects are not so concerned as art historians about compartmentalizing design into labeled categories, however.
|
ArchitectureWeek
Search
Buildings
Architects
Types
Places
Pix
Free 3D Models
Store
Library
|