Posted by John DeFazio on September 01, 2002 at 11:51:37:In Reply to: Steiner vs Gaudi ,any possible link? posted by Tishop on August 31, 2002 at 22:56:16:
“...explains in a satisfactory analysis the magical interaction between the 2 dimensional plan of Ronchamp with its 3 dimensional volumetric result,something lacking in the 2 dimensional plan of the Gotheanum with its 3 D volume.”
Ronchamp is a asymmetric sculptural volume that is inflected for many reasons. For view as object in procession; as the culmination of procession within; with the cupping out of an “outdoor” alter and chapel; the gathering of water from the roof to the cistern; the support system for the roof; and, most importantly the cupping, reflecting and filtering of natural light to reveal its and the spaces spiritual nature. All this in a symbolic form.
The Gotheanum remains an essentially a 19th Century plan, proto-Beaux Arts, (Durand) , that is organized by symmetries and “conventional” hiarchies of chambered spaces. Like most of the early 20th C European pro modernist experiments, where the “problem” of architecture wasn’t see in form (indeed, they thought all those problems were solved), but a problem of style...(the end of historical styles to a new authentic Modern Style that in away would be the end of all styles, an end of the “madness of history”.
“...tangible similarities between the Gaudi's career with that of Steiner's goetheanums.”
The Gotheanum’s expressionist “style” first drops ornament or conventional detailing that could be read as such, and distorts and transforms the planes of the walls and windows to read as “fields of energies”. Steiner believed that these forms represent and reveled a deeper, truer reality. These ideas were shared by entire group of Continental “Expessionist” artists and architects and film makers at the turn of the century, ... Erich Mendelson, Hans Poelzig, Bruno Taut, Peder Vilelm, even a young Walter Gropius,... Antonio Guadi among them. There was great deal of “slippage” of ideas in the early decades of the century... For instance Wright and Brehens and Mies van der Rohes glass skyscrapers all have a machine “expressionist” qualities ...
Antonio Guadi shared many of these “Expressionist” ideas but he is a special case. He was part of Catalan regional group of artists and architects that included Joesp Jujol and Francesco Berenguer and forged a style they called Modernismo. Guadi was very devout Catholic and his work, unlike Steiner’s Gotheanum’s, is based on the imitation of nature (and in turn, God’s design) towards a new authentic, regional, architecture. His work is based on the principals of Voilet le Duc’s (neo-gothic) theories, and not on Durant’s post classical planning. Guadi’s forms continue down into the “truth in detailing” and the assembly of the building... just as nature, (God) , reveals itself (himself). Think Casa Mila. In Steiner’s Gotheanum, it is cosmological forces that are being expressed--- there is no imitation of nature or ornament.Both works are Expressionist but within Expressionism, individual artists sort deferent meanings. Often similar forms by deferent architects are intended to have totally deferent “content”. Think of how Libeskind, and Eisenman are both Deconstructionists architects yet are doing totally different things with the same forms. Gehry often gets lumped along with both, but he would be the first to tell you his work has nothing in common with either of the others ideas.
Time flattens distinctions such between works with similar forms... but the history of architectural theory is about ideas and not just the shapes they make.
|
ArchitectureWeek
Search
Buildings
Architects
Types
Places
Pix
Free 3D Models
Store
Library
|