"From Bauhaus to our house “by Tom Wolfe
Introduction
This book is one of the books which introduce us to new age “Modernism”.
The book started with the story of the Young American architects who want to escape
from what they called “colonial complex” to Europe seeking for new arts. They
joined the “Bauhaus School” which opened by Silver Prince or White God No.1-
Walter Gropius. As from the quote from the book the Bauhaus not just a school but
rather “ a commune , a spiritual movement, a spiritual movement, a radical approach
to art in all its forms, a philosophical center comparable to the Garden of Epicurus”.
When the architects and artist attend to the study at Bauhaus; one phrase that
they always hear is “starting from zero”. As I read through the chapter1 I saw one
paragraphs very interesting talking about one of the example
lesson at Bauhaus by Josef Albers. Albers is painter who teach the introduction
courses to the students. He walked into the class and deposits a pile of newspapers
on the table and said that “ he would return in one hour”. Most of the students tried
to impressed by turning the newspaper into fascinating pieces of art.
Then after he returned he would pick up the cathedral and airplanes and say: “These
were meant to be made of stone or metal-not newspaper”. After that he would pick
up the object which simply have taken a piece of newspaper and folded it like a “tent”
He said that “This is work of art in paper” and this is what make the best use of
paper because paper can fold without braking and paper has tensile strength that
can use for supporting two edges. For, I really like the quote that say “ this make use
of the soul of paper” This is simple but it is very sharp.
Gropius has his interest to the “proletariat” or another word “non
bourgeois”. The Bauhaus style must proceed from certain firm assumptions; they
tried to purpose the new concept of architecture that “was being created for
workers” and “ the new architecture must reject all things bourgeois”. This means
that architecture is become open to everyone in the class. Gropius and his friends
form a compound that try to produced the sort of avant-gardism that makes up the
history of 20th century art. They tried to new perception of people and create a better
social life for everyone.
Furthermore, there is agreement that the members of the groups have to
be accept. Their goal is to create things that when people see it, they would say that
it is “non-bourgeois”, and there are some certain aspects that the architecture is non-
bourgeois. The building must be constructing in the form concrete, steel, wood glass,
and stucco. The color must also be white, beige, gray, and black. Moreover, for the
structural elements of the building ; the roofs must be flat making clean right angle
with the building façade. In addition, all the elements must be made by mechanic
new technology. The new concept or “Modern Architecture” approaches.
If we were to compare the modern architect in the early century to the late
century. We can noticed that in the early stage everything must be restrict to the
set of rules and beliefs that say that this is the right thing. For example, the design of
the worker housing. It has flats roofs with no cornices, shear walls and no
windows architraves or raised lintels, no capitals or pediments ( in other words :
there is no such things that refer back to the history) ,and even no color.
Simple interior decoration with no wallpaper, no drapes, no Wilton rugs with
decorative flowers, no lamps with shades and bases , with a natural tones of material
such as bentwood and etc. In conclusion, there is no “decorative” elements in the
house For sure , the workers would have complain “ What a house ! ”. In my
opinions, the house is a place where people come back from tire day would feel like
they are comfort and cozy. I think this type of house would mentally destroy the
owners. But what can they do, during that time the “workers” have no voice.
Comparing with the architecture in the late era the “Guild House” by Venturi.
The idea that against the modern architect make people point eyes on him. He
choose “red” brick to create the upper part of the façade , this seems to be “
bourgeois” , this is because it does coherent with the “ smog-smudged” brick of the
run-down working–class housing around that area. Furthermore, he placed the
huge columns at the entrance, but in contrast this will see as a decorative elements
with no capitals and no pediment like the historical column. This is also because
he placed in the middle of the entranceway which making it does not look grand but
rather distract. Lastly, the balcony which seems to be decorative , but it rather looks
cheap from the mass-production process.
In conclusion , we can see the changes to the perception as the movement
grow up. As one of the quote said about Venturi “he was doing the same thing, but
he was updating the process”. This means he doesn’t try to abandon what have been
create in the past, but rater changes and development for the society.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น