By the 1950s, architecture was following International Style. This style relied on glass, concrete, and steel to create buildings with high efficiency. It was very simple and yet also became a symbol of modern wealth and technology.
Van der Rohe was a major leader in International Style. His motto was “less is more” and he designed some simple looking, yet magnificent structures. One of his most famous works is the Seagram Building, shown below. I personally think it is a pretty cool building because of all the black steel and glass. It looks simple but it still catches your eye.
Wright was another famous architect in the 1950s that designed some very creative structures. An example the book uses is the Guggenheim Museum. When I first saw the picture of it, I was impressed. The curved walls and continuous spiral ramp is so original; I don’t think I’ve seen anything like it. The book says that “The Guggenheim remains the definitive example of the modern architectural imagination.”
A third influential man we discussed was Buckminster Fuller. He is mostly known for his massive domes, composed of very strong triangular structures. This fits with International Style in that it uses minimum resources for maximum strength. It also could be very cheaply produced.
 |
Overall, I really enjoy the aspects of International Style of architecture. It is very pleasing to the eye and yet is still cheap and cost effective. Also, architecture seems like it is useful to me. Instead of paintings that really have no relevance to our lives, architecture actually has significance.
It seems that the 1950s produced multiple different architectural styles; for example, rigid geometric lines of the Seagram Building versus the fluid rounded walls of the Guggenheim. One could even look at Fuller's dome as a combination of the two. Since each style is different, is it not interesting that they all get summed up together as modern architecture? Maybe it's because they all represent original creations of the era, but that is just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI like Van der Rohe's work as well. He definitely stuck to his motto by keeping things simple, but yet his works, at least in my opinion, were not boring at all. He accomplished a balance between being simple, but still modern. I feel like he accomplished that balance perfectly. His designs are nothing extravagant, but they have just enough of a modern feel to give them a fresh and original appearance.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at all the buildings being built today, Van der Rohe was definately the most influential. In every big city, there are replicas of the Seagram Building on each corner. His motto was very in-tune with whats been the attitude of the last 60 years, "build as fast and as much as possible for the least amount of money." While I love both Wright's and Fuller's designs, they are still one of a kinds. I think Van der Rohe was the most successful because his buildings were able to be mass-produced. I agree that architecture plays much more of a role in our lives than art does.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you about architecture being much more practical than paintings. When reading about Frank Lloyd Wright, they compared him to cubist painters. While I rejected this at first since I abhor cubism paintings and love the works of Wright, I have to agree with them. His works come from the same general idea. The difference between them is that cubist paintings serve no purpose but to be pleasing to look at and to have the viewer search for meaning within the painting. Wright's architectural work looks amazing, but has no hidden meanings and serves a very useful purpose. Whether it be a museum or a home, Wrights works will always reign superior over any painter in my book.
ReplyDelete