xiaoerzi
发贴: 513
|
2002-07-31 03:22
Transparency (Review 1) by collin Rowe and Robert Slutzky, with a commentary by Bemhard Hoesil and an introduction by Werner Oechslin. Birkhauser.1997 Of all the ministrations during the post-war death of late modernism, definitively ended with Robert Venturi's Complexity and Contradiction, "transparency; Literal and Phenomental" by Collin Rowe and Robert Slutzky was the last best attempt at revival. This small book encourages us to look at the essay 33 years after its publication, not just historically but for the still topical issue of the relationship between architecture and its influences. Rowe and Slutzky were among a group teachers at the University of Texas at Austin in the 1950s that influenced two generations of architectural education and therby practice. Referred to as the Texas Rangers ( and including John Heidul, Werner Seligmann and Berhard Hoesli), they went on to teach all over the United States and Europe. At Texas they sensed the possibility of a systematic approach, a method, to teaching design based on Modernist principles. But instead of merely following the work of Modernist masters, who were after all still active, powerful and revered, Rowe and Slutzky went back to early Modernism's icons. The danger of re-examining the canon at that time on order to describe and define its foundations should not be understimated, as the nine years between the article's being written and being published testify. It was no small ambition to attempt to revise the history of architectural form away from issues of materials and methods of construction towards more complex and spatial concerns when the phenomenal literalists had the upper hand. In order to redirect Modernism they used the ambiguity in the term 'transparency' to re-evaluate the possibilities within Cubist painting, part of the repertoire of modern architecture's history. Rowe and Slutzky directly challenged Sigfed Giedion's own Cubist reading of Gropius's Bauhaus; declaring it an almost simple minded understanding of transparency as glass, they favoured the formal complexities of Le Corbusier. Ultimately even more important, though, was their argument that one could derive and transfer a precise working technique for architecture based on an analysis of avant-garde work in a different medium. Instead of the current rather direct subsumption of theory, Rowe and Slutzky move gracefully (if not flawlessly) from gestalt theory to a formal analysis of an object - in this case Cubist paintings - to architecture, while refreshingly acknowledging the problematic nature of such transference. The book is partly a critical edition of Hoesli's 1968, with an introduction by Werner Oechslin, and so highlights the pedagogical issues the article generated and Hoesli's undying quest for a reliable method by which to make Modernism's pronciples teachable. Nevertheless, it is a shame that part two of the essay, first published in 1973, is not also included, since it is there that many of the first essay's issues are explicitly developed. Finally, the book reminds us of the sometimes unacknowledged complexity in Modernism, and the easy seductions of such puerile assumptions as simple, or literal transparency. It is also interesting to note what different directions this reassertion of complexity would take, when 'the transparent ceases to be that which is perpectly clear and becomes instead that which is clearly ambiguous'. Equally significant today is the essay's quiet insistence that deriving methods for architecture from other disciplines is both problematic and rigorous. At a time when architecture to another, and when the cult of personality has subsumed the search for method, however unsucessful it might have been, this is a refreshing reminder indeed. by STEVEN SPIER
|