Having just returned from a rather archi-centric evening I am eager to get the last vestiges of discussion off my chest. There were so many issues raised by this rather interesting exposition of thetranslation of the Bauhaus pedagogy to American society that it is hard to rationalize on where to begin.
The movie itself was rather interesting. Granted, from a film perspective, the 90's techniques of video documentary shows rather evidently however the subject matter, already having evolved into what some would name a 'post-modern' movement seems rather timeless. Concentrating primarily on how the main educators of the Bauhaus in Dessau translated their work to American educational institutions (IIT, Harvard, Yale, Black Mountain) and into work that somehow became synonymous with a mythical 'international' style. Historically it was a nice traipse down memory lane for fans of Mies, Albers, Rohe, Breuer and of course Gropius.
For fans of the Bauhaus model it was a jarring experience when one starts to relate to modern design schools. There seems to be a lack of willingness to allow the exploration of the idea, the investigation of the intent to be paramount. One asked at the discussion afterwards about current Bauhaus type schools to little response. I would offer the Rural Studio and Jersey Devil design/build as two such programs where the exploration into the materiality and social concern is paramount.
Which of course leads to my question of concern for the evening. If the Bauhaus was founded with the hope of maximizing recent industrial innovations to further production and therefore mixing design with purity could be argued as paramount then what is to occur as schools move to concentrate on theoretical design, computer renderings and sections that further remove the understanding of space and texture from the curriculum. It seems architecture is becoming more graphic design than more having anything to do with the insides of a building or space. (Feel free to argue with me on that one, it could turn out rather well).
I am willing to accept that computer renderings are shiny and new and possibly as a school preparing students to produce the very objects that firms want most to attract perspective clients is nice, but I would very vehemently argue that unless the student knows how to think, collect and express an idea then all the pretty pictures are meaningless rubbish that detract from what architectural design really is.
While the jury is out on the Breuer building and whether or not the connection to the Bauhaus is enough to rally the creative design of Cleveland to stand up for it the individual film/discussion was a resounding success and I would like to thank Christopher Diehl, Peter van Dijk and Carol Salus for spending the afternoon/evening with us and with Susan Miller for putting this thing together.
Don't forget that the next one "Green building and modernism: are they antithetical?" with Carl Stein will be next Wednesday, Novemeber 28th, 6.00pm at Judson Manor.
Greening the Modern Preservation MovementLabels: Cleve. Events, Design Rants
# posted by Dru McKeown @
11:29 PM
