Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Date: Thu,  5 Nov 1992 13:42:27 -0500 
From: Paul M Mcelwee <pm3w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: On meaning and Ornament

(DISCLAIMER:  I'm a newcomer here, so let me know if I'm out of line)

Todd Sandrock writes:

>raymond Chung, churayj@yalevm.edu writes:
>>the last true ornamental languages of the West.  Unfortunately, due to
>the
>>eradication of ornament in this century, our society has become
>illiterate
>>when it comes to ornament.  Imagine, there actually was a time when
> 
>I hate to keep bringing up the profane when everybody's talking the
>sacred, but there's another reason why ornament has been lost:
> 
>1) Labour / Trades are too expensive ($30-$40/hr CDN) to send to work
>custom manufacturing ornament.
>2) People don't have the skill to design and draw ornamental details
>3) The skill by trades to execute ornamental details such as stereotomy /
>woodcarving has been largely lost

   Like damn near anything else in today's society, architecture has
largely come under the control of the forces of global capitalism. 
"Modern" in architecture came to be associated with industry and hence
efficiency ("economy" and "purity" were two design qualities that Le
Corbusier recognized as being important in the next century).  To make a
long story short, architecture reflects the values of the contemporary
age:  Capitalism.
   
-- It would seem then that there is much less money to be made by
carving ornate Corinthian capitals then in creating 5000 s.f. of flex
office space...

.. so in this sense I would have to agree that these financial and
technological barriers make ornamentation difficult, but there are
other, more profound reasons for the destruction of
ornamentation--although these are also the results of capitalism. 
Modern media has cased an intense saturation and confusion of symbolic
images that has made the establishment of a universal symbology almost
impossible.  These and other ideas are all addressed in great depth in
James Wines' "De-Architecture"; a book I would highly recommend to
anyone involved in arts and architecture. 
    In any case, I agree that in spite of (or maybye in acccordance
with?) modern media, a universal basis of symbols must be found.  Noble
and somewhat successful attempts have been made by Venturi and the
PostModern school, yet more often than not, these buildings come off as
being irrelevant historical mock-ups applied to an abstract building
form.  I fear that post-modernism ignores the potential of new materials
and ideas.  It also leads to a stagnation of architectura forms and
creative expression (the creation of "cliche architecture".

..Solution?  I personally believe that the ideas of Ruskin, Morris,
Wright, Gaudi, and Bruce Goff are particulary important in establishing
a modern symbology.  -That is, that natural forms should become the
basis for ornament.  Today, however, there is a new twist that somewhat
intensifies these ideas--the environmental crisis.  as we approach the
age of dwindling and stagnating natural resources, architecture should
be at the frontlines of the battle to save the environment.
    While I would admit, the world can't be saved by architecture, I
believe that the environment is a problem that can't be ignored.  The
best we can (and I believe MUST) do, is try to create architecture with
layers of meaning that communicate the need to save our planet and
intelligently coexist with nature.

    I would welcome any other ideas on symbols and modern culture.  I
would also recommend that anyone interested in the ideas of organic
architecture should refer to the readings mentioned as well as an
organization called the "Friends of Kebyar":  an organization started by
Bruce Goff, dedicated to the ideas of Organic ideas in modern
architecture.  I'll send out the address to anyone interested....

Enjoy!

PAUL  

Newsgroups: alt.architecture