Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction
Venturi addresses the idea of how architecture promotes complexity and refers to it as an art. The art is in the process of construction and thinking when it comes to designing. He also expressed how he is against rationalization and rejecting complexity in architecture. I think he points out an interesting view when he says "I am for messy vitality over obvious unity", what I understand and find interesting about this is the idea of preferring the non-obvious over the simple, straightforward architecture. In my opinion this is what makes architecture interesting and exciting. Venturi also mentions The pavilion by Mies Van der Rohe where he criticizes the over simplification of the design. How ever I disagree with his argument because the beauty of architecture is a combination of styles that vary from simple to complex. Therefore as much as complexity is needed in architecture, simplicity should exist in order to help create the contrast between the two styles and appreciate them.
Gregotti, On Simplicity
Gregotti describes simplicity as being the "material for establishing difference", and what I think he means by that is …show more content…
He explains how Loos’s essay was not given attention to at first from the public, but later on when his publication began to spread internationally, changes were seen and attention to ornament “as a crime” was taking place in modern architecture design. Banham explains how Loos’s writings were inspirational, particularly to their role in inspiring the Futurists, the Dadaists, and the emerging modern movement. As well as being architecturally seen in the works of Le Corbusier and Erich Mendelsohn, Richard Neutra, and Rudolf Schindler. Banham does not discuss Loos’s built work in depth but he states that Loos’s work doesn’t reflect his argument for modern architecture that is ornament
Venturi addresses the idea of how architecture promotes complexity and refers to it as an art. The art is in the process of construction and thinking when it comes to designing. He also expressed how he is against rationalization and rejecting complexity in architecture. I think he points out an interesting view when he says "I am for messy vitality over obvious unity", what I understand and find interesting about this is the idea of preferring the non-obvious over the simple, straightforward architecture. In my opinion this is what makes architecture interesting and exciting. Venturi also mentions The pavilion by Mies Van der Rohe where he criticizes the over simplification of the design. How ever I disagree with his argument because the beauty of architecture is a combination of styles that vary from simple to complex. Therefore as much as complexity is needed in architecture, simplicity should exist in order to help create the contrast between the two styles and appreciate them.
Gregotti, On Simplicity
Gregotti describes simplicity as being the "material for establishing difference", and what I think he means by that is …show more content…
He explains how Loos’s essay was not given attention to at first from the public, but later on when his publication began to spread internationally, changes were seen and attention to ornament “as a crime” was taking place in modern architecture design. Banham explains how Loos’s writings were inspirational, particularly to their role in inspiring the Futurists, the Dadaists, and the emerging modern movement. As well as being architecturally seen in the works of Le Corbusier and Erich Mendelsohn, Richard Neutra, and Rudolf Schindler. Banham does not discuss Loos’s built work in depth but he states that Loos’s work doesn’t reflect his argument for modern architecture that is ornament