Here is my second blog post, which does not come easy, as I need to put together everything I thought about since I started to structure my thesis more thoughtfully. Even
though my research topic is not fully shaped I’m starting to think
about the data I will use. In the end there can be multiple ways of
going around the thesis, so I am tying a less straightforward one. At
first, it may seem too early to think about all the numbers and
details, however, in many ways, the type of data that you can acquire
and the adequacy of this data influences the feasibility of the whole
research.
In
this blog I would like to start developing a roadmap - a data
planning. In my current phrasing, the research suggests an extensive
usage of qualitative data that is produced by direct and indirect
interaction with people. Studying participatory management involves
an attempt for a better understanding of the modes of thinking of my
audience. As architecture serves as a backbone structure of human
interaction, of the community and the sense of communal space,
audience involvement in the interpretive process is unavoidable.
Specifically:
How does public opinion on architecture form? What do people
appreciate about architecture? Why do people dislike modernist
architecture? Do people see themselves as a decision-making party to
how architecture is constructed? Do they want to have a
decision-making agency?
These
questions were popping up in my mind, as I was reading various “how
to get your research started” articles. I felt a need to come back
to a bigger picture and talk about the society and architecture in
general. Historical changes in the ideas of power relationship,
ideology and aesthetics can come in handy to consider. Also, before
considering what kinds of data collection techniques I can use, it
worths thinking about what kind of information I need more narrowly.
So,
current position of modernist architecture can be compared in time
and space. One of the ways to do this is looking at how modernist
architecture of the soviet time can now be interpreted within a
larger style of western Brutalism. Especially, it is interesting to
look at how these two styles, which have a lot in common
aesthetically, can be treated and perceived differently. It is also
exciting to see the inherent contradictions of the style and their
influence on people's understanding.
“Brutalism”
refers to the style that was firstly coined by the Swedish
architect Hans Asplund. He used the word describing Villa Göth, a modern brick home in Uppsala.
This house was
designed in 1949 by architects Bengt Edman and Lennart Holm. However,
today it is mostly associated with Le Corbusier, who employed the
french phrase “béton
brut”,
to underline the essential material of brutalist architecture – raw
concrete. Brutalism
was a outgrowth of modern architecture, largely motivated by the urge
to rebuild living spaces after the Second World War.
One
of the most striking contradictions come from the term itself. It can
be easily trapped in a mis-association. The adjective “brutal”
that implies various negative connotations of cruel, harsh, and
unpleasant, despite having common latin origins with “Brutalist”,
is not a correct way of conceptualizing Brutalist architecture. This
association in itself can suggest a negative narrative behind those
buildings. For modernist architecture the familial connection to brutalism and
historical coexistence with an oppressive regime poses an even bigger
question of associations.
Habitat 67 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Another
contradiction comes from the principles of brutalist and modernist
architecture. As architect
and critic Reyner Banham writes in an article for The Architectural
Review in 1955 “The New
Brutalism,”
there are three three qualities of Brutalist objects: Memorability
as an Image, Clear exhibition of structure, Valuation of materials
for their inherent qualities ‘as found.’
Without
going into details, whereas two first qualities are aiming to define
a modern aesthetic clearly, the third is also a way of creating a
down-to-earth architecture of simple and functional raw material. In
my thinking the principle of 'as found', thus supposed to speak to
the audience with more clarity and be more approachable, however in
practice, these principles can cause another effect. Concrete and
geometrical forms appear as antagonistic and cold.
Therefore,
my research is a part of a larger issue of translating brutalist and
modernist architecture in the way it was intended to be translated.
Conveying its universal, ahistorical and human-needs-centric idea,
where the buildings would provide a spacial interactive platform for
society, not an oppressive spacial force.
The Brunel University Lecture Center prominently featured in Stanley Kubrick’s movie A Clockwork Orange. Built in the 1960s, designed by Richard Sheppard, Robson & Partners.
This
kind of stream of consciousness discussion, if advanced, helps me see
the approach for evidence collection I should undertake. If
going into specifics of my own research, I can see several paths and
hence several data collection scenarios. The first was suggested
during my thesis planning meeting, which revolves around a simple
question “Why do people like or dislike Soviet Modernist
architecture in Kazakhstan?”.
• Interviews
•
Questionnaires and
Surveys
•
Observations
• Focus
Groups
•
Ethnographies and
Case Studies
• Documents
and Records
… These
are some of the methods I will consider as I proceed. Hopefully, this approaches can start a dialog to understand and engage with a topic of how the society views and interacts with our urban landscapes and modernist buildings in particular.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Banham, Reyner. "The New Brutalism." October (2011): 19-28.
Molnár, Virág. "Cultural politics and modernist architecture: the tulip debate in postwar Hungary." American Sociological Review 70, no. 1 (2005): 111-135.
Reid, Susan E. "Communist comfort: socialist modernism and the making of cosy homes in the Khrushchev era." Gender & History 21, no. 3 (2009): 465-498.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Don't forget to sign your comments!