It is stated in this study that
“experimentation” was a tool for the projects
and works in architecture of 1960s
and early 1970s that achieved the “expansion of the vocabulary of
architecture” in the sense of architectural programming, which was left
obscure under the approach that
considered the period mostly as the intense use
of technology and experiment on it. Therefore, as opposed to the inadequate
definition of “Experimental Architecture” of 1960s, and “Radical Architecture”
of early 1970s, “experimentation” in architecture is put forward in this study
as pushing the boundaries “radically” by integrating sources out of
architecture rather than suggesting the technological tools revising the
architectural definitions within the “same” contexts. These sources are the
tools offered by the emerging technology such as the “open-ended”,
“intelligent”, and “flexible” structures, the possibility of “special
transparent polymer of limitless stability”, “a system of electrodes inserted
into various points of the cerebral masses” or the “free-air type thermostatic
devices”. Inevitably, the consideration
of the integration of a “free-air type thermostatic devices” within
architectural space challenged and changed its programmatic configuration.
Since these devices brought the possibility of temporary activities and their
motion, rather than fixed activities within a space, along with their actual
body, the flexibility of the program was aimed to be achieved with such
experiments in emerging technology. This was not only related with the emerging
technology but also related with the change in architectural thinking that
considered such technology as a tool to change the conventions about Modern
Architecture. For instance, the
implication of this criticism in Archigram can be read from the use of two
terms that point out the contradiction inherent in programming: “control and
choice”. What they suggested for this dilemma was the experimentation of “metamorphosis”,
which they explained as “change of mood: change of need: change of personality:
change of place”. They described choice as the “freedom; of personality,
enclosure, involvement, facility, movement”. Thus, the programmatic situations
of the “metamorphosis” can be pointed out as the capsules in motion, attached
pylons, independent enclosures, cabins, and information drums. The term “experimentation” was used in the
title of an international forum on “Theory and Experimentation in Architecture”, held at The Royal Academy of
Arts in London in 1992, in which the architects whose works were labelled as
“experimentalist” were invited. By establishing a relation between theory and
architecture under the issue of “experimentation”, this forum differentiated
the use of “experiment” from its other uses in architecture by implying a
critical position. The use of the term
“experimentation” in this study also aims to highlight a criticism. This
criticism was led by the experimental attempts in late 1960s and 1970s that
discusses the boundaries of architecture in relation to interdisciplinarity and
technology. Thus, such an examination is considered to understand how
“experimentation” in architecture is pursued. In order to achieve this aim, it
is possible to make a claim that “experimentation” in architecture is a shift
to another level of experimenting after the shift entitled as
"Post-Positivism" in philosophy and natural sciences discussed in the
first part of this chapter, which also influenced architecture, thus it
revealed a shift in architectural “program”.
This shift emerges as the significant changes in the consideration of
space related to the “experimentation”, such as the shift from the distribution
ofspaces in a dwelling unit as living room, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom in the
very basic sense; to the sleeping capsules, disposable plug-in eating units,
sleeping bags, and balloon units inserted into any existing building in a city.
Consequently, not only the distribution of spaces is challenged but also the
way of living is questioned and conventional architectural thinking depending
on these social conditions was also re-evaluated. Although criticizing the
programmatical aspect of the
experimentation in 1960s, the following assessment by Peggy Deamer strengthens
the suggestion of this experimentation as more than technological insertions by
perceiving the architecture of 1960s not only as futuristic urban machines but
also as comments and critiques on everyday life programs:
The work of “visionary” architects in Europe
during the 1960s – for example, Archigram in England; Hans Hollein, Coop
Himmelblau, Raimund Abraham and Friedrich St. Florian in Austria; Superstudio
and Archizoom in Italy – is generally
known for its futuristic and often monumental urban machines. But in
actuality, this work was fundamentally lodged in a utopian image of the body,
one animated by visions of the future yet bound by the concerns of the
everyday. The particular formulation of this body – as technologically advanced
but programmatically primitive – defined a “new man” who was ideologically
committed to seeing the self as the safeguard of the values of ordinary life
and the defence against the co-opting of the everyday. This formulation
suggested that the life of this new man could never be aestheticized nor
abstracted and could never be technologically sanitized.
Deamer,
Peggy. “The Everyday and The Utopian.” In Architecture of the Everyday, edited by Steven Harris and Deborah Berke,
Princeton Publications, New York, 1997, p. 195.
Architecture
that questions concepts and limitations and is committed to experimentation
with form, materials, technology, constructional methodology, and even social
structure. It was the title of a book by Peter Cook (1971), who identified certain
architects, including Friedman, Goff, Otto, Price, the Smithsons, Soleri, and
Tange, and groups, such as Archigram, Haus-Rucker Co., and the Metabolists, as
involved in Experimental architecture.
Robert Smithson: Spiral Jetty, 1970
Ant Farm: House of the Century, 1971–73
*A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY BAHAR BEŞLİOĞLU, JUNE 2008
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder