|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Arboleda
Joined: 09 Nov 2004
Posts: 2
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:09 am Post subject: 40th Anniversary of "Architecture Without Architects.&q |
    |
|
Today, the 9th of November 2004 marks 40 years since the opening of Bernard Rudofsky's MOMA exhibition "Architecture Without Architects." While clearly influential, that exhibition and the accompanying book would have had a different impact on architectural theory if attached, in the very first line of the book, had not appeared the significant statement "vernacular architecture... is nearly immutable."
Evidence exists that by 1964, in the Upper Amazon, the vernacular building expressions of the Sieco_pai (Secoya) indigenous people had changed already eight times throughout their history, and they would continue to change at least fifteen more during the forty years following the MOMA exhibition.
"Architecture Without Architects" was a groundbreaking event in that it promoted the discussion about local building in the context of international architecture, and we have to give Rudofsky credit for that. However, by centering attention on the aesthetic value of those apparently simple and innocent huts, rather than on the complex socio-environmental phenomena that shape this building, the exhibition unintentionally reaffirmed a secular stereotype, and officially coined the architectural version of the myth of the noble savage.
Although Rudofsky's patronizing view has been challenged since the exhibition, forty years later this architectural preconception is still strong in the mind of many. This anniversary could be a good opportunity to complete the task of contesting it. Vernacular architecture changes, and it changes because economy, environment and society change. It also changes because it is normal in human nature to change. Rather than ignoring this fact and focusing only on the sexiest stage of a historical development, we must look at change because in the understanding of what triggers it, we learn about the complex problems that affect the world today, and that also concern, or at least should concern, architecture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| "This anniversary could be a good opportunity to complete the task of contesting it." Do we have to contest it? Maybe this will be the catalyst for me to finnaly read the book. The book seems dead on to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1117
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Truly. If you want to build on the eye-opening images of "Architecture Without Architects", more power to you.
But this is not a case where it is necessary, or really helpful, to attack a great and ground-breaking previous work in order to build on top of it.
Skip the attacks, and just make your own points, if they are worthwhile!
It was a MOMA exhibition, after all!
The new edition has a tacky cover, but the contents are great (timeless), and it is available:
Bernard Rudofsky. Architecture without Architects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arboleda
Joined: 09 Nov 2004
Posts: 2
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for your comments.
My point: The book and exhibition stated that "vernacular architecture... is nearly immutable." No matters it was MOMA, no matters it was Rudofsky. That is not completely true.
Rudofsky has already been contested -I prefer to use that term over "attacked"- by, for example, Paul Oliver, the much-celebrated editor of the Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
