This weeks reading about concrete concentrates on concrete as a material that does not fit with a specific architectural style and explores historically why that trend developed. The reading begins by introducing this idea that there exists a law of materials, where each material by virtue of its unique qualities and structural characteristics creates an individual architectural style associated with it. But, concrete is the anomaly or exception to this law of materials, having no single or even easily identifiable architectural style categorization associated with it. The reading then suggests that concrete's problem isn't that it has no aesthetic, instead it has too many aesthetics associated with it. The historical development of these various aesthetics are discussed, including a background on the individual architects responsible for creating the styles and their arguments/reasoning for their respective styles. The architects' various reasons are provided for their preferred concrete design aesthetic and arguments are provided as to which style is the 'correct' use of the concrete forms. The author discusses trabeated structures, cantilevered slabs, parabolic arches, shell structures, and chicken-dome structures as the various styles that were at one time in concrete's hitory prefered by a given architect. The reasons offered for each concrete design aesthetic varied greatly and included that: shell structures utilized the isotropic features of concrete, and so therefor was a strong aesthetic genre for the material (no I did not know what that work meant before that reading, but now that I do I am going to add it to my vocabulary).
After reviewing the history of concrete, or as the reading points out, the lack thereof, the author suggest that concrete is now used in such a way as to focus on its mass and density. It also clearly states that concrete's history is very disconnected, where each development in the use of the material has no link to the next. It is a material that is unique in its treatment by architects, where it is always considered and treated as a new material without a history even though it has been around for a century and a half.
While the material does have a history, one that the reading explains, I think the author's point here is that each aesthetic created through the use of the material really does not have a history, or at least not a developed one that can be traced from one architect to the next. The author then offers that concrete as a material has always had a bad image, as a sort of marginalized aesthetic, if not a down right ugly connotation associated with it. As evidence of this ideology towards the material, the author includes a section where he inserts the great Frank Lloyd Wright's attitude toward concrete, as a sort of 'mongrel' material. Frank Lloyd Wright's opinion is then quickly followed by a few paragraphs discussing again the influence of the ugly association of the material on the historical development of the material; the composition of the material was changed in an effort to make concrete appear more like stone, an effort that led to artificial stone manufacturers.
The reading then concludes with a sort of resolution where the writer suggests that the more successful concrete design aesthetics are those that recognizes the ambiguous nature of the material. Not those works that focus on one feature of concrete while ignoring the other intrinsic features of the material.
No comments:
Post a Comment