"From Bauhaus to our House"
is the very interesting book, I spent 3-4 days to finish this reading,
may be it's because the language that I am not get uses to it yet,
although it still attempted me to try to finish this reading.
According from the book, Mr.Wolfe mainly talked about "Architecture Movement", He wants to argue about the ideology that has gotten in the way of common sense. In the time of WW2, it was the origins of the international style in Europe, Mr.Wolfe attempts to trace the development of that style. It's like the origin of modern architecture also. After I read, I thought about the word "composite" that is how the International Style became -like a small private group of people which is compose of ideologist with a great mission. But this idea of "composite" came to me because Mr.Wolfe has a pessimistic oppinion to the modernism. He thought it was to foist modern design upon an unwilling world,in his view, though the ''composite'' may not be try to force us all to live in stark boxes as it once did, it is all the same devoted to the making of an inaccessible architecture.
In my point of view, it's interesting in the way of his writing, the comparison from his oppinion for example the comparison between the nature and the perspectives of the great European architects and thinkers to the American is very interesting. Though I agree with Mr. Wolfe's irritation at the extent to which many contemporary architects seem to make words their priority. But there is still a basically nonideological pierce to the best of the modernist work around today, an understanding of the values of the graphic, a sense of what makes a well-composed building. While I am not the much agree with his idea about the mass production, it was happen due to the amount of people that is increasing with no limits, Mass production has been created to serve the demand and supply of people to be balance. It haven't destroy anything, may be it's just decrease the need of original hand made, but the world still change to serve the needs and wants of human.
However i am not argue in his book but I dont think it's all true. He would be a good listener but may be he is not a good watcher. It's like understand all the theory and he judged the work by thier theory, which means he understands it only as a prototype for a universal architectural style, and not as a unique and even profound work of art; he has listened to the words, not looked at the architecture.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น