Modern architecture and beyond – defined

What is and is not modern tends to be formidably subjective. One’s classification of modern depends on varying criteria such as time frame, function, form, and behavior. Therefore, what does “modernity in the built environment of Santiago” mean…exactly? To start, Wikipedia describes modern architecture as:

…first appearing in the beginning of the 20^th century, that rejected historic precedent as a source of architectural inspiration and considered function as the prime generator of form, employing materials and technology directly, rather than softening with ornament or façade.

* * *

Some historians see the evolution of modern architecture as closely tied to the Project of Modernity and hence to the Enlightenment, the social and political revolutions, general progress of mankind, and so on. Here the origin is placed much earlier…

* * *

Others see technological and engineering developments as key to the rise of Modern architecture. Hence the usage of new materials such as iron, steel, concrete and glass is ascribed as important place…

* * *

Some historians see the rise of Modern architecture as a reaction to the Eclectism and what they see as the poor taste of the Victorian Era fuelled by the possibilities of the Industrial Revolution.

The most influential school for modern architecture was The Bauhaus architectural school in Germany, founded in 1919. (Wik) It was not until the rise of the Nazi’s that leaders of Bauhaus and the idea of modern architecture itself moved to the United States. (Wik) At this point modern architecture can be seen as sprouting in two directions, international style architecture and postmodern architecture.

International style architecture prospered around the 1920’s and 1930’s and is considered a “primarily American offshoot of Bauhaus architecture” and also the “most minimal form of modernism.” (Wik) More specifically, international style can be characterized as the design of simple, unornamented buildings usually constructed in glass for the facade, steel for exterior support, and concrete for the floors and interior supports. (Wik) A classic example is the Seagram building, a skyscraper, in New York City. It was built in 1958 as a 38-story “icon of corporate International Modernism.”

Finally, it was around the 1960’s that criticisms of modern architecture bloomed on the basis that it was “universal, sterile, elitist, and lacked meaning.” (Wik) Postmodernity is seen as a response to the formalism of the international style of modernism and manifests itself by “replacing unapologetically diverse aesthetics; styles collide, form is adopted for its own sake, and new ways of viewing familiar styles and space abound.” (Wik) A classic example of postmodern architecture can be seen in the Sony Building where it has modernist architecture characteristics (i.e. skyscraper with steel beam and many windows) as well as postmodern characteristics such as its “Chippendale style” and neo-eclecticism.

In conclusion, modernist architects see postmodernism as “vulgar and loaded with ‘gee-gaws’” whereas post modernist architects see modern architecture as “soulless and bland.” (Wik) Modernism is rooted more in the amount of material and cost of a structure whereas post-modernism “seeks exuberance in the use of building techniques, angles, references.” (Wik)

So what does all this have to do with Santiago?

In the heart of Santiago, namely in Providencia and Las Condes, one finds modern architecture, international style architecture and postmodern architecture. For purposes of this project, I will not focus on the postmodern aspect of Santiago as much as the divergence and convergence of modern and international style architecture. It seems to me that international style architecture, or what I like to call pre-postmodern (in the theological sense), represents all the ideals of postmodernism while still marching under the banner of modern architecture. That is to say that international style architecture’s function represents more than employing materials and technology directly. In a subtle way, international style architecture actually represents the ideals of postmodernism, namely by having unapologetically diverse aesthetics (subtly), space abound, and form being adopted for its own sake. However, the difference between international style architecture and postmodern architecture is that it keeps to the modern ideals just enough to declare that its main objective is still minimalism, when in fact its not. Specific to Santiago, this confusion of modern and postmodern can be seen in Edificio Huidobro and Torre Telefónica. Both are self-declared buildings of modern architecture, when in reality they are more like budding postmodern works. In Edificio Huidobro, instead of having the usual glass facade it has vertical and horizontal banding on one side that emphasizes its height and cartoonizes its face. In addition, it has brilliant fountains at both the front and back entrances. Needless to say, Edificio Huidobro cannot be described as portraying minimalist virtues, it’s more than just a box. Similarly, Torre Telefónica has all the aspects of a modern building, except that it is in the shape of a cell phone, need I say more. Another example is the Costanera del Norte highway in Santiago that was just finished in April of 2005. The highway’s form seems to serve the basic function of transport until one continues into the underground section. From inside the tunnel you can see the tall buildings above through the half-open top. Stanford student Aaron Ligon describes this “semi-covered tunnel” as a “power cord filled with the energy of commerce and information running through Santiago that is plugged into the outside world at the airport.”

Whether one refers to this hybrid architectural style as international, pre-postmodern or simply just part of Santiago’s gray area, one finds many buildings that fall into this category.

Why?

Behind every form there is a function, an intent, a reason. The genius of international style architecture is that it keeps the seriousness of modernism while still being able to play with the beauty of postmodernism. By the 1960’s everyone was “bored with the box.” International style alleviates this boredom but also remains true to its ideals of corporatism, capitalism, wealth, power and success.

(by Jenilee Deal)