Modernism: An Interesting Stylistic “Dabble“, or the Generic Distillation of All Architecture?

How odd it must have seemed, at the turn of the last century, when one could begin to see the fascinating decoration and design which followed. The sinuous and sensual flowering of the late 19th Century Art Noveau style was strikingly unusual in its context of boxy furniture designs and architecture dotted and decorated with machine made rosettes and inexpensively mass-produced bric-a-brac. While the Industrial Revolution produced many great things and processes which we take for granted, it is possibly most notable for the counter-revolution it spawned. Indeed, many would-be designers of the 21st Century are still hoeing the counter-revolutionary row.

The somewhat reactionary Arts and Crafts movement of the late 19th Century, heralded as the triumph of “hand-made” over the machine, unwittingly, opened Pandora’s box. The century which followed had no lasting official style nor architectural design idiom. Suddenly, the intellectual rigors of Edwardian times were discarded in favor of style-of-the-day proclamations. The impact, at roughly the same time, of the burgeoning mass media and the seeding of what would eventually be called “the Age of Information” further skewered the decorative arts and architecture.

All of this culminated in a hundred years in which no particular style reigned, and no particular aesthetic virtue remained. The eventual result of the Arts and Crafts movement is the parody of design that is HGTV’s home-makeover-in-a-weekend-for-five-hundred-dollars. Does the HGTV acronym stand for homogenized TV or homogenized design? Everybody has a “hand-made” opinion; indeed everyone is a designer, and each believes in their right to comment, and even to influence design, regardless of their aesthetic training. In this context, there is little particular value for rigorous design training, aesthetic education, nor patronage of the arts; particularly architecture.

During the same hundred years, however, there has been a consistent development of increasing pragmatism (as in economy of means) in the design and construction of buildings. This development has, at its core, the economic impacts of our evolving times. Our decreasing supplies of affordable fossil fuels and increasing costs of energy development have impacted design in ways which would cause Mies to twitch in his grave. God is no-longer in the details; but lives in the economic equation which factors form, function, aesthetic parameters, health and safety, liability, present day and unknowable future maintenance costs, durability, technological parity, and -most recently- energy and material sustainability. This equation says little or nothing of space-making or place-making, and only peripherally deals with the creation of architecture.

Rem Koolhaas has shed some light upon this evolution of architecture and decorative arts in the form of sarcastic commentary in his essay known as “Generic City.” For while the organized chaos that is modern culture has been working its magic, a generic distillation of the forms and functions of our buildings and urban environments has been at work. While his commentary is not specific to any particular work of architecture or design, it is clear that he has opinions.

In general, Koolhaas comments on the lack of architectural power or prowess available to deal with the statistical and economic realities of the modern urban environment. His sarcasm and inventive inquiries are best understood as coercive jabs pushing at the limits of collective knowledge about architecture and design. He is, in his own way, asking his reader to venture out of the armchair to see what he sees. One cannot help but think that this might be an interesting journey.

And one can see, in our own environment in San Diego, certain parallels to his commentary. The inevitable sprawl that a city center, located on the edge of the continent induces is part of this equation. The population of the area of roughly one half of the circle of sprawl that surrounds most cities is forced onto the half of the circle around downtown San Diego that is not under water. This situation is further exacerbated by the ridge of mountains not twenty miles from the Pacific Ocean making our local sprawl into a long stretch along the sea.

This evolution of San Diego has produced the challenges of infrastructure and culture on which Koolhaas comments; most notably a distortion of identity, and a longing for a history long ago razed. In its place, a few mediocre buildings are meticulously preserved and celebrated as the “Gaslamp District.” Not altogether unlike Koolhaas’ analysis, this is the place in San Diego where the boundaries of cultural conservativism and sexual experimentation are often crossed. Indeed, the very area now celebrated as the “historic Gaslamp district” was at one time riddled with flop-houses, drug dens, and prostitution.

Koolhaas goes on to discuss the rewinding of the scene; metaphorically emptying the city of its contents. This consideration of another urban exodus is far from likely. Statistically speaking, the urban regions of the globe show consistent growth trends and evolution. It is far more likely that an architecture that deals with this trend is in development. By whose hands it is designed remains to be seen. The pragmatic developers work toward some ideal formula based upon the aforementioned equation. Their approach leads to a generic standard while the romantic starchitects develop esoteric and uniquely personal, sculptural plans.

There is one consideration that may bring it all together: Is it possible that the generalizing of architecture and design to which Koolhaas alludes is simply a continuing refinement of the Modern architecture envisioned by Le Corbusier? Is it possible that a Modern architecture of simplicity, parsimony and elegance is the refinement and the eventual zenith of all architecture?

Today, we have a modern architecture that is something much broader than Le Corbusier’s invention. Indeed, Le Corbusier’s Modern, will look as foreign in a few years as it did upon its invention (nearly a hundred years ago) as the new sustainable architecture of the 21st Century unfolds. As Jurgen Habermas comments in his essay “Modernity -An Incomplete Project,” the word “modern” comes from the Latin word “modernus;” first used in the 5th Century to distinguish the, then, present from ancient Rome. In this context, the word Modern can be applied to all the architecture and design since the word’s invention in the 5th Century. This could mean that all the architecture since the 5th Century is Modern; and Le Corbusier’s 20th century invention of Modern architecture (later named the International Style) is really just a variation on a theme.

In this case, perhaps Koolhaas’ use of the term “generic” is in fact a variation of semantics representative of a continuing, distilling, evolution of the Modern. I, for one, look forward to uncovering further the generic distillation within Modern architecture. While Vitruvius may have summed up his view of architecture with the oft repeated triumvirate, Firmness / Commodity / and Delight, I would add that Simplicity, Parsimony, and Elegance need to be considered in this lexicon. For me, the counter-revolution begun with the “hand-made” ethos of the Arts and Crafts continues with the ongoing distillation of the generic essence of the Modern; most pointedly not homogenized.