Different Understandings of New Architecture

In “On Simplicity”, Gregotti discusses his understanding of simplicity in the modern architecture. Simplicity should neither be viewed as simplification nor be put in opposition to the invention. Simplicity is not a reduction in order to reach certain solid points. On the contrary, simplicity means to make contradiction and complexity clear and comprehensible. As the author says, “Architecture is not simple; it can only become simple.” Architecture itself is a complicated issue and requires the considerations of various factors. But it could be simpler after the comprehensive analysis and research. In order to achieve simplicity in architecture, all limits and doubts must be stated clearly. Then try to get the best balance of points, vital organization, and mysterious transparency by identifying and removing the superfluous parts according to specific situations and solutions. The state of simplicity is a state when nothing can be added or taken away, which meets all necessary requirements under certain situations and finds its place near the origin of architecture itself.

In “Where do We Stand”, Breuer explains his understanding of the ideology of the New Architecture. Complexity, a striving after clarity and contract are three dominant impulses of the Modern Movement. Architecture is many-sided complex. Principles of one school or style could help lead to relative perfection of another school or style. The characteristics of a school or type remain during the transmission. What people find new in architecture is due to the different interpretations and adoptions of these characteristics. Old peasant farmsteads could be more stimulating than many modern houses. But the newness people find in the modern architecture is simply a suitable and right tool for specific conditions. People should not create this newness for the sake of fashion. Novelty or fashion is not the purpose of modern architecture. What New Architecture needs is what suits the most, whether old or new. The so-called originality in the modern architecture should refer to the complete solution of a problem. The New Architecture requires a kind of directness, which refers to an ability to place oneself in immediate objective contact with a given task, problem, or form in a clear, transparent way. Also, in order to achieve a definite design for all different elements, one has to create aesthetic satisfaction by contrast and use of elemental forms.

In the excerpt from Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, Robert Venturi expresses his fondness of complexity and contradiction in architecture. He points out that modern architects tend to break with tradition in order to create newness, which shows their failures to understand the complexity of architecture. They view the architecture for their own selections to solve certain problems. For example, Philip Johnson attempted to go beyond the simplicities of the elegant pavilion in the Wiley House, but the building becomes a diagram of an oversimplified program for living. Forced simplicity results in oversimplification. Aesthetic simplicity comes from inner complexity. In order to achieve the simplicity, it is essential to understand the complexity and contradiction. Meanwhile, an architecture of complexity and contradiction does not mean picturesqueness or subjective expressionism. In order to understand the complexity of architecture today, the medium of architecture must be re-examined, and the growing complexities of our functional problems must be acknowledged.