COMPLEXITY AND CONTRADICTION

IN ARCHITECTURE
ROBERT VENTURI

KIRUTHIKA M – 123011201099 – YAR201 – BOOK REVIEW

INTRODUCTION
oThis article begins by the nature of the between the interior and
design of a building , between these two was but was replaced by
the idea of and flow the inside and outside in the 20th century. As
the article , the these trends was marked by and on the purpose
of the exterior and interior of a building.
oAn old school of was that the interior of a building worked to
enclose space and so should be by the . Of course, this notion
ignored the importance of and context the building, which was of
equal . After all, if is the orientation and organization of space
then the too is a space within which the sits.
oThe article also the contrast the interior and exterior designs of a
building by way of examples. Some designs show contrast in the
top and bottom of the building rather than interior and other
examples show design ways in which the interior and exterior can
be made.
oSome exterior designs like large domes, outer linings, and pillars
are signs of or power, and a few were of interior spaces. found it
when the author said that interior spaces does not go against the
idea of continuity by modern really does all point to purpose and .
oOne point the author was that from both the inside and the
outside means that the wall becomes the point of change and
contact the two works and it is at this intersection or meeting
where takes place.
oAt the same time, requires a of our vision, that it not be too
specific or too general and this requires all at play - the context,
location, and purpose of the building overall and each . It is
without a doubt that each plays an equally role because while the
interior must a particular or mood and , the must withstand and
open out to the of the city and into the ambience of the building.
TEN POINTS OF COMPLEXITY
AND CONTRADICTION
• Non straightforward Architecture: A Gentle Manifesto
• Complexity and Contradiction vs. Simplification or
Picturesqueness
• Ambiguity
• Contradictory Levels: The Phenomenon of "Both-And" in
Architecture
• Contradictory Levels Continued: The Double-Functioning Element
• Accommodation and the Limitations of Order: The Conventional
Element
• Contradiction Adapted
• Contradiction Juxtaposed
• The Inside and the Outside
• The obligation Toward the Difficult Whole
NONSTRAIGHT FORWARD
ARCHITECTURE: A GENTLE MANIFESTO
•I like complexity and contradiction in architecture. I like elements
which are hybrid rather than "pure", compromising rather than
"clean",
• distorted rather than "straightforward", ambiguous rather than
"articulated", perverse as well as impersonal, boring as well as
"interesting", conventional rather than "designed",
accommodating rather than excluding, redundant rather than
simple, vestigial as well as innovating, inconsistent and equivocal
rather than direct and clear. I am for messy vitality over obvious
unity, richness of meaning rather than clarity of meaning; for the
implicit function as well as the explicit function. More is not less.
COMPLEXITY AND CONTRADICTION Vs
SIMPLIFICATION OR PICTURESQUENCES
• In orthodox Modern architects' attempt to break with tradition
and start all over again, they idealized the primitive and at the
expense of the diverse and the . In their role as , they puritanically
the and exclusion of elements, rather than the of various and their
. Modern architects with few exception eschewed ambiguity.
• August Heckscher.” amid simplicity and order is born, but proves
inadequate in any period of upheaval. Then equilibrium must be
created out of opposite . Such inner peace as men gain must a
tension among contradictions and uncertainties.
• "Paul Rudolph“ All problems can never be solved, indeed it is a
characteristics of the twentieth century that architects are highly
in determining which they want to solve. Mies, for instance,
makes wonderful buildings only because he ignores many aspects
of a building. If he solved more problems, his buildings would be
far less potent“.
• Forced results in oversimplification. Aesthetic simplicity which is
a satisfaction to the mind derives, when valid and profound, from
inner complexity , when complexity disappears, blandness
replaces simplicity.
AMBIGUITY
Ambiguity and are easily found in complex and contradictory . is
form and substance abstract and concrete and its derives from its
interior and its particular context.
• An architectural is perceived as form and , texture and materials .
These oscillating relationships, complex and contradictory , are
the source of the ambiguity and tension to the medium of
architecture.
• The conjunction "or" with a question mark can usually describe
ambiguous .
• The calculated ambiguity of expression is based on the confusion
of experience as reflected in the architectural program. This
promotes richness of meaning over clarity of meaning. As
Empson admits, there is good and bad ambiguity".
CONTRADICTORY LEVELS: THE PHENOMENON OF
"BOTH-AND" IN ARCHITECTURE
Contradictory levels of meaning and use in architecture involve the
paradoxical contrast implied by the conjunctive "yet". The tradition
of "either-or" has characterized orthodox modern architecture: a
sun screen is probably nothing else; a support is seldom an
enclosure. Such manifestations of articulation and clarity are
foreign to an architecture of complexity and contradiction, which
tends to include "both-and" rather than "either-or".
The source of the both-and phenomenon is contradiction, and its
basis is hierarchy, which yields several levels of meanings among
elements with varying values. An architecture which includes
varying levels of meaning breeds ambiguity and tension. Kahn,
"Architecture must have bad spaces as well as good spaces."
The basilica, which has mono-directional space, and the central-
type church, which has omnidirectional space, represent
alternating traditions in Western church plans. Yet the Mannerist
elliptical plan of the sixteenth century is both central and
directional.
The double meanings inherent in the phenomenon both-and can
involve metamorphosis as well as contradiction. In equivocal
relationships one contradictory meaning usually dominates
another, but in complex compositions the relationship is not
always constant. If you move through or around a building, at one
moment one meaning can be perceived as dominant, at another
moment a different meaning seems paramount.
CONTRADICTORY LEVELS CONTINUED: THE DOUBLE-
FUNCTIONING ELEMENT
The "double-functioning" element and "both-and" are related, but
there is a distinction: the double-functioning element pertains
more to the particulars of use and structure, while both and refers
more to the relation of the part to the whole. Both and emphasizes
double meanings over double-functions.
ACCOMMODATION AND THE LIMITATIONS OF
ORDER: THE CONVENTIONAL ELEMENT
A valid order accommodates the circumstantial contradictions as
well as imposes them of a complex reality. It then admits improvise
within the whole, and tolerates qualifications and compromise.
Now I shall emphasize the complexity and contradiction that
develops from the program and reflects the inherent complexities
and contradictions of living. Contradictions representing the
exceptional inconsistency that modifies the otherwise consistent
order, or representing inconsistencies throughout the order as a
whole, is a relationship called "contradiction accommodated".
Kahn said, "by order I do not mean orderliness."
The recognition of variety and confusion inside and outside, in
program and environment, indeed, at all levels of experience, and
the ultimate limitation of all orders composed by man, are the two
justifications for breaking order. When circumstances defy order,
order should bend or break: "anomalies and uncertainties give
validity to architecture." "The exception points up the rule.
Contrast supports meaning." Order must exist before it can be
broken.
A propensity to break the order can justify exaggerating it. In
engineering it is the bridge that vividly expresses the play of
exaggeratedly pure order against circumstantial in consistencies. A
play of order and compromise also supports the idea of renovation
in building, and of evolution city planning. Indeed, change in the
program of existing buildings is a valid phenomenon and a major
source of the contradiction I am endorsing. An architect should use
convention unconventionally, since the convention in architecture
can be another manifestation of an exaggeratedly strong order
more general in scope.
The main justification for honky-tonk elements in architectural
order is their very existence. They are what we have. Are we today
proclaiming advanced technology, while excluding the immediate,
vital if vulgar elements which are common to our architecture and
landscape.
The architect should accept the methods and the elements he
already has. The architect's experimentation is limited more to his
organization of the whole than to technique in the parts. "The
architects selects as much as creates." Gestalt psychology
maintains that context contributes meaning to a part and change
in context causes change in meaning. Modern architects have
seldom used the common element with a unique context in an
uncommon way. It was Le Corbusier who juxtaposed objects troves
and commonplace element.
An historical example will perhaps help to illustrate this relation of
order an exception. The applique of arches and pilasters on the
Palazzo Tarugi (60) maintains itself against the sudden impositions
of "whimsical" windows and asymmetrical voids. The exaggerated
order, and therefore exaggerated unity, along with certain
characteristics of scale, are what make the monumentality in the
Italian palazzo.
In engineering it is the bridge (61) that vividly expresses the play of
exaggeratedly pure order against circumstantial inconsistencies.
The direct, geometric order of the upper structure, derived from
the sole, simple function of conveying vehicles on an even span,
strongly contrasts with the exceptional accommodation of the
structural order below, which through distortion-the expedient
device of elongated or shortened piers- accommodates the bridge
to the uneven terrain of the ravine.
CONTRADICTION ADAPTED
Contradiction can be adapted by accommodating and
compromising elements, or it can also be adapted by using
contrasting superimposed or adjacent elements. Contradiction
adapted is tolerant and pliable, while contradiction juxtaposed is
unbending. Kahn, "It is the role of design to adjust to the
circumstantial."
Besides circumstantial distortion, there are other techniques of
adaptation. The expedient device is an element in all anonymous
architecture that is dependent on strong conventional order, used
to adjust the order to circumstances which are contradictory to it.
Is there not a similar validity to the vitality of Times Square in
which the jarring inconsistencies of buildings and billboards are
contained within the consistent order of the space itself? One thing
is clear--cities, like architecture, are complex and contradictory.
The Facades of two eighteenth century Neapolitan villas express
two kinds, or two manifestations, of contradiction. In the Villa
Pignatelli the mouldings, which dip, become string courses and
window heads at once. In the Villa Palomba the windows, which
disregard the bay system and puncture the exterior panels, are by
interior needs. The mouldings in the first villa adapt easily to their
contradictory functions. The windows of the second villa clash
violently with the panel configurations and pilaster rhythm: the
inside order and the outside order are in an uncompromisingly
contradictory relation.
In the first facade contradiction is adapted by accommodating and
compromising its elements in the second facade contradiction is
juxtaposed by using contrasting superimposed or adjacent
elements. Contradiction adapted is tolerant and pliable. It admits
improvisation. It involves the disintegration of a prototype and it
ends in approximation and qualification. On the other hand,
contradiction juxtaposed is unbending. It contains violent contrasts
and uncompromising oppositions. Contradiction adapted ends in a
whole which is perhaps impure. Contradiction juxtaposed ends in a
whole which is perhaps unresolved.
CONTRADICTION JUXTAPOSED
If "contradiction adapted" corresponds to the kid glove treatment,
"contradiction juxtaposed" involves the shock treatment.
Juxtaposed directions create rhythmic complexities and
contradictions. Super adjacency is inclusive rather than exclusive,
relating contrasting and otherwise irreconcilable elements,
containing opposites within a whole.
It can accommodate the valid non sequitur, and allow a multiplicity
of levels of meaning, since it involves changing contexts--seeing
familiar things in an unfamiliar way and unexpected points of view.
It is in contrast to the perpendicular interpenetration of space and
form characteristic of the work of Wright. Super adjacency can
exist between distant elements.
Superimpositions change as one moves in space. Super adjacency
can also occur where the superimposed elements actually touch
instead of being related only visually. A vivid tension evolves from
all these juxtaposed contradictions. Some city planners, however,
are now more prone to question the glibness of orthodox zoning
and to allow violent proximities in their planning, at least in theory,
than are architects within their buildings.
Le Corbusier supplies a rare modern example of juxtapose
contradictions in the Millowners' Building in Ahmedabad (90).
From the important approach from the south, the repetitive
pattern of the brise-soleil invokes rhythms which are violently
broken by the entrance void, the ramp, and the stairs. These latter
elements, consisting of varying diagonals, create violent
adjacencies from the side and violent super adjacencies from the
front, in relation to the rectangular static floor divisions within the
boxlike form.
The juxtapositions of diagonals and perpendiculars also create
contradictory directions: the meeting of the ramp and stairs is only
slightly softened by the exceptionally large void and by the
modified rhythm of the elements at that part of the facade.
But these contradictions in the visual experience are even richer
when you move closer and penetrate the building. The adjacencies
and super adjacencies of contrasting scales, directions, and
functions can make it seem like a miniature example of Kahn's
viaduct architecture
THE INSIDE AND THE OUTSIDE
"The specific form of a plant or animal is determined not only by
the genes in the organism and the cytoplasmic activities that these
direct but by the interaction between genetic constitution and
environment. A given gene does not control a specific trait, but a
specific reaction to a specific environment." One of the powerful
twentieth century orthodoxies has been the necessity for
continuity between the outside and the inside. The essential
purpose of the interiors of buildings is to enclose rather than direct
space. The essential purpose of the interior of buildings its to
enclose rather than direct space, and to separate the inside from
the outside. The inside is different from the outside.
Sometimes the contradiction is not between the inside and the
outside but between the top and the bottom of the building
(curving dome vs. rectangular bases). Crowded intricacy within a
rigid frame has been a pervasive idea. Containment and intricacy
have been characteristic of the city as well. Contradiction between
the inside and the outside may manifest itself in an unattached
lining which produces an additional space between the lining and
the exterior wall. Detached lining leave spaces in between, but the
architectural recognition of the in-between varies.
Residual space in between dominant spaces with varying degrees
of openness can occur at the scale of the city and is a characteristic
of the fora and other complexes of late Roman urban planning.
Residual space that is open might be called "open poche". The
poche in the walls of Roman and Baroque architecture are
alternative means of accommodating an inside different from the
outside." This implies a break away from the contemporary
concept of spatial continuity and the tendency to erase every
articulation between spaces, i.e., between outside and inside,
between one space and another. Instead the transition must be
articulated by means of defined in-between places which induce
simultaneous awareness of what is significant on either side.
Residual space is seldom economic. It is leftover, inflected toward
something more important beyond itself. Contradictory interior
space does not admit Modern architecture's requirement of a unity
and continuity of all spaces. Nor do layers in depth, especially with
contrapuntal juxtapositions, satisfy its requirements of economic
and unequivocal relationships of forms and materials. And
crowded intricacy within a rigid boundary contradicts the modern
tenet which says that a building grows from the inside out.
Contrast and even conflict between exterior and interior forces
exist outside architecture as well. Since the inside is different from
the outside, the wall--the point of change-- becomes an
architectural event. Architecture occurs at the meeting of interior
and exterior forces of use and space. By recognizing the difference
between the inside and the outside, architecture opens the door
once again to an urbanistic point of view.
THE OBLIGATION TOWARD THE DIFFICULT
WHOLE
I have referred to a special obligation toward the whole because
the whole is difficult to achieve. It is the difficult unity through
inclusion rather than the easy unity through exclusion. The difficult
whole in an architecture of complexity and contradiction includes
multiplicity and diversity of elements in relationships that are
inconsistent or among the weaker kinds perceptually. Concerning
the positions of the parts, such an architecture encourages
complex and contrapuntal rhythms over simple and single ones.
Two extremes--a single part and a multiplicity of parts--read as
wholes most easily, and the next easiest whole is the trinity.
But an architecture of complexity and contradiction also embraces
the "difficult numbers of parts--the duality, and the medium
degrees of multiplicity." Our tendency to distort the program and
to subvert the composition in order to disguise the duality is
refuted by a tradition of accepted dualities, more or less resolved,
at all scales of building and planning. Inflection in architecture is
the way in which the whole is implied by exploiting the nature of
the individual parts, rather than their position or number. The valid
fragment is economical because it implies richness and meaning
beyond itself. The inflected element is a directional form
corresponding to directional space. Inflection accommodates the
difficult whole of a duality as well as the easier complex whole. If
inflection can occur at many scales--from a detail of a building to a
whole building--it can contain varying degrees of intensity a well.
The dominant binder, as a third element connecting a duality, is a
less difficult way of resolving a duality than inflection. The equal
combinations of parts achieve a whole through superimposition
and symmetry rather than through dominance and hierarchy. An
architecture that can simultaneously recognize contradictory levels
should be able to admit the paradox of the whole fragment: the
building which is a whole at one level and a fragment of a greater
whole at another level.