After analyzing Jenks and his work on the conditions of post-modernism in class on Tuesday, I could not have imagined a more applicable real-life example of his theory than of the Museum of Arts and Design detailed in this article “Love the New Skin You’re In”. One of the most prominent reoccurring themes noted in the architecture of this building epitomizes one of the most prominent themes we discussed concerning the post-modern era we are entering (have already entered?) and one which I believe Jenks coined: “tradition reinterpreted”. This idea suggests that this post-modern era is not an entirely new idea, in and of itself, instead, it yearns for a taste of the past while also wanting to include in its own inventive measures. Rather than being a mere replication, post-modern art/architecture appears to make use of the relationship between the past and the present, suggesting to both recollect on memories while simultaneously looking forward to what may be to come.
More specifically, this article states the MAD building “is a lesson in mediation, in the kind of architectural give-and-take that retains the ghost of the original while give the building a second life…both echoing the past and breathing new life into a long-derelict little block of the city.” In its new design, MAD firmly holds onto some of its past, that being the modern “lollipop columns” and the building’s basic “structure and scale”, however, it takes on a 21st century aim to improve some of its less-appealing and less-purposeful designs such as the “half floors”. Yes, the building is nostalgic of the original but it also now serves purpose and function. Unlike modernism which wished to break completely from tradition, post-modernism takes a less drastic direction that I feel, in the end, offers a much wider range of possibilities: it can choose from all-over- the past, the present, and the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I could not agree anymore with Devon. After reading "Love the New Skin You're in" i got straight to thinking about what we talked about yesterday. The first thought that came to mind after reading was the term that Jenks mentioned was disharmonious harmony. Disharmonious Harmony can be described as work that is not perfectly finished in its totality.It can also be described as an object within our society that gives us multiple meanings to help us understand pluralism. You might be asking your self, what is pluralism? Jencks goes on to explain that pluralism is what signifies multiple views of an object opposed to only one. In relation to this current article i have to say that i have learned to view architecture more closely than just viewing it single mindedly. The Museum of Arts and Design, i believe was harshly hated upon. Viewers need to be more open minded and less in to what is considered modern architecture. Building thats are viewed now as strange and "ugly" may be considered work of arts in the future.
ReplyDelete