Modernism And Modernisation In Architecture And Culture Philosophy Essay

Modernism And Modernisation In Architecture And Culture Philosophy essayDiscuss the various competing nonions of Modernity, Modernism and Modernisation in computer architecture and coating in the writings of Robert Venturi/Denise Scott Br throw using the writings of Michel Foucault and Jrgen Habermas to incite your discussion.IntroductionTo begin this essay c at oncerned with the issues of Modernity, Modernism and Modernisation, I animadvert it is a necessity to first define the c each(prenominal) Modern, as it associate all three terms.Modern, harmonise to Jrgen Habermas, was first employ in late fifth century in lodge to distinguish the Christian present, from the pagan and Roman past. He argues that Modern can be used whenever the awareness of a new period developed in europium through a change in the relationship to innocent antiquity. For us people today, Habermas thinks recent begins with the Renaissance, however people considered themselves as modern in the age o f Charlemagne in the twelfth century and in the prescience. (Habermas, 1996). Through this Habermas describes the term modern as one, which can be used widely and has no definitive time period, as the concept behind it is based upon ones (or an eras) perception. run acrossHabermas explanation of modern is supported by Vincent Scully, as he explains that Le Corbusiers, a pioneer of Modern architecture, teacher was the Greek temple (Figure 1), incorporateing of an uninvolved body, white and free in the landscape, its rigour clear in the sun. Le Corbusier during his early polemics would have his buildings just as the temple, as time went on his architecture began to progressively more and more incorporate the Greek Temples sculptured and heroic character. (Venturi, 1977) Scullys interpretation on the work of Le Corbusier directly, as Corbusier fashiond a new direct relationship with the classical antiquity of Greek Temples.Michel Foucault, according to Barry Sm fraud, takes a sli ghtly different perspective to Habermas and Scullys interpretations of the term modern, he interprets modern as a placeholder when a more definite verbal description is not known. He goes on to explain that the modern (or present) cannot recognise itself as a period and that if you can outline the characteristics that make up a period is to already be beyond it and has become the past. (Smart, 1994). Foucault an interesting penetration into the modern, as simply a title giving to that which is unclassifiable , the present, and that once you can classify a time period then it is no longer modern and is the past.Modernity1.1 Habermas argues that Modernity is an expression that represents the consciousness of an era that relates back to the past of classical antiquity in order gain itself as the movement from the old to the new. What Habermas called the Unfinished Project aims at a distinguishable reconnection of modern culture with an everyday sphere of the theory return process, w hich is dependent on living(a) heritage. However, the aim of modernism can solely be achieved if the process of neighborly modernisation can be alter into other non-capitalist directions, if the state of the current world is capable of developing institutions of its own way currently withdrawn by the self-ruling system dynamics of the scotch and administrative systems. (Habermas, 1994)Venturi explains that Louis Khans or orthodox modern architects desire for simplicity, is satisfactory, when it is made valid through national complexity. He goes to mention that the doric Temples (Figure 2) simplicity to the mall is achieved through famous subtleties and precision of its distorted geometry and the contradictions and tensions inherent in its order, so it achieves apparent simplicity through real complexity. (Venturi, 1977). Through this Venturis point think directly to Habermas notion of contemporaneity, as he is relating the new Modern architecture desire for simplicity to the simplicity achieved in the old architecture of the Doric Temple, thereby highlighting a transition from the old to new.FigureMichel Foucault takes a different approach from Habermas as he denotes Modernity as something which is characterised by a combination of power/knowledge relations around the content of life, a life that is now possible to master through science. He goes on to argue that the valet races problem does not exactly consist of a fear of destruction through chemical or nuclear pollution, animal species extinction or depletion of natural resources the idea that any malicious power could take over technologies for evil purposes, is only a erroneous illusion to hide a genuine metaphysical anxiety that corresponds with the bid of life. Through this Foucault states that this mastery of life, through science, transforms the living, crushing it. As fence to turning it into a knowledge base upon which could support us, thus making the living being more and more artif icial. (Jose, 1998)Habermas produces a definition of Modernity, which takes a more of social/economical perspective, with his relation between social modernization and capitalism and between the worlds institutions and autonomous economic and administrative systems. On the other top Foucault takes an approach in which he addresses how important the scientific aspect of modernity is and how it has affected out outlook on life as a whole.Figure accord to Habermas, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (Figure 3) was the first philosopher to develop a clear arrangement of modernity. With the philosophers that came before him, Hegel located the core of modernity in the principle of subjectivity, which had antecedently been discussed by Kant, who saw subjectivity as the foundation of science, morality and art fields. Hegel argued that since modernity was based on subjectivity and the power of critical reflection, only philosophical reason could achieve the hoped-for reconciliation and overcom e the interrogation of modern subjectivity. This interpretation lead to the articulation of Hegels notion of absolute spirit, which is the down activity of self-discovery, the unconditionally self-productive self-relation, interceding subjectivity and objectivity, nature and spirit, finitude and infinity. (Habermas, 1996, Pg. 6)Modernity and the EnlightenmentDavid Harvey describes Enlightenment design as that which embraced the idea of progression and actively precious that break with history and tradition which modernity adopts. It was a non-religious movement that desire the removal of obscurity and sacredness of knowledge and social organisation in order to free human beings from their chains. (Harvey, 1989).The project of modernity, as referred to by Habermas, came into focus during eighteenth century. This developed an intellectual effort by Enlightenment thinkers to pass in objective science, universal ethics and law, and autonomous art according to their inner logic. The idea behind this was to may use of the knowledge gained by umteen people working freely and creatively in pursuit of human emancipation and the enrichment of daily life.Harvey denotes Enlightenment thought as a thought process which strives to remove the unease about pursuing knowledge and social organisation so that we can remove the chains in our minds, which prevents us from gaining more knowledge. This links into Habermas, where he touches upon a characteristic of Enlightenment thinking, which is to advance and enrich daily life through the gain of more knowledge.According to Habermas, through opposing the classical and the romantic to each other, modernity wished to create its own past in an idealised vision of the Middle Ages. During the nineteenth century the Romanticism produced a radicalised realisation of modernity that detached itself from all previous historical connections and understood itself solely in abstract antagonist to tradition and history as a whole. (Haber mas, 1996) I do not agree with this statement as Habermas contradicts himself as he previously denoted modernity as an expression that representsthe consciousness of an era that refers back to the past of classical antiquity precisely in order to comprehend itself as the offspring of a transition from the old to the new. (Habermas,1996, Pg. 39)With reference to this notion, it would impossible for a fount of modernity to develop that not have historical connections and abstractly opposed tradition and history entirely.Modernity as an daringThe mentality of esthetic modernity began to form with Charles Pierre Baudelaire and with his theory of art, which had been influenced by Edgar Allan Poe. This unfolded in the avant-garde artistic movements and then achieved its peak with surrealism and the Dadaists of the Caf Voltaire. This mentality is characterised by a answer of attitudes, which formed around a new transformed consciousness of time, which expresses itself in the spatial me taphor of the avant-garde. This avant-garde explores the unknown, thereby exposing itself to the risk of sudden and shock encounters, conquering an undetermined future and must find a alley for itself in previously unknown domains. (Habermas, 1996)ModernismModernisationConclusion make sense Word Count