MODULE 2: cinematic script

Film list:

1- Michelangelo Antonioni
L'avventura (The Adventure, 1960)
La notte (The Night, 1961)
L'eclisse (The Eclipse, 1962)

Il deserto rosso (The Red Desert, 1964)
Blowup (1966)

2- Jacques Tati
Mon Oncle (1958)
Playtime (1967)

3- Federico Fellini
8½ (1963)
Giulietta degli Spiriti (1965)
Amarcord (1973)

4-Alfred Hitchcock
Rear Window (1954)
The Birds (1963)

5- Orson Welles (actor)- Carol Reed (director)
The Third Man (1949)

6- Jean-Luc Godard's
Tout Va Bien (1972)

Adolf Loos - Ornament and Crime

Ornament and Crime, Adolf Loos
(Adam Jakubowski, Phuong Nguyen, & Emily Wang)

“Ornament and Crime,” 1908 article by Adolf Loos is a strong critique of ornament. Inspired by a three-year stay in America, where he was introduced to the modernist movement through the friendship with Louis Sullivan, Loos’ strong language is a reaction to the Art Nouveau movement, which was at its high point in Europe when he returned. He argues that the modern man should eliminate the ornament to reach the highest evolutionary potential and writes, “Since ornament is no longer a natural product of our culture, so that it is a phenomenon either of backwardness or degeneration.” Loos relates ornamentation to the deceleration of society to his own time. He uses the analogies from everyday objects (cigarette cases, clothing, etc.) to make this point.

Loos' critique of ornament takes another angle when he starts considering labour and material values that go into making the ornamental objects. Although his views make him think "ornament is wasted labor power and hence wasted health," he is making a point to recognize craftsmen's labor as the only source of joy and hence an undeniable privilege.

Loos’ essay is also interesting because the examples he uses to corroborate his argument may sometimes offer insight to his view of the human condition. In the beginning of the essay, he makes a clear analogy between the infant and a Papuan and their amorality. He also states that the urge to ornament is humans’ most basic and primitive desire. Perhaps then, it can be inferred that in order for mankind to evolve, we need to suppress our most innate desires that are most likely “criminal” if ever expressed, since ornament is the shackles that binds men.

Loos' modernistic advocacy for the smooth, un-ornate, sleek, and simple can be related to later time including today's film, art, design, and everyday life objects. Similarly, the distinction between "the aristocrat," an educated progressive person, and "the craftsman," or "the peasant" can be related to today's world. There is a big distinction between the "high design" and popular design. One still find craftsman taking pride in the work, but the distinction between what Loos would call rightful use of ornament and the one that constitutes a crime is blurred. It seems that he is much more repulsed by anachronism and “not being modern” than ornamentation itself. One wonders how Loos’ argument applies to the contemporary society, as there are still abundant examples of ornamentation that are often celebrated. Perhaps this essay can be discerned outdated in the sense that the contemporary man’s urge to express himself far exceeds many other considerations.

Would any of these items fall under the category of “degenerative”? They were created in contemporary society, by a craftsman/designer who finds joy both in and outside of his occupation. According to Loos, ornamentation can be “tolerated” if this means that laborer finds joy through his work. However, he also states that if it is possible for the laborer to also find joy outside of his work, then the ornamentation no longer has value.

Giedon & Movement

Tracing the history of motion, Giedion concludes that movement is the key to modern thought. This profound statement is unfortunately underdeveloped, not extending beyond the short paragraph which vaguely alludes to the potential for expressive forms and points broadly to the sciences for legitimacy. Despite Giedion’s somewhat hollow climax, the argument is still a convincing one, primarily resting on the quixotic and seductive work of Étienne Jules Marey.

Returning time and again to blood streams, the gaits of the horses, the flights of birds, Marey spent his lifetime meticulously documenting movement that he said ‘escapes the eye.’ One of his most legendary discoveries was the moment when all four legs of a galloping horse are off the ground, a fact unknown to hippologists at the time. Marey is also renowned for his inventive apparatuses, such as his photographic gun – a fact that likely impressed Giedion, the first secretary-general of CIAM and a leading advocate of the technological agenda of Modernism.

Besides Marey, a myriad of other innovators dot the pages of Movement, broadening the roots of the concept. The somewhat predictable associations are made to Eadweard Muybridge, Marcel Duchamp, and the Lumière brothers while less direct, but equally logical connections are drawn to Frank B. Gilbreth – the father of scientific management, Stéphane Mallarmé – French poet and intellectual; James Watt – inventor of the steam engine; Henri Bergson – renowned French philosopher of time and evolution; and James Joyce.

Given the expansive foundation provided by Giedion, the potential for conceptualizing movement is a strong and exciting one, but still in need of clarification and justification. Restated: movement is ever-present and deeply beautiful, but if we must embrace it, to what ends?

The Historicity of the Avant-Garde: Piranesi and Eisenstein

In contrast to the typical Hollywood linear montage, the introduction of a film editing method that relies on the overlay and “collapse” of independent film sequences or shots is very specific to the Soviet filmmaker of the 1920s, Sergei Eisenstein. Eisenstein’s theory of montage infringes the classic uninterrupted sequenced system, which structured the cinema prior to its invention.

This new method of organization utilizes inconsistencies between spatial and temporal compositions, assembled together in an identical frame, and therefore generating a conflicting and complex composition. Such compositions are intended to evoke an irrational, incoherent, and irregular overlay of order and chaos as well as a strong clash of themes involving volume, scale, motion, rhythm, and time.

The essay focuses on the work of Piranesi and describes the Carceri through an analytical technique that breaks apart the elements of the composition Eisenstien calls the technique “ecstatic transfiguration.” As a result Eisenstien interprets the forms as being in a state of “potential movement,” as stated by Tufari on the subject. Eisenstien notes that there is a “false equilibrium” in Piranesi’s compositions. An it is precisely that false equilibrium that accounts for the compositions potential movement. It is a phenomenon the Russian Formalist called “semantic distortion.” The essay by Tufari on Eisenstien’s text describes this as a violent alteration that changes the mutual relationship that once mutually bound all the entities within the composition.

“Run Lola Run”, “Animatrix”, and “42^nd Street” evoke a similar ideology of chaos, incoherence and clash of independent events assembled in a single frame, and engendering a wide variety of multifaceted scenes. In “Run Lola Run”, the scenes selected illustrate a composition of “events” relying on a disturbance of speed and rhythm (hit and run scenes), and moments of accelerated versus paused time (picture scene at collisions). “Animatrix,” exemplifies Eisenstein’s editing method more graphically. The animated film allows for film maker to create a composition of elements in different states of motion. This allows the film maker to guide the viewers eye through a futuristic landscape in a constantly shifting it’s pacing through the frame. The film also involves an assemblage of contradictory perspectives of the New York City skyline and a chaotic composition of dimensional scale and volumes. Finally, Eisenstein’s theory of the interrupted “180 degree rule” is found in “42^nd Street,” where the camera angles are now what constitute the composition as well as the fixed versus in-motion frames established to create such a discontinuity in the overall picture.

42nd Street


b1 from frankb on Vimeo.


Untitled from frankb on Vimeo.


Untitled from frankb on Vimeo.


Untitled from frankb on Vimeo.


Untitled from frankb on Vimeo.


erq from frankb on Vimeo.


jhgk from frankb on Vimeo.

Animatrix


Ulk from frankb on Vimeo.


Untitledlhkfcjg from frankb on Vimeo.

Run Lola Run


rlr2 from frankb on Vimeo.


rlr from frankb on Vimeo.

Summary of La Maison Dom-ino

by: Peter Eisenman

Peter Eisenman’s essay begins by asking us several important questions: What separates architecture from geometry, sculpture, and “mere building.”? He also asks what makes Modernism modern, and are we interpreting it through the right lens?

Eisenman says that the plan and section are the records of when architecture is changing. They record the “physical manifestations of developing formal strategies made possible by new conceptions of notation and representation.” The elevation on the other hand, usually reflects only stylistic changes, which can be pasted onto any plan.

The change to the free plan in La Maison Dom-ino then, is said to be the birth of Modern Architecture. Eisenman says that this is not necessarily so. Architects, historians, and critiques still view Modernism in architecture through classical sensibilities. This could be the result of interpretation, or perhaps because Modernism in architecture was not actually so “modern”, as compared to the other arts undergoing a similar change.

Shifts in the other arts are noted by the “objects tendency to be self-referential.” Meaning, “how the object reveals its conditions of being and its manner of coming into being; and how it is recorded.”

Eisenman says that the focus on the free plan and the free façade has obscured what is truly Modernist about La Maison Dom-ino: its aspects as a self-referential sign, its “existence as an architecture about architecture.” The slabs, columns, stairs, and footings are all reinforcing the statement. “They function, but at the same time they overcome function.” This is what separates architecture from geometry and building. It is separate from sculpture because sculpture has no use or “wallness”, and therefore it does not have to overcome these functions.

I think Eisenman’s condition of architecture as opposed to building, geometry, and sculpture is a good one. But is the presence of the sign what really separates Modernism from other changes? I am not so sure, and I may be more confused about what makes Modern architecture “modern” than ever. I think you could argue the existence of the “self-referential sign” long before Modernism.

In sculpture, we can look at Donatello’s Mary Magdalene. It is a sculpture very unlike his previous work in its expressionism. It is still telling the story of Mary Magdalene, but it is also telling the story about the sculpture itself. It is made of wood, and record of how the artist carved and sculpted the work is evident in itself. It is not smoothed away as in other works. So Donatello may be making a statement about the condition of the wood itself.

Another example is the Laurentian Library staircase designed by Michelangelo. The staircase has been meticulously studied by architects and historians because of its uniqueness. Some call it one of the first modern spaces. If so, is the staircase self-referential? Certainly it is attempting to overcome the function of a staircase. I think it could be argued either way, but in both cases is the supposed sign being weighed down by the history of what happened before or after the invention of this staircase?

What about Brunelleschi’s dome on the Florence Cathedral? It is more than “mere building” because it strives to exist beyond the function of sheltering. We know that Brunelleschi was not a deeply religious man, nor did he care too much about money. His reasons were o big the biggest dome, and perhaps to overcome the idea of the dome itself. Change what could be done with it.

Again, it could be argued either way. I think these examples at least challenge the presence of the sign before Modernism. Obviously, Peter Eisenman knows all of these examples better than I do and he does not include them. So there must be something more to his definition of a “sign” than is evidenced in the essay.

-brian choquette

On John Ruskin; The Material of Ornament from The Stones of Venice; Brian Osborn and Severn Clay

Ruskin agrues for the architectural abstraction of "...the most frequent contours of natural objects" while always stopping short of pure representation. The following is quoted from the Material of Ornament p.103:

“For instance, the line or curve of the edge of a leaf, may be accurately given to the edge of a stone, without rendering the stone in the least like a leaf, or suggestive of a leaf; and this the more fully, because the lines of nature are alike in all her works; simpler or richer in combination, but the same in character; and when they are taken out of their combinations, it is impossible to say from which of her works they have been borrowed, their universal property being ever-varying curvature in the most subtle and subdued transitions, with peculiar expressions of motion, elasticity, or dependence.”

While Ruskin advocates for the hand-wrought stonework of the Gothic period and for applied ornament, he seems also to set up a moral argument within architectural pedagogy that may, with only minor revision, be re-fashioned into modernist asceticism: honesty of materials, the primacy of abstract line over color and shade, and the separation between ornament and structure.

Ruskin's reductive systematization need only be moved slightly to the right to remove ornament entirely and proceed with full-on abstraction.

By creating a hierarchy of acceptable materials of ornament (1. Abtract lines. 2. Forms of Earth...10. Foliage.), he seems to privilege the reduction of nature to its most pure abstract form over the detail of its intricacies. He notes for instance that the tree stem is categorized above, and separate from , its foliage as, "It is the dressing of the garden. And, therefore, where nothing else can be used for ornament, vegetation may."

Ruskin's description of animate abstract line also seems to prefigure the interest in organicism and emergent forces of the last decade.

Images; top to bottom: Victor Horta Residence, J.M.W. Turner's Tintern Abbey, Art Nouveau character set, Bridge at Central Park by John Veaux.

La Maison Dom-ino:: Eisenman's Analysis

This analysis looks at the Maison Dom-ino through what Eisenman terms the “self referential object”. He explains Le Corbusier’s goal as the reconfiguration of the architect in relation to the object and viewer by a realignment of all three from their typical mediated relationship to an equal stage of existence. His claim is that all critiques of Corbusier's work, specifically Colin Rowe's, have been insufficient in their insistence in analyzing the work in the context of plan and section or through a Renaissance conception of space; that for the work to be truly understood as "self referential" it must be analyzed in a context which must understand the fundamental change between man and object. In reality, Eisenman is merely revisiting this work as a jusification of axonometric analysis and its relation to exhibiting 2 and 3-dimensional formal languages simultaneously. A sly ploy to explore the excessive bounds of formal language grammars and repetition. A good comparison is Rowe's analysis of Le Corbusier's Villa at Garche and Palladio's Villa Malcontenta in The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa in relation to Eisenman's analysis of Terragni's Caso del Fascio. In this Eisenman's point seems more obvious that an analysis in plan and section is merely resultant from an outdated understanding of space, and that because Terragni's formal moves work both in "elevation", "facade" (as Rowe defines them) and volume, the axonometric is the only possible form of analysis.

Paladio Above Right

Le Corbusier at Left and Bottom Right

Eisenman's analysis of Terragni's Caso del Fascio

Eisenman's use of the axonometric came from the work of James Stirling, the first architect to widely use it in the representation of concepts . His axon diagrams show assemblage development and techtonic relationships as well as formal moves operating in both plan, section
and volumetrically.
Village Project, 1955





Fogg Museum Addition, 1979




Seen by many as the apotheosis of his exploration of modernist technique and formal language, Eisenman's House VI is the result of his extensive axonometric exploration. Kenneth Frampton refers to the house and the axon's relationship as follows:

The building is as much an absence as presence, with slots standing for absent walls and vice versa. This dichotomous prescription surely favored the Archimedian Point of axonometric projection much beloved by the avant garde, which always allowed one to distance oneself from the immediate presence of space. Through this heuristic Eisenman could sustain the conceptual process of binomial subdivision that was the primary device determining the design of the house. -House VI, The Client's Respnse, 1994.

Here are some studies which resulted from and in the design of the house

Module 1: Source

This Module looks at the 20th Century with a clinical eye towards finding the traces of adornment, decoration and excess.
Students will work in groups of 2, each group will take a text and will analyze it in order to develop a synthesis, along with the written assignment each group will search for examples that illustrate the given text. Examples can belong to all fields: cinema, biology, art, architecture, etc.

Module 1 Reader:

- The Stones of Venice, Chapter XI ‘The Material of Ornament’, Ruskin (first edition 1853)
- Illuminations, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, Walter Benjamin, 1936.
- Collected Essays, ‘Ornament and Crime’, Adolf Loos, 1908.
- Mechanization Takes Command, ‘Movement’, Sigfried Gideon, 1969.
- In the Footsteps of Le Corbusier, ‘Maison Dom-ino and the self-referential sign’, Peter Eisenman, 1991
- The Sphere and the Labyrinth, Chapter 2 ‘The Historicity of the Avant-Garde: Piranesi and Einstein’; Appendix ‘Piranesi, or the Fluidity of Forms by Sergei M. Eisenstein, Manfredo Tafuri, 1978.
- Collected Essays, ‘The Principles of Philosophy or, the Monadology (1714)’, Gottfried Wilhem Leibniz.

seminar intro

ARCH 653.07/655.07
Advanced History/Theory 4/6
Title: Unapologetic Figuration, the return of excess
Faculty: Florencia Pita / Hernan Diaz Alonso
Date: Thursdays 10 am to 1pm