Neon Lights, Shimmering
The NASDAQ sign was loved and mourned mainly by those who had no love for its market values.
Marshall Berman, On the Town - 100 Years of Spectacle in Times Square
Or: some dialectic on enlightenment. There have been some very interesting recent books by American academics on the architectural culture of the Weimar Republic, all of which seem to be disguised ways of writing about contemporary architecture. Kathleen James-Chakraborty's German Architecture for a Mass Audience, Janet Ward's Weimar Surfaces and Sabine Hake's Topographies of Class all attempt to upend, with varying degrees of success, the versions of Modernism inherited from Philip Johnson's classicisation and bastardisation of Weimar in The International Style, and all of them rediscover an architecture of consumerism, flash and spectacle in an only retrospectively uneasy coexistence with an architecture of socialism and urbanist rationalisation - in more-or-less explicit critique of a cityscape unevenly divided between icons and blandness. One of the most intriguing elements in all of them is the discussion of a certain architectural culture of light. This reached its most extensive form in the Berlin Im Licht events of 1928, where the city's electrical companies collaborated in an urban light show. Meanwhile, the shopping streets and office blocks were regularly illuminated with an intensity and imagination only seen elsewhere at the time in New York. Neon as much as socialism is a neglected element in the modernist city, and it's good to be reminded of the notion of the city as bright lights, rather than slatted wood.
One of many reasons why I distrust the work of postmodernist theorist-architects Robert Venturi and Denise Scott-Brown is the way in which, in the pomo manifesto Learning from Las Vegas, they spend lots of time talking about a city where the architecture is essentially made of neon - a dematerialised, night architecture of signs, lurid artificial colours, of figures and objects moving in an unreal space, which is a wholly modernist environment, one celebrated by Marshall Berman in the context of Times Square in the fine On the Town, the love for neon adverts on the part of those who have no particular love for the products being advertised - and then eventually favour something much less interesting, a vernacular of deliberate dullness.

What bothers me about Venturi/Scott-Brown is that their actual architecture, and that of the overwhelming majority of postmodernist architects, seems to have so little interest in this architecture of light and technological city-design - in terms of the actual practice, the skewed modernish/traditionalish conjunctions and intellectual gameplaying seem far more important. Funnily enough, browsing through their website, it seems they've finally got round to designing a building where light is a major factor in the design, and it's in the form of a pair of skyscrapers in Shanghai, dressed with 'electronic ornaments' (image via this interview), in a place where their New Urbanist comrades won't be snooping to make sure all is sufficiently 19th century. The reason this is on my mind, other than it being firework night, is that winter is on the way, which in any big city is actually a rather exciting experience, where previously prosaic landscapes become quite exciting through their illumination. Some London examples: if you trace at night the Barbican walkways all the way past the Museum of London, you get to a junction of four buildings, one by Farrell, one by Foster, one by Eric Parry and one Rogers. Only the the latter would get a second glance from me during the day, but on a cold night, with the walkways leading their almost arbitrary paths through them, they become positively fascinating, their nasty stone, their formal ineptitude and their general lumpen blandness being effaced, and the promises of transparency and a city of light and suspension seems tantalisingly close to being fulfilled - though there is of course nothing to actually see but hundreds of rapidly emptying offices.

What bothers me about Venturi/Scott-Brown is that their actual architecture, and that of the overwhelming majority of postmodernist architects, seems to have so little interest in this architecture of light and technological city-design - in terms of the actual practice, the skewed modernish/traditionalish conjunctions and intellectual gameplaying seem far more important. Funnily enough, browsing through their website, it seems they've finally got round to designing a building where light is a major factor in the design, and it's in the form of a pair of skyscrapers in Shanghai, dressed with 'electronic ornaments' (image via this interview), in a place where their New Urbanist comrades won't be snooping to make sure all is sufficiently 19th century. The reason this is on my mind, other than it being firework night, is that winter is on the way, which in any big city is actually a rather exciting experience, where previously prosaic landscapes become quite exciting through their illumination. Some London examples: if you trace at night the Barbican walkways all the way past the Museum of London, you get to a junction of four buildings, one by Farrell, one by Foster, one by Eric Parry and one Rogers. Only the the latter would get a second glance from me during the day, but on a cold night, with the walkways leading their almost arbitrary paths through them, they become positively fascinating, their nasty stone, their formal ineptitude and their general lumpen blandness being effaced, and the promises of transparency and a city of light and suspension seems tantalisingly close to being fulfilled - though there is of course nothing to actually see but hundreds of rapidly emptying offices.
There's a few instances of this in my area of London, which exemplify this rule of dreadful architecture interestingly illustrated by its lighting schemes. Chief among them is SOM's Pan Peninsula, a absolutely vile block of flats in the Isle of Dogs, which markets itself with an impressive lack of ideological guile as 'the place to live above all others'. In the daytime it's a shocker, a white-tile clad, spectacularly ungainly and clumsy bit of yuppie-stacking, sterile in a drab rather than icy way, and the promise of 'inspired apartments' on the American Psycho-esque website fails to make up for its architectural shortcomings. What does almost make up for them is the lighting scheme. Now maybe I'm still a bedazzled provincial, but I always enjoy the light show it puts on, where the towers are illuminated by minimalist strips of neon which - oh yes - change colours as you watch. It has a palpable sense of urban drama which the building itself entirely lacks. Another, this time on my side of the river, is Farrell's new office blocks, a nearly as slapdash barcode-façade fest, adjoining the Millennium Dome. Again, during the day this is a terrible mess, but in the darkness their kitsch lighting schemes have a sublime poignancy and vacant beauty, something only emphasised by the drizzly sight of Canary Wharf in the distance.
To 'take a bath of light', as the striking epigraph to On the Town has it, you have to venture into enemy territory, whether it's to the tourist-centred mini-Times Square at Piccadilly Circus, or into the locked-down, privately patrolled citadels of capital at the City of London and Canary Wharf, its lights 'taking the piss' out of the surrounding area, as Dizzee Rascal once put it - then there's the neon film atop the BT Tower - beautiful, but a reminder of the privatisation of Eric Bedford's monument to 1960s Bennism. Weimar Berlin had much the same predicament - the Reklamarchitektur or 'advertising architecture' of Erich Mendelsohn, where light was at least as important as concrete and glass, was in implicit opposition to the residential architecture of Bruno Taut, which was blaringly bright during the day but necessarily visually quiet at night, as people have to sleep there. Contemporary with Mendelsohn and just before Berlin Im Licht, there were experiments in light architecture in the USSR, for the 10th anniversary of the October revolution. You can see clips of this in Dziga Vertov's Three Songs of Lenin, a reclamation of light architecture for the purposes of public celebration rather than the hawking of goods. Yet these celebrations coincided with the final quashing of the Left Opposition in the USSR, and the images in Vertov mainly consist of the ziggurat of Lenin's tomb being illuminated, using light to mystify rather than enlighten, as would Albert Speer, several years later. Whether for political or commercial reasons, light is an overlooked urban object, and I suspect any mundane block of flats that proposed 'electronic ornaments' on its façade would face the middlebrow wrath of CABE in an instant. Looking out of my window, the only thing which stands out among the murky yellow sodium, and an eternally comforting sight in that context, is the sign of the Hong Kong Garden takeaway. Its lurid hot pink banner offers little more than an all-too-frequently irresistible promise of monosodium glutamate, but it's the most beautiful thing on the street.






33 Comments:
in my usual multi-point comment style:
a) - you'd love Hong Kong
b) I've always had a romantisch love for sodium light, whereby everything becomes a duo-tone landscape from deepest blue to brightest orange. verklärte nacht indeed... see Rut Blees Luxemburg for explicit examples of this...
While I think you have a strong point about VSB missing the boat on the modernity of Las Vegas, they have actually shown an interest in illuminated architecture and technology. One of the most prominent examples of this was their design for the Whitehall Ferry Terminal in New York, which they ultimately withdrew due to a variety of disagreements and budgetary issues with the City of New York (http://www.vsba.com/projectViewer.php?id=570). They also planned the expansion and renovation of the stadium at the University of Michigan which relies heavily on electronics (http://www.vsba.com/projectViewer.php?id=690 though there are no great images there. I haven't read it, but they published a book on the topic titled "Iconography and Electronics upon a Generic Architecture" about ten years ago.
Aside from the lighting aspect, most of the newer buildings going up in Las Vegas were very modern (though "Googie") in the 50s and 60s- some of the things under construction in this video slideshow seem (almost) straight out of Brasilia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bDjN3q65gQ While the signage is obviously more noticeable than the architecture (especially at night)it's strange which lessons they took away from their research. From a site planning standpoint, Mies' Seagram Building is very similar to a Vegas Casino as an object building set in an open space.
Interestingly I recently saw a lecture about Mendleshohn's book Amerika from 1923, which contained photographs of buildings by him, Karl Longberg-Holm and Fritz Lang. The lecturer claimed Longber-Holm's photos of cities at night were particularly influential on Mendelsohn's subsequent Schocken stores etc. which he tended to have photographed in the dark.
Predictable I know, but i have to agree with Mark on VSBA. They are one of the only contemporary architects to write about and use signs/lights etc. Other examples on their website are numerous so i think your point is a bit disingenuous. I agree that they could do with more, rather than less neon bling maybe. Also, since when are they new urbanists!? Apart from a small building in Disney's Celebration i can see no evidence for this assertion, particularly as they continuously rail against the edicts of new urbanism in their writing.
Re: New Urbanism, I had put them in the box because of their building for Celebration - I wasn't aware of their critique of it. The dissing of them here should probably sound more tentative than it does, as it's based on only a few buildings and the reading of two books. Whereabouts were the anti-New Urbanist writings?
Great post, Owen.
The slogan on the Pan Peninsula website is "A Place to Live Above All Others" - absolutely astonishing.
Owen - is that *the* Hong Kong Garden takeaway? Wow!
Great stuff. I took some interest recently in the history of the Bayer cross, which when it was original erected in 1933 was (supposedly) the world's largest illuminated advertisement with a diameter of 72 metres. It was taken down in 1938 and put up again in 1958, but slightly smaller - to signal that the company had obviously learnt from the mistakes of its recent past, one assumes. Much as I'm a little loathe to link to Bayer's website, it's got pretty pictures and they make an interesting point regarding how the cross fits within its environment:
44 years later and the Bayer Cross is still a distinctive landmark on the Leverkusen skyline at night – except for a period in Spring and Fall each year when the lights are switched off between 10 in the evening and 4 in the morning. The reason for this is simple: to allow migratory birds returning from their winter quarters to reach their breeding grounds without being disoriented and put off their course by the light.
Humans are not to be afforded such considerations, evidently - the cross doesn't so much as blink for them.
And to add to the confusion, Robert M Stern now best know as a "modern traditionalist" was responsible for the design guidelines for 42nd Street/Times Square which kept the lighted billboards and displays, but these are now the decoraration to massively larger and blandly sanitised buildings (more substantial than sheds) housing none of the vices normally associated with neon-lit entertainment districts.
http://www.ramsa.com/project.aspx?id=5
Re: Stern - in On the Town, Marshall Berman calls his Times Square project 'sexy', which is, and I say this without worry that proper architects will turn up and point out my oversights, the first and only time that the work of Robert M Stern has been described as sexy.
Re: the Hong Kong Garden - I do hope so! It does have the words 'the new' at the top of the sign, which implies that at least it's not the same sign as that encountered by Siouxsie Sioux, but it is in south London, if several miles north of her native Bromley.
I think both VSBA's "populist neon" and early XXth century "neon moderne" are boring, for different reasons I guess. But light-based advertising has enormous tecnonic potential.
By the way, these Shangai towers look horrid. I think the problem with VSBA is that, instead of presenting the unacceptable under a subversive form (that is, using humour), they present the unacceptable under an unacceptable form, which renders their work irrelevant regardless of what the building actually is - of course they DO want to be irrelevant, but what's the point of iconic collage if it isn't an actual display of humour? What's the point of irony if it's irrelevant to its target?
*the* Hong Kong Garden was out in Chislehurst
Anon: a person who is bored with Erich Mendelsohn is bored with all that is interesting in modernist architecture, and might as well give up. As for your other, rather oblique points on VSBA, well - I'm always suspicious of irony and humour in architecture, as it largely becomes the retelling of the same joke until you become so irritated you never want to see the building ever again. But this seems missing the point a bit, as they always seem desperately sincere (an 'irony irrelevant to its target' seems much more an accusation to throw at Koolhaas and his ilk, really).
If I would criticise them for anything other than that in the post, it's their seeming belief that what is the received opinion and status quo in architecture has much bearing on the rest of the world. Buildings that shock and generally epater other architects just get absorbed into the other, wider status quo, in which these supposed dissonances seem entirely minor - cf the National Gallery extension, where most see an amusingly distorted classical building and barely even notice the brick functionalism that carries on around the corner (which merely reproduces in cleverer form the facade/backside divide from 19th century architecture anyway).
But as for those Shanghai towers, I'm sure they'd look fabulous in the dark...
I didn't say I don't like Mendelsohn. I like his houses and his department stores a lot, especially if you think they're from the 20's. I don't really think his usage of maritime imaginery can compare to Le Corbusier and others (plus why should I care about boats when any train/tube station is much more exciting!), and I don't think his buildings in Israel are too special either, but I digress.
What I find boring is "neon moderne". That is, nostalgia for the icons of 1920's Berlin citizens. I do find the idea of a "city of lights" very exciting. I'm even a fan of Kraftwerk's "Neon Lights". But when I look at Mendelsohn's buildings, I tend to forget about the lamps, the handrails, the typography, and other details, amongst them the lighting, because it doesn't make much sense to glorify what's 1920's about Mendelsohn when what's exciting about him is how ahead of his time he was. Maybe it's just that I'm not good at looking at the past.
I find what you say about Koolhaas interesting, although I'm not sure I agree. As for the Venturis, I think their houses are honest, but that's about it.
"I am not now nor have I ever been a Postmodernist"
Robert Venturi
Yes, but is he saying that for the same reason nobody has ever admitted to being a functionalist, or to making trip-hop and wonky?
Admitting to being a postmodernist would be like admitting to have a long history of STDs right about now, wouldn't it?
lots of people were eagerly to "admit" that they (too) were "functionalist" (although few of them really were...)
Have I mentioned postmodernism?
As for being suspicious of humour, a modernist who doesn't understand surrealist politics strikes me as, uh, not a modernist.
Surrealism was best when it wasn't funny.
AM - find me any architect (not critic) who actually calls themselves or their work functionalist, I dare you. Everyone from Gropius up to Rogers balanced technological solutionism with an obligatory, utterly predictable critique of a pure functionalism which nobody has ever actually owned up to practising - I don't think even Hilberseimer described himself as such.
Hannes Meyer, maybe (I agree with what K. Michael Hays writes on "Modernism and the Posthumanist Subject" on the "pós-functionalist" schizo nature of Hilberseimer architecture)
Or Hugo Haring (on a different kind of way...)
I donno...
Are you sure none of that die hard high (priest) modernist sees themselves ("in the looking glass") as functionalist?
(Not even – erroneous - Le Corbusier or Oud?)
Anyway, I was just comment on the nature of the Venturi (kind of) pomo and on that subject I find out Gerard Leone paper on:
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=uhf_2006
"Ideology is the last refuge of scoundrels " - Venturi
(By an anti-hero architect)
Venturi is not a postmodernist. He is a populist, but he is definitely not Baudrillardian or Lyotardian. Venturi advocates the concrete and everyday vs the simple and abstract - Lyotard and Baudrillard advocate abstraction because they believe in the instant semantical connections that rise and fall and become "the meaning of the present". Also, Lyotard and especially Baudrillard would dismiss Venturi's populist, pragmatic, rhethorics as historical, hyperreal or even communist/modernist.
And let's not forget that equating the simple with the modernist is (Peter) Johnsonian propaganda and simply not true, but Venturi never says that he dislikes the simple because it is modern. In fact he's quite fond of Le Corbusier.
As for humour, I certainly did NOT laugh reading Breton's "Anthology of Black Humour". What I mean by "humour" is closer to "subversive sublime" than to "joking", but I think this discussion is leading nowhere. Sorry if I've sounded agressive at all.
Venturi is not a postmodernist. He is a populist, but he is definitely not Baudrillardian or Lyotardian.
What does Baudrillardian or Lyotardian mean? And is it the same as postmodernist? You make it sound as if they would have denied Venturi membership in a club that they themselves would have liked to be members of, which elides how much both of them considered postmodernity to be first and foremost a set of problems.
Word verification: "patio". That made me smile.
Venturi(s) are even less of a populist than of a postmodernist
If they were "popular" they would be liked like the lot of H&deM, Zunthor, a-zaha-rada, kualhas and so on
on the suppose populism of the Venturi(s) works I recommend the reading of Stanislau Von Moos's "A Postscript on History, "Architecture Parlante" and Populism" on Venturi, Rauch and Scott Brown, a+u, 1981...
AM- there is a huge difference between being "populist" and "popular with other architects." Most of the general public doens't know or care who H&deM or Zaha are (the popularity you allude to is mostly among other architects). Their buildings also have little to do with popular culture, so it would be hard to consider them populist in any way. In the sense that they actively engage with popular culture through the design process Venturi Scott Brown is at least populist in one sense, though they are similarly obscure to the general public.
Owen said something to this effect as well (though not in this post) that it's somewhat absurd that Venturi is rebelling against architecture that ordinary people don't notice/care about (or in many cases, don't like)- so how much of a rebel is he really?
That being said, I am a huge fan of Venturi's early work- particularly his Mother's House. It is certainly postmodern, though clearly part of the Modern continuum.
"Their buildings also have little to do with popular culture"
I disagree. Bilbão Gug, "Oporto" :) "casa da música", Hadid shoes, have everything to do with today "popular culture" of, let's say, "hip-hop".
They skate everywhere, you know :)
Architecture is fashionable these days and "the people" does know who "Zaha" or Zunthor (just to stick by the letter "Z") are :)
Zunthor came to "lecture" in Lisbon as some kind of xamã :)
"People", "ordinary people", does go to Bilbão in some kind of modern day pilgrimage just to look for "Ghery’s"
Venturi rebelled against so many (and different) things that is hard to disagree with you, but I don’t think at all that he’s, that they are, rebelling against the "ordinary".
He’s the "ugly and ordinary" guy, remember :)
What’s specific "populist" about Guild House (the 60’s), Oberlin College Art Museum (the 70’s), Lewis Thomas Laboratory (the 80’s) or (the 90’s) the First Campus “Dr. House” :) Center?
Is Kirifuri populism!? So is Tadao Ando :)
Tadao Ando is something of a pop figure in Japan but it has more to do with his personality than with his buildings. Nobody (other than an architect) would accept living in a Tadao Ando house in the UK, and I'm not sure most Japanese people would either.
Baudrillardian or Lyotardian means basing your praxis in the end of history or hyperreality or small narratives or etc. etc.. Which the Venturis do not. They might be postmodern, but they are not postmodernists. Plus the fact is, postmodernist architects DO exist, and what they do is very different from "po-mo architecture": Arata Isozaki and Toyo Ito, for example, do talk about postmodernist aesthetics and postmodern society, respectively, and their buldings reflects this. Venturi talks about a) what he likes and b) America. That's fine. It doesn't make his work any worse.
And yes, "starchitecture" is a populist phenomenon, of a different kind.
Baudrillardian or Lyotardian means basing your praxis in the end of history or hyperreality or small narratives or etc. etc..
Ah, you mean to say a view of postmodernism that could fit on a chocolate wrapper. You could have said so earlier.
I imagine Lyotard would have a thing or five to say about being accosted to the idea of the end of history.
A view of postmodernism that has anything to do with, I don't know, postmodern theory. Do you want me to copy-paste actual quotes and turn this into an actual discussion? I don't. You're just being obtuse for the sake of it, but the basic point is: Venturi is not a postmodernist, and it doesn't make him a better/worse architect.
Lyotard or Baudrillard. But the difference between "the end of metanarratives" and the "end of history" is hard to discern. If anything, the "end of history" does not imply "the end of histories", and Lyotard very explicitly states that history has been replaced by what he calls "technoscience", and what that means is shifting the focus of progress from man to something else - this is not so different from "history has ended and society heads toward implosion"? so why should Lyotard say five or twenty-seven things about this.
And on the other hand, Lyotard's idea of the sublime is clearly at odds with the likes of Venturi: while Venturi, as a populist, examines what there is and uses it, Lyotard talks about the unacceptable and what there isn't (more or less what I said about humour).
Lyotard or Baudrillard. But the difference between "the end of metanarratives" and the "end of history" is hard to discern.
It is not hard to discern at all - in fact in order to argue for an end of history Fukuyama had to appeal to historical materialism, the granddaddy of all metanarratives. But I'll stop quibbling now.
I was just floored by the images! And yes, "A Place to Live Above All Others" is clever! Cheers :o)
I have not and never will be a fan of Wonky - Robert Venturi.
32 comments on a post with no analysis of the place of popular music combos in cultural history - this must be a record!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home