POP ARCHITECTURE

Is the development of a new ideology for the contemporary culture necessary to make architecture relevant for today?

Over the centuries, architecture has varied greatly.  Despite constant change, one thing has stayed the same: designers throughout history have been concerned with developing architecture that is relevant to the present.  The socio-political factors that define an age cannot be ignored or divorced from the built environment that emerges from it.  However, questions emerge: What is required to develop an architecture that is relevant for today?  If the cultural environment influences the built environment, are new ideologies necessary in order to create relevant contemporary design?  In an attempt to provide an answer, the transition between Modernism and Post-Modernism will be discussed, specifically in regards to the post-modern movement, Pop Architecture.  It is speculated that in understanding the evolution of architecture over a time period conclusions can be made regarding the relevance of a new ideology and its necessity in creating a contemporary architecture.

Before delving into the topic at hand, one key definition is required: What is meant by ‘ideology’?  According to the Webster’s New World Dictionary, ‘ideology’ can be defined as follows:

1.    The study of ideas, their nature and source

2.    Thinking or theorizing of an idealistic, abstract, or impractical nature; fanciful speculation

3.    The doctrines, opinions, or way of thinking of an individual, class etc.; specif., the body of ideas on which a particular political, economic, or social system is based [i]

The first definition is not relevant to the question posed and shall be dismissed, however, the following two definitions pose a problem.  The second definition is concerned with ‘ideology’ as an ideal that is impractical in nature whereas the third definition deals with ‘ideology’ as a body of ideas relative to a cultural system, which poses a great discrepancy.  For the purpose of the discussion, both definitions will be addressed.

Before an analysis of its emergence from Modernism is conducted, background regarding Pop Architecture is perhaps required.  Pop Architecture was a branch of Pop Art.  Pop Art originated from a group of painters that began celebrating ordinary aspects of culture, as vulgar as they may be.  The term Pop Art blanketed a number of artists with varying styles, which is not unlike the term International Style which covered many Modern architects.  What these artists had in common was the use of iconography.  Authentic pop artists represent mass produced images/objects by using a style that is also based upon the visual vocabulary of mass production.  When Pop began to delve into architecture, it found much resistance.  It appeared that it was easier for critics to digest Pop Art than Pop Architecture.  Eventually key figures emerged such as Charles Jencks, Robert Maxwell, Robert Stern, Robert Venturi, and Denise Scott Brown.  Pop Architecture is often categorized under the category of Post-Modernism and today, many projects by post-modern architects, such as Frank Gehry, are referred to as Pop Architecture.  However, there are still many who feel that “Pop Architecture never existed… There is no Pop style, no Pop philosophy of design, no conscious movement.  [But they do feel that]… the Pop spirit… was a critical element in the development of some of the most distinguished architectural careers of the late 20^th century.[ii]”  Since critics seem to agree that there exists a Pop spirit, what defines this ‘zeitgeist’?  There are several key elements that define Pop Architecture and the Pop philosophy such as communication, context, and how technology is utilized and addressed.

According to Geoffrey Broadbent, pop is about communication.  Specifically, Pop communicates through the existing, gaining insights from the ordinary.  In the past, these ordinary objects were considered banal, common and vulgar and were excluded from architecture.  “The Pop painter changes the context or increases the scale of common elements to give them uncommon meaning.[iii]”  These ordinary, often mass-produced elements were often used in unexpected ways.  For example, Venturi’s Football Hall of Fame features a giant scoreboard on the front that he calls a ‘Bill-ding-board.’  The key to a successful Pop design is when the pluralism of Pop culture is addressed and multiplicity of meaning is communicated.  This addresses the underlying commitment to human values of Pop philosophy and “the creation of an environment enjoyed by people, that involves people, that stimulates people, that makes them happy.[iv]”  This refers to all people, not just those who are culturally superior.  Pop understands “humor, interest, intelligibility, specifically, functionality, complexity and charm… [not just] ‘good taste’.[v]”  As Powell states, “its double coding makes it interesting not only to the average Joe Blow on the street but also to fellow architects and Postmodern critics.[vi]”

Pop architects are also concerned about the environment in which their designs emerge and also reside.  Pop theory addresses the notion that if user can control his or her environment the ability to identify with the environment increases.  According to Wexman, “the Pop architect looks at the environments that are working – that are ‘used’ and tries to distill the reasons why they work.[vii]”  The use of precedents is in itself not a new idea, however, Pop is influenced by the built landscape and the landscape of popular culture.  Pop simultaneously looks back (classicism, historicism) and at the present (consumerism).

Lastly, in regards to technology, “Pop architects consider technology a tool, not an absolute value itself.  Rather than design buildings that are ‘true to technology’, they try to make technology serve design ends that are non-technological, in previous unthought of ways.[viii]”  Pop does not merely imitate automobiles, airplanes, steamships and trains by implying dynamism or using new technology.  Instead it takes it one step further and designs for the eyes of passengers in a moving vehicle resulting in an enlargement of the physical world.  Pop has the tendency to design with appropriate images and Pop designers use technology to help project these images whether it be contemporary or historical.  Unlike Modernism, in Pop, expressiveness is more than articulation of the structural elements.  Hiding and exposing the structure is used to further other concerns such as imagery, complexity, communicability, user involvement, humor, and surprise.  According to Sal Meredino, a Los Angeles industrial designer and teacher, “why should buildings always express their own structure?  Why shouldn’t they express what’s inside?… A city ought to be joyous.  There’s enough severity in a city anyway, without striving for it in architecture.[ix]”

The characteristics of Pop Architecture have been established but the question of how they are relevant to today remains.  According to John McHale in his article The Plastic Parthenon: “Our emergent world society, with its particular quality of speed, mobility, mass production and consumption, rapidity of change and innovation, is the latest phase of an ongoing cultural and social revolution.[x]”  Lehmann addresses this when he writes, “in our technological consumer oriented society more and more people will play an active part in devising their own individual environment.[xi]”  Pop Architecture resides in a pluralist society – a hodgepodge of contradictory, competing and conflicting styles, a mix of symbols.    Reason that Pop Architecture such as Disneyland and the hotels in Las Vegas work is that they employ meaningful images.  They find an appropriate symbol and express it effectively and clearly which results in a built in capacity to communicate to everyone.  Powell proposes that contemporary architecture should be a “nostalgic collage!  Let image determine form… Let buildings reflect the diversity of users and clients’ tastes!  Let architects design for specific persons – rather than from some utopian, abstract concept of Man.[xii]“ Denise Scott Brown, the partner of leading Pop architect Robert Venturi, believes that “a… reason for looking to pop culture is to find formal vocabularies for today which are more relevant to people’s diverse needs and more tolerant than… latter day Modern Architecture.[xiii]”  These issues are the heart and soul of the Pop philosophy.  

With the assumption that the spirit of Pop Architecture is indeed relevant to today, the issue of it being a new ideology remains.  To do so, a comparison must be made between the values of Pop Architecture and those of Modernism, its predecessor.  

Modernism began with the Bauhausian notion of combining architectural studies with courses in painting, crafts, drama and typography.  From this emerged the International Style, which attempted to unite architecture, fine arts, and mass production technology.  Le Corbusier spearheaded the use of new materials and the use of a rational, mathematical order to reveal a universal law.  Platonic shapes were considered ideal forms to use for the creation of an ideal world.  However, many idealized projects failed and these failed utopias helped create the soil for the growth of the Post-Modernist movement.  Charles Jencks, a key figure in Post-Modernist thought and criticism, but is succinctly when he writes: “In other words, according to… Pop theory, what is most ‘universal’ to most men is a delicate combination of the ‘typical’ and the ‘next step’… For what it meant was that the attempt by the Pioneers, by Corbusier and Gropius, to get a ‘universal’ style was misconceived.[xiv]”  Stern elaborates on this notion by stating that “Modernism saw the world in ideal terms; Pop-ists saw it as very real.  Modernist buildings were designed not for the world as it was but for the world as Modernist architects wanted it to become.[xv]”  Many Pop designers felt that the purity and rationality of the International Style was inhuman and thought that “perhaps irregularity and disorderly liveliness should be the keynotes of a truly human architecture.[xvi]”  Modernism was concerned about space and structure.  Pop-ists, on the other hand feels popular culture creates the context for the design and therefore it should inform the design and be an important source for symbolism.

Given this, one can conclude that there was definitely a shift in opinions during the period between the Modernist movement and the emergence of Pop Architecture in the late 1950s.  Whether or not there was a shift in ideas is harder to conclude.  It appears, given the two possible definitions of ideology, that there are two answers to the question of whether or not a new ideology is required to create architecture for today.  Given the definition of ideology as an impractical ideal, it can be said that an ideology was definitely present in Modernism.  However, it appears that no new ideology influences the Pop movement.  Rather Pop Architecture is based on the rejection of a utopian ideal and the glorification of the existing world whether it is vulgar, banal or otherwise.  On the other hand, if ideology was defined as a body of ideas based on a culture, then a new ideology is required.  Since culture is constantly evolving, architecture constantly evolves.  Those who began the Pop movement chose to react to the culture in which they lived and it was increasingly becoming a culture that was searching for something other than an unobtainable utopia.  As consumerism took hold and the world was increasingly becoming viewed from an automobile instead of from the pedestrian perspective, architecture adapted to address that.

Bibliography

1. Fishwick, M. & Neil, J. ed.  Popular Architecture.  Bowling Green: Bowling Green Popular Press, 1974.

2. Guralnik, David ed.  Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language.  New York: William Collins and World Publishing Co., Inc., 1976.

3. Jencks, Charles.  Modern Movements in Architecture.  Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd., 1985.

4. Lehmann, Geunter M.  “Pop Architecture.”  Architecture Canada 45, no. 6 (1960): 69-71.

5. Papadakis, A. & Powell, K.  “Pop, Popular and Populist.”  Architectural Design 62, no. 7 (1992): 6-7.

6. Powell, Jim.  Postmodernism for Beginners.  New York: Writers and Readers Publishing Inc., 1998.

7. Russell, J. & Gablik, S. ed.  Pop Art Redefined.  London: Thames and Hudson, 1969.

8. Stessor, Catherine.  “Pop goes Architecture.”  Architect’s Journal 194, no. 22 (1991): 63-64.

9. Wexman, Virginia.  “The Case for Pop Architecture in that Anti-pop City of Chicago.”  Inland Architect 14, no. 6 (1970): 12-15.

10. Wolfe, Tom.  “Electro-graphic Architecture.”  Architecture Canada 45, no. 10 (1960): 42a-47.

11. Stern, Robert.  “The Pop and the Popular at Disney.”  Architectural Design 62, no. 7 (1992): 20-23.