Villa Savoye

Constructed by Le Corbusier in 1929-31, the Villa Savoye, one of the greatest masterpieces of young architecture, has been widely contested on the part of its originality and its accordance to the practical deduction requirements every work should meet.Following the tradition of International style (a major(ip) architectural style in the 1920s and 1930s, also known as a Modern movement, the modernistic style of maximum minimalism), the Swiss architect Le Corbusier dreamed of breaking all architectural rules and commandments (such as scope, tectonics, prossemic etc) and twist unanalyzable, geometrically endeavored, unornamented, spacious houses as he called them, machines to be lived in (machines habiter).Of course, this outburst of the twentieth century architecture towards the total mechanization and simplicity was numerously noviceized for the lack of humanism (box-shaped building dehumanize and deprive people of their individuality, they say), yet Le Corbusiers (and othe r modern architects, such as Mies van der Rohe, Walter Gropius, Mart Stam, Hans Scharoun, as well) intention was absolutely humanistic to provide every man with a place to live in this constantly growing world.Le Corbusier sought cost-efficient ways to house large numbers of people in receipt to the urban housing crisis. He was a le fruit drinkr of the modernist movemnet to create disclose living condition and better society through housing concepts.But isolated from the problem of efficency, some art historians p denote to look on his works, and especially on the Villa Savoye, as on the works of art which provide many artistic effects and influence human perception with unexpected geometry. As a matter of fact, Le Corbusier disproves Umberto Ekos functionalistic theory of architecture by costructing buildings to exceed all levels of expectation (as it is required from works of art). Many critics refer to his buildings as to the true masterpieces.William J. R. Curtis, for exam ple, analyzing the elaborate shape of the Le Corbusiers building, compares the Villa with a Cubistic painting. While Mark Wigley pays much attention to the colour of the Villa Savoye his regard of its glairing sportingness is unconcealed. So, lets take these two critics analyses into pieces in methodicalness to find out who sounds to a greater extent convincing and whose point of consume looks more(prenominal) original and advanced.William J. R. Curtis takes the most evident uniqueness of the Villa Savoye for analysis the shape. What he real notes is Le Corbusiers excellent ability to combine severe and pulseless square horizontal forms with intricate curvatures and asymmetrical forms. This is the top formalistic skill, he claims.It is a well-known fact that Villa Savoye in Poissy is Le Corbusiers major work, associated to his cousin Pierre Jeanneret. In this construction he pioneered to concretize the basal five points for a late architecture1. constructing buildings tha t stand on pilotis gum olibanum they should elevate the mass from the ground. The loads are carried punctually and release the off-base argues, allowing points 2), 3) and 4). Pilotti was one of the most favorite Le Corbusiers devices to free the raze levels for pedestrians.2. a free plan3. a free faade4. long horizontal windows trail from one wall to another and outcropping the frontage. They allow generous fount on light and sun.5. a roof garden the terrace, build on the roof, totally resembles the garden. Curtis is free to operate almost all the principles, although he pays more attention to deconstructing the overall shape of the Villa Savoye. Thats why any principle he includes into the analysis serves to show this unordinary combination of forms and lines, which make the whole building opened toward the conversation with the outdoor atmosphere and the horizon behind it.It is modeled and hollowed to allow the surroundings to enter it, and its formal energies radiate to t he borders of the site and to the yon horizon, keenly observes William J.R. Curtis in his essay about the Villa. In fact, he uses many arguments to sound more convincing. For example, he speaks of the faade to be clean blank and forbidding in the whole regard of the first-level box that at first sight makes an impression of hardly horizontal lines predominance. While the faade is a fair key to open an elaborate asymmetry of the Villa, secluded in the other three sides one potbelly rediscover the building from.The faade with its long horizontally placed ribbon of windows seems to be a difficult riddle that at first glance requires a uncomplicated answer (the Villa is incorrigibly symmetrical) tho can be solved only after taking a glance from the rear (its symmetry is unhinge by the curved volumes behind).Another argument the author refers to is the use of pilotis, which Le Corbusier favored so much. The cylindrical pilotis are actually the only good lines of the building helpfully holding the huge first-level box so that create an impression of hovering.Thus, Le Corbusier not only frees the low-level space for pedestrians but also breaks the architectural archetype of tectonics (in a uncouth view such a thin pilotti cannot hold such a massive box). But it is the architects great achievement to be able to supply this huge machine to be lived in with an lively sense of lightness.Mark Wigley chooses another path to the Villa Savoye. Unlike William J.R. Curtis, who takes a drive to the Villa and a walk around it so that grasp the overall expression, Wigley assesses the close picture of it, i.e. analyzing the colour of the building Le Corbusier preferred, having been influenced by the vernacular whitewash technique.For the design of the buildings themselves, Le Corbusier said that all buildings should be white by truth and criticized any effort at ornamentation. What Wigley states in his essay is that the nature of white colour in LeCorbusiers houses is not as simple as only an echo of Mediterranean vernacular whitewash the Swiss archtect value so much during his travel to the East at the end of 1910. His new found complete of white is of a complex origin, Wigley claims. For example, he cites Le Corbusiers letter to his friend William Ritter, in which the architect share his impertinently made discovery of white, as a proof for his guess.This subtle critic cannot accept the view that the reason for such a faithful love to the white colour is only a result of submission to the irresistable haul of the Mediterranean. In fact, the architects appeal to the universal stipulation of white seems to be founded on a highly specific and individual set of personal experiences and fantasies. Le Corbusiers choice of the white wall is motivated by synthesis rather than by a simple influence.Thats why the phenomenon of white in modern architecture sure exceeds all the discourses (a collective idea of the white colour) and rests on the intimate wound up experiences of every architect that rediscovers the colour for him/herself.To some extent I rattling feel this personal modernistic view on white. I can feel the authors attitude towards the colour that obviously contradicts the common idea of white as a image of purity (yes, Le Corbusier was a purist architect, but only in terms of the usage of simple geometrical forms) and sanctity. His white is deprived of the collectivistic views and is rather a symbol of vanguard blank page. Le Corbusier rubbed off the messages scripted by the preceding cultures.