On Monday, September 19th, ChinaGSD will be hosting a Distinguished Lecture by Prof.Kenneth Frampton, co-supported by AsiaGSD and Design Dialogues. Prof. Kenneth Frampton will share his recent visit to China, as well as his thoughts and concerns on contemporary architecture in the emerging worlds. Following the lecture will be a dialogue with Prof. K. Michael Hays (Eliot Noyes Professor of Architecture Theory at Harvard GSD), with responses by Fu Yun (MArch ’15, DDes Candicate) and An Tairan (MDes ’17).
Kenneth Frampton is Ware Professor of Architecture at Columbia GSAPP, where he has taught since 1972. He was trained as an architect at the AA, and has worked as an architect, architectural historian and critic. In addition to Columbia, Frampton has taught at a number of leading institutions including the Royal College of Art in London, the ETH in Zurich, the Berlage Institute in Amsterdam, EPFL in Lausanne and the Accademia di Architecttura in Mendrisio. Kenneth Frampton is the author of Modern Architecture and Critical Present (1980)， Studies in Tectonic Culture (1995), American Masterworks (1995), Le Corbusier (2001), Labour, Work & Architecture (2005), and most recently, L’Altro Movimento Moderno (2015) and A Genealogy of Modern Architecture: Comparative Critical Analysis of Built Form (2015). He is currently at work on an expanded fifth edition of Modern Architecture: A critical History, which will cover architecture in China and other emerging worlds.
Occasioned by the opening of the Yale School of Architecture exhibtion, "Gwathmey Siegel: Inspiration & Transformation", Kenneth Frampton, (Ware Professor of Architecture, Graduate School of Architecture , Planning and Preservation at Columbia University) lectures on the architecture, innovation, process, and legacy of this acclaimed firm.
Kenneth Frampton was born in 1930 and trained as an architect at the Architectural Association School of Architecture, London. He has worked as an architect and as an architectural historian and critic, and is now Ware Professor at the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Columbia University, New York. He has taught at a number of leading institutions in the field, including the Royal College of Art in London, the ETH in Zurich, the Berlage Institute in Amsterdam, EPFL in Lausanne and the Accademia di Architettura in Medrisio. Frampton is the author of numerous essays on modern and contemporary architecture, and has served on many international juries for architectural awards and building commissions. In addition to Modern Architecture: A Critical History, his publications include Studies in Tectonic Culture, Labour, Work and Architecture, and A Genealogy of Modern Architecture: Comparative Critical Analysis of Built Form.
Ware Professor of Architecture, Columbia University, New York.
"Architecture in the Age of Globalization."
Sponsored by the Department of Architecture and the Loeb Fellowship.
Lecture date: 2001-03-01
Kenneth Frampton returns to a seminar that he held in Jerusalem in 1996 concerning critical regionalism. He discusses and reflects upon the arguments of the leading protagonists who participated in this seminar: Alvaro Siza, Jean Nouvel, Patricia Patkan, Glenn Murcutt, Renzo Piano, and Enric Miralles.
A graduate of the AA, Kenneth Frampton is Ware Professor of Architecture at Columbia University. His books include Modern Architecture: A Critical History and Studies in Tectonic Culture.
Lecture date: 1968-01-01
Kenneth Frampton’s lecture continues (starts in Part 2):
Kenneth Frampton quotes Le Corbusier’s “Revolution can be avoided through design.” He claims to be putting together a series of ideological identifications with decisions about expression and about aesthetic, and to say that one reflects the other: he argues that there is indeed a very strong connection. Then, he will argue that his basic work, the period from 1917 to 1935, is illuminated by the awareness of the problem of architecture versus building. Consciousness of this problem mentioned takes place on two levels: one is the level of what is the paradigmatic plan form and the other, what is to be the essential status of the built expression. In both levels, there is this problem of architecture versus building.
Both problems were anticipated by Adolf Loos. Although correspondence has not been revealed, it is clear that Ozenfant, Le Corbusier and Paul Delaunay in L’Esprit Nouveau, were very aware of Loos, and “Ornament and Crime is published quite early in that magazine. Unfortunately, another text is not published in L’Esprit Nouveau, which Frampton thinks that is absolutely central to this whole problem: Loos’s “Architecture” of 1910, which begins with a problem: “the houses here are in harmony with the landscape and with the lake, they do not look as if they are of the hands of man, they look as if they were done by the hands of God” then “we have here a modern villa and all the harmony is destroyed.” Why is the harmony destroyed? Because the modern villa is by an architect. It doesn’t matter if he is a good or bad architect, but “he comes from the city and has no culture.“
By this, Frampton explains, he means that, by definition, urbanized populations are uprooted populations, and are in essence torn from their culture, in the sense of something organic, in the sense that Heidegger would have understood the word culture. That this problem lies underneath the whole heritage of the Gothic revival of Pugin and that it would have been a shared angst by L’Eplattenier and then part of Le Corbusier’s inherited tradition.
Therefore, in 1924, we get a very elegant statement of the problem in la maison La Roche, which is an ‘L’ shaped and, in Frampton’s view, it has a Gothic revival plan; bracketed entirely by itself. While La Roche is stuck into the cube, the free plan is used as an allusion between building and architecture. Le Corbusier was conscious of this opposition in levels other than the plan form. Namely, in the level shown most clearly in the weekend house, in which the building process is not allowed to enter the level of the architectural expression. In all the projects that appear in Vers une Architecture, in the maison Citroen, the build process is always suppressed, the building is made out of white stuff, just as the Palladian villas. There is a curious break of course, which is the weekend house, from the 5 principles of modern architecture. About the weekend house of 1935, he writes: “the planning of such a house demanded extreme care, the elements of the construction, where the sole architectural means.” He built a house in which the elements of the construction, as it would have been the case for Pugin or Viollet-Le-Duc, were the sole architectural means. Questions follow.
Madhu Sarin, architect, is presented. She explains that her interest in Le Corbusier aroused really out of having lived and studied architecture in his city, Chandigarh. She presents a picture of Chandigarh as if it was conceived and contrasts it with what it is today. She wants to examine the role of architects and planners in the creation of an urban environment as well as system. Le Corbusier wanted to reform society through the control of the built environment, he attempted to create an utopian or idealistic society, based on the assumption that as long as you control the built environment and the physical framework of the city, you can create the society that you try to create.
She offers a brief summary of the plan for Chandigarh, a city that is a product of unique historical circumstances. As a result of the partition of India in 1947, the province of East Punjab was partitioned and the old capital of the estate went to Pakistan. The city, as a result, received millions of refugees who had been uprooted and were suddenly in a region with no center. The politicians and new leaders of independent India, thought of it as an opportunity to use the creation of a capital as a symbolic expression of the aspirations of the new nation. The circumstances which made Le Corbusier’s association with Chandigarh were related to the high aspirations for the new nation held by the new government, but they only represented a little portion of the population. When L
Lecture date: 1968-01-01
Russell Walden: ‘Ronchamp Reconsidered’
Debate after von Moos’s lecture. Russell Walden is presented, he will give a talk under the title ‘Ronchamp Reconsidered.’ He is from New Zealand, teaches in Birmingham; he is an editor and a contributing author of the book ‘The Open Hand: Essays on Le Corbusier,” (not yet published at the moment of the symposium) by the MIT Press.
Russell Walden has chosen to talk about Ronchamp, a good reason to move away from the period of the 1920s, chosen by many of the other speakers. The architecture of Le Corbusier seems to possess mysterious, allusive qualities. For example, Stan von Moos, in writing about Ronchamp, reminds us about the influence of nature upon Le Corbusier, other author ventures the explanation that it is a creative inspiration which cannot be understood by the clinically minded. Vincent Scully has explained it in terms of the sculptural quality of Greek sculpture. André Wogenscky, Le Corbusier’s chief assistant, who worked with him for around 20 years, said that Ronchamp was the beginning of the decline in Corbusier’s work. For Russell, Ronchamp is a personal expression, a paradox between christian ideas, pilgrimage on one hand, and the values of nature on the other.
The problem of Le Corbusier, seems to have been to express these two schools of thought. Obviously, there is a tension between the two sets of values: the richness of expression of Ronchamp is due entirely to this tension. Russell aims to explain the level of consciousness, the multiplicity of intentions and hidden meanings, brought and fused together in the design of this pilgrimage chapel. Deeply embedded in the theoretical foundation of Ronchamp is Le Corbusier’s approach to design. To develop this, we will consider how Le Corbusier wrote about design.
In one of his unpublished sketchbooks, he wrote: “When a task is assigned to me, I usually put it aside in my memory, which means not to tolerate myself any sketch for months. The human head is so formed, as to posses certain independence; there is an area, where the elements of a problem can be left to work themselves out, they are left to wider, to ferment. One day, the spontaneous subconscious initiative, which is where inspiration comes, makes you take a pencil, a carbon, some coloured pencils, and you let it flow, out onto the paper. The idea comes, as a child comes, it is brought into the world: it is born.” From this insight into Le Corbusier’s creative process, we can see that it is possible that his intellectual intentions could have been set alight by anything, from the writers of philosophers, to the formal structure of a shell. This could be described as a symphony of language, one that contains many levels of meanings, which are open to us to see and appreciate. If we place the paradox brought in the beginning in the frame of this approach to design, the conclusion is clearly that Corbusier's thinking is dualistic, in the sense that he places his creativity upon resolving opposing principles, dichotomies which continuously play against one another, which are expressed on various points in this architecture.
As a designer, he claimed to refuse to accept dichotomies, in the search for an expression of unity. Contradictions, from Corb’s point of view are resolved. He took these contradictions to the point where they were no longer opposed but began to become convergent, where unity is formed and realized. When he moved from La Chaux de Fonds to Paris, such a process took stronger senses, as Charles Jencks has often pointed out, that Le Corbusier has a highly emotional man. With such a complex emotional personality, it is not a surprising to find him related to Cervantes’s hero, Don Quixote. Let us consider for a moment the open hand: this was a key idea on the design methodology, which wished to express the idea of giving and receiving: a disembodied image, and isolated from the earth. More than just a hand, it is also a bird, a symbol of the spiritual as opposed to the material world. Perhaps Corb’s notion of the spiritual wasn’t the traditional christina point of view, as no doubt, he thought spirituality as outside religious institutions. As Sterling said a few months after Ronchamp was finished, “the sensational impact of the chapel, on the visitor, is significantly not sustained on the appeal to the intellect.” It would be interesting to know whether if he continues to argue so, as Giedion pointed out, there is a need for historical perspective in order to make a final assessment of Le Corbusier’s work. From theological points of view, the interior reveals a paradox: if for the pilgrim, the heart of the christian mystery, because here the feast of the liturgy is celebrated and enjoyed, then the spatial resolution of the altar
Lecture date: 1996-02-20
Possibly the most singular aspect of the architecture of Jrn Utzon is his particular concern for the expressivity of structure and construction. Grounded in the tectonic line of the modern movement, his work can be seen as part of a continuous development extending from Auguste Perret to Carlo Scarpa. Kenneth Frampton examines Utzon in the light of the notion that modern architecture is as much about construction as space and abstract form. Frampton contemplates Utzon's relationship to topics such as Japanese architecture, platforms and plateaus, roof work and earthwork, boat building and church building, before discussing the Sydney Opera House.
Kenneth Frampton is Ware Professor in Architecture at Columbia University.
NB: Cuts out during lecture.
learn more in the following link: http://bit.ly/1zBSZau
We caught up with Kenneth Frampton earlier this week at the event to announce the finalists of the Mies Crown Hall Americas Prize (MCHAP) in Santiago, Chile. Beyond asking him about the MCHAP jury's selection process, we took a moment to ask our classic ArchDaily question: what is architecture? Listen to his answer in the video above, or read the transcript of his answer after the break.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016 2:00pm
Introduction by Jeffrey Inaba
Toyo Ito, Toyo Ito & Associates, Architects
Kazuyo Sejima, S A N A A
Sou Fujimoto, Sou Fujimoto Architects
Akihisa Hirata, Akihisa Hirata Architecture Office
Junya Ishigami, Junya Ishigami + Associates
Kenneth Frampton, Ware Professor of Architecture, Columbia GSAPP
Jeffrey Inaba, Adjunct Associate Professor, Columbia GSAPP
Offering a panorama of internationally-acclaimed and up-and-coming architects from Japan, the panel will present past and current projects and discuss shared architectural themes that extend across the three generations of practitioners.
Presented in collaboration with the Department of Architecture and Design, The Museum of Modern Art, New York.
The exhibition A Japanese Constellation: Toyo Ito, SANAA, and Beyond is open March 13- July 4, 2016
Special thanks to Sachi Hoshikawa and Akihisa Hirata for coordination and organization in support of this event.
Álvaro Siza Vieira
Introduced by Barry Bergdoll and Kenneth Frampton; Moderated by Pedro Gadanho
Recorded: June 18, 2013
Álvaro Siza Vieira is the most important and influential Portuguese architect of our time. His work has been internationally recognized for more than five decades for its coherent and thoughtful response to both site and history in context. His architecture, spread across the globe, is lauded for its intuitive creative drive and innovative spatial experimentation. On the occasion of his June 18, 2013, Current Work lecture held at the Museum of Modern Art, Siza presented the evolution of his Iberê Camargo Museum in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Siza discussed the solutions he supplied for a challenging and dramatic waterfront site, as well as his pervasive use of natural light throughout the building. In the video above, watch Siza’s entire lecture, including, first, a thoughtful introduction by Kenneth Frampton, Ware Professor of Architecture at Columbia University, and afterwards, a conversation between Siza and Pedro Gadanho, Curator of Contemporary Architecture at MoMA.
The Architectural League’s Current Work series presents the work of significant international figures, who powerfully influence contemporary architectural practice and shape the future of the built environment.
Introduction: Deepa Ramaswamy
Moderator: Felicity Scott
Panelists: Kenneth Frampton, Michael McKinnell, Robert Goodman
This panel will focus on the group’s interest in the city as a space for political action and theoretical speculation. From the very first meetings, we find notes on the politics of architecture, the city and its mobile and expanding population, its racial and economic problems. A study group organized by Jaque Robertson and Giovanni Pasanella paid particular attention to these issues. CASE 4 was focused on Urban Form, and included additional guests on topics such as urban redevelopment and renewal. What was to be the role of the architect in the formation of what appeared as an increasingly unstable urban environment? Some of the debates and experiments within the CASE deliberations would be realized in the 1967 MoMA exhibition “The New City,” which involved several CASE members and evidenced, through a series of speculative projects, their disparate attitudes towards the city.