Utilitarianism in 21st Century: Modern Architecture
What is utility? According to the Oxford Dictionary, utility is defined as “the state of being useful, profitable or beneficial” (Oxford). For economists, the term utility is more associated with the “total satisfaction received from consuming a good or service” (Investopedia). For architects, utility means to maximize the efficiency of the use of space, light, material that the construction of a building requires. In a more common sense, utility is about the level of happiness from doing an activity. If utility is a measurement of how satisfied we are or how useful things are, then utilitarianism is to promote action which maximizes utility or happiness. Utilitarianism in architecture becomes functionalism, which stresses that the design for a building should be based on its purpose, a principle that many 21st century architectures follow.
It is not hard to find the utilitarianism values in the construct of 21st century architecture. The utilitarianism in modern architecture rejects bourgeois details such as over-abundant decorative details in cornices and eaves. Utilitarianism honours the functionality of the building and space rather than the grandeur of ornamental purpose. The roots of utilitarian thinking in 21st century architecture could be traced back to the establishment of Bauhaus School by pioneer modern architect Walter Gropius in 1919, Germany — or its American alternative called International Style. The Bauhaus school of architecture not only started “a utopian craft guild combining architecture, sculpture and painting into a single creative expression”, but also for the first time adopted the slogan “Art into Industry” and stressed the “importance of designing for mass production” (Griffith Winton). This Bauhaus trend — which mainly focuses on mass production — demands its architecture and design to be efficient, cost-effective and functional in a utilitarian sense. Usually in a Bauhaus building, eyes are drawn by dark and neutral colors in white, grey, or black; the Bauhaus house often has flat roofs, smooth façades, and cubic shapes to eliminate any unnecessary decorative details and to maximize utility within a finite financial budget; inside the house, the floors are open and furnitures are functional; last but not the least, the Bauhaus normally uses steel-framed glass curtain walls, to invite natural light beaming through the interior during the day and saves electricity in lighting — another manifestation in modern architectural utilitarianism.
An example of 21st Century architecture with Bauhaus inspired elements, from ArchitectWeekly
Another fundamental utilitarian belief in modern architecture is “form (ever) follows function” proclaimed by Louis Sullivan, the American architect who was the mentor of the popular modern architect Frank Lloyd Wright (Sullivan). In his essay “The Tall Building Artistically Considered” he explained his most famous words:
“Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling workhorse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law. Where function does not change form does not change. The granite rocks, the ever-brooding hills, remain for ages;the lightning lives, comes into shape, and dies in a twinkling (Sullivan).”
In a period of booming industrial design (around the early 20th century), Sullivan believes that the construct or the design of a building should be in direct relation to its purpose: who are its inhabitants? How much space do they need? What facilities will they put inside the building? etc.. For Sullivan, to ask and think about these practical questions are essential in maximizing the utility of space and material; in between the design process, the Sullivan-style, functional architecture entails a kind of utilitarian mathematical calculation of costs and benefits and economical thinking, in order to meet today’s mass demands and new green standards. Later Frank Lloyd Wright extends Sullivan’s utilitarian statement on architecture: “Form follows function — that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union” (Wright). His idea of unification of form and function in modern architecture is thoroughly visible in his design for the Guggenheim Museum in New York City, where the interior spiral ramp provides a continuous art-viewing experience for the visitors. For Wright, the function of a building could change over time and oftentimes, “great architecture has this capacity to adapt to changing functional uses without losing one bit of its dignity or one bit of its original intention. And [he] think[s] that’s the great thing about the building at the end of the day” (Wright). A building suits today’s utilitarian need perfectly that is both functional and adjustable. In addition to public spaces like the Guggenheim Museum, there is a skyrocketing demand for housing and mass production. When we apply utilitarian and economical principles to the construct of modern architecture, we align the needs for mass accommodation and the public request for high efficiency. In conclusion, for the 21st century architecture there is usually an intention before the designing of space or a building. And in the best scenarios of all, the form and the function of the building are in union — a perfectly justified utilitarian belief.
But when people design for modern architecture, if people always start with a purpose — a definite one, like putting a loop or end to it — could we risk losing something daring and creative along the way? However, also keep in mind that, that something daring about a piece of architecture comes with a tremendous financial cost and normally invites public doubt towards its functionality in a society deeply rooted in utilitarian beliefs. In a lot of ancient and modern cases, glorious architectural marvels — such as the great Roman heritage Pantheon or Paris’s recent revealed Fondation Louis Vuitton — requires massive funding and often associates with bourgeois ideas. The Fondation Louis Vuitton, designed by modern architect Frank Gehry, newly opened in 2014 and situated at Jardin d’Acclimatation in Bois de Boulogne, like a hidden gem in waves of green at the west center of Paris. When I first visited the museum earlier this fall, Gehry’s abundant use of glass for building excited me from far and enticed me to come close. When I walked closer, I saw a gigantic, beautiful, remarkable architectural masterpiece that I have never experienced in my life. Its modern sophistication, lively energy, and organic, dramatic forms — enhanced by a cascading waterfall by the side of the building — truly thrilled me……But later, I realized that this initial wow and admiration are not the whole story.
The luxury and dramatic look of Fondation Louis Vuitton comes with a very exclusive and expensive background and a private purpose — a purpose that partially runs counter to the utilitarian motto of maximizing practicality and increasing value for the mass public. To begin with, Frank Gehry works for a corporate leader, the French billionaire Bernard Arnault, who is eager to display personal wealth and reputation. Therefore Fondation Louis Vuitton is more a personal or private museum than a public one, “built to hold the blue-chip paintings of a wealthy collector” (Hawthorne). Even though Arnault agrees that in less than 50 years from now (in 2062), the building will revert to public ownership and it will be “a gift to the City of Paris”, the private characteristic of the museum still becomes a “controversial art-world initiative” as it “tweak bourgeois taste and flirt with ugliness, into something monumentally elegant and recognizably Parisian” (Hawthorne).
There is no doubt that the design for the building is brilliant, so airy and organic that it resembles a living entity that breathes in the village of Paris. But from a utilitarian perspective, it has people wonder what its grandeur and drama is all for. And many critics such as Oliver Wainwright responded that the construct of Fondation Louis Vuitton is “an indulgence of over-engineering”; that is , “in reality, a hell of a lot of steel columns and glue-laminated timber beams, thrown together in a riotous cat’s cradle of zig-zagging struts and brackets, props and braces” (Wainwright). Here Wainwright is suggesting that Fondation Louis Vuitton uses excessive construction material, which is supported by generous private funding and would be impossible otherwise. The high-end status of the building refuses many modern utilitarian considerations and it demands extremely immense financial support. On the other hand, Fondation Louis Vuitton does function as a promotional vehicle for LVMH, the European multinational luxury goods conglomerate, integrating haute couture and modern architecture. In fact, LVMH manages various luxury brands including Louis Vuitton, Dior, Fendi — many of which are exclusive to the rich and the high-class and as a promotional vehicle, Fondation Louis Vuitton logically should conform to the same luxury image as well. The corporate background behind the building explains its particular and unusual drama and splendor; its high status further justifies its refusal to utilitarianism in modern architecture in which typically form follows function and focuses on maximizing efficiency of space, structure and construction material.
Another aspect that shows Fondation Louis Vuitton’s opposition to architectural utilitarianism is the relationship between the architectural structure of museum and the art displaying activity inside it. For one thing, Gehry has often “been accused…of making architecture that overwhelms art” (Goldberger). In the case of Fondation Louis Vuitton, its multi-level terraces and overlapping irregular rooms might interfere with its function as art-displaying museum. In a room at the museum (see below), its unusually high ceiling creates a sense of awe and space, which might disturb, enhance or change the character of the art-viewing experience depending on which art it chooses to display. Therefore, it is questionable that if Fondation Louis Vuitton obeys the Walter Gropius’s golden rule that “form follows function” or Wright’s enhanced version of the rule — “Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union” (Wright). It doesn’t look like so. Fondation Louis Vuitton betrays the utilitarian beliefs in the 21st century architecture and invites quite a few criticism as it resembles a sumptuous personal collection and proposes bourgeois ideas.
A room inside Fondation Louis Vuitton, ArchitectDaily
The reason that Fondation Louis Vuitton receives much criticism is that first, it ostentatiously display personal wealth of its founder Bernard Arnault and some public are offended by that. Second, it disobeys the common modern utilitarian rule of maximizing efficiency of space and instead is infamous for lavish use of glass and steel to create its stunning, dramatic, organic forms. Indeed it looks absolutely stunning; in fact, it brilliantly proves the Geryh magic again — after the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao — by design a sophisticated modern crystal palace at the heart of Paris. But to some degree, it does have some limitations on a utilitarian perspective; its expensive and lavish design and use of material and utilize of space is impractical for most architecture in the 21st century; its irregular, abnormal forms might interfere with the art-viewing experience.
Utilitarianism in architecture has its roots in the Baohao School or International Style from the 1920s to 1930s. And the utilitarian beliefs in architecture includes the idea that form follows function or form and function should be one. But is there a danger in conforming to the utilitarian belief in architecture or any other thinking? We might risk losing creative energy while following completely to the function — something creative and daring like Fondation Louis Vuitton’s dramatic and organic forms despite its exclusive background. In the 21st century, a period in which a growing population and economy demands the maximization of utility and efficiency, it is crucial to keep up the pace and apply certain utilitarian rules so as to meet the mass standards. But meanwhile, we have to reserve some space for creativity and innovation for a more interesting future landscape and way of thinking — even that means compromise some utility.
Citings
ArchitectWeekly. “ Why was the Bauhaus Movement so Important for Modern Architecture? “ 12/24/2012 .ArchitectWeekly . Accessed 12/8/2015. “http://www.architectweekly.com/2012/12/why-was-bauhaus-style-so-important.html “
Baan, Iwann. “Fondation Louis Vuitton / Gehry Partners” 13 Oct 2014. ArchDaily. Accessed 8 Dec 2015. <http://www.archdaily.com/555694/fondation-louis-vuitton-gehry-partners/>
Goldberger, Paul. “Frank Gehry Disrupts Paris Architecture with the Foundation Louis Vuitton.” Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair, 31 Aug. 2014. Web. 09 Dec. 2015.
Griffith Winton, Alexandra. “The Bauhaus, 1919–1933”. In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/bauh/hd_bauh.htm (August 2007)
Investopedia. “Definition of Utility.” Investopedia. N.p., n.d. Web.
Oxford. “Definition of Utility in English:.” Utility. Oxford Dictionary, n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2015.
Hawthorne, Christopher. “Gehry’s Louis Vuitton Foundation Museum Is a Triumph, but to What End?” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 17 Oct. 2014. Web. 09 Dec. 2015.
Sullivan, Louis H. The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered. Lippincott’s Magazine, Mar. 1896. Web.
Wainwright, Oliver. “Frank Gehry’s Fondation Louis Vuitton Shows He Doesn’t Know When to Stop.” The Guardian. N.p., 21 Oct. 2014. Web.
Wright, Frank Lloyd. Frank Lloyd Wright: From Within Outward Audioguide [New York: Antenna Audio, Inc. and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 2009])
