The “Avant-Garde” In Asian Architecture
With exponential advancements in methods of dealing with the built environment, we are constantly faced with new and unforeseen challenges, ones which succeed in baffling us even today, when we are well equipped to find solutions to the most trivial of problems. Here, it is exciting to observe how, using our basic instincts, we arrive at solutions which are either so fitting or devastating, that they trigger a mental reorientation. I believe creation of this drama/ conflict is what makes an action “avant-garde”.
Asian architecture, while on one hand has revolutionized technological innovations, on the other, has been deep-rooted in the local context and traditions. This has served as a perfect catalyst for renewed architectural discourse. The amalgamation of these contrasting elements- monumentality and humbleness, global vision and a local reach, are what, I believe, make these buildings truly “avant-garde” today. This essay attempts to explore three such projects, which, in my opinion, have critiqued the status-quo and have hence helped in reshaping the contemporary built environment by reevaluating tradition.
I feel this aptly justifies why I consider Chaoyang Park Plaza, which recreates mountainous terrain and blends with elements of nature (indicated in Figure 1), as avant-garde. Yansong is able to amalgamate a very intimate form of spirituality with tall buildings, a symbol of modernism. He continues, “I want (the two towers) to look strong and stand out because I know there is another ‘skyline’, with the CCTV tower and China World Trade Center” but “I think the curves work well because of the park next to it”. This is an interesting juxtaposition of a kind-of-affinity for both capitalist-modernist ideals and subtleties of nature. The idea of accentuating natural organic form and context by means of high-end technology to produce a building dramatic for the present day, in terms of both scale and form, makes the building stand out in principle and as a physical entity. As Greenberg points out, “the same themes that are mechanically varied in a hundred different works” appears “a superior consciousness of history, … of a new kind of criticism of society”.
Chaoyang Park Plaza adopts features of “classical Chinese landscape paintings-lakes, springs, forests and valleys” resulting in its amorphous form, which not only is an understanding of Chinese traditional styles, but is also a critique of “overproduced high-rise buildings standing as a symbol for capital and power”. A LEED Gold certification carries forward the buildings’ affinity to nature to the innovation and integration of green technology (MADArchitects), allowing the building to truly stand out within its context, yet act as a humble model for contextual amalgamation.
Jasper Morrison calls it the “architecture of the fearless.” “He reduces architecture to elemental components-walls, floors, roofs and stairs- and builds them back up in unprecedented, but recognizable ways… usual divisions between inside and out, public and private, urban and architectural, and even between the floor levels simply don’t exist.” But “arises from them an architecture with remarkable clarity in terms of concept and execution.” As shown in Figure 2, ‘house’ as an element providing shelter is completely deconstructed, without essentially doing away with the functionality of the “building”. His adaptation of a framed structure is revolutionary in its conception yet is deeply rooted in his primal understanding of a Japanese shelter- one where the floor is a “place to sit, eat, study or sleep”. He uses minimal materials, utilities, and functions and turns them upside down and inside out.
While some may call his move arrogant in the context of the neighboring buildings, I believe, it is a humble gesture in reconnecting the human with both the exterior and with nature - by providing an extroverted design, the human is able to establish contact with the outdoor and landscape (both ‘inside’ and outside the house). “Avant-garde”, in my opinion, is also about an element of disbelief: “Fujimoto suddenly realized (looking at a work of Toyo Ito) that the column was no longer just a column” It is these little elements, where, for just a moment you are taken aback with amazement, about how a detail as small as that is re-invented, especially after having been repeatedly reinvented in the past.
In case of House NA, what accentuates this principle is the relatability of the function. I believe this conflict that avant-garde produces at the most intimate scale of a house creates a greater impact than a public building would. In addition, the notion of privacy, so trivial to contemporary lifestyle, has been completely shattered by providing clear glass on three facades. The realization of this otherwise abstract fantasy is also what makes this building “avant-garde”.
Questioning tradition
India, even today, is extremely conservative when it comes to religion. Religious buildings that flood the subcontinent, still carry a monumental element in them, hence subjected to a form of high sensitivity and unacceptance of evolution. The temple, as a symbol of Hinduism, is seen in the same light, where, a Dark-age like fear and affinity for tradition anchors people together. This stagnation often proves detrimental to critical thought, which is translated to how religious architecture is perceived. In such a context, the Shiv Temple comes across as a respite and hints towards a positive synthesis of this thought process.
The Shiv temple is one of the few ‘experiments’ to re-evaluate the physical form of the religious institution, one which envisions a contemporary form, material, and layout while keeping the traditional values intact. It is this form of ‘subtle critique’of a rigid religious system that makes this building “avant-garde”. The temple “adheres to the planning logic of the traditional temple architecture” while reimagining the “traditional shikhara temple silhouette.” (Sp+A)I feel “avant-garde” is a momentary concept, one which redefines itself constantly with time.
Greenberg discusses the “avant-garde” of the 60s, who were struggling between identifying themselves as a hippie or a bourgeois, wherein both the cases they detached with the general masses. However, as also reflective in architecture, “avant-garde” today is more about re-grounding oneself to communicate both with the masses and a reoriented form of the bourgeois.
