SEMINAR FINAL DRAFT
TOPIC: Adaptive rethinking along with fractal architecture as one of the defining solutions for the contemporary complex urban fabric.
SUBMITTED BY: Lily Tandon
1. The End Of The Modern World
2. What abstraction does
3. From the modern to the complex
4. From complexity to form generation
5. Form generation and fractals
7. Conclusions and findings
TOPIC: Adaptive rethinking along with fractal architecture as one of the defining solutions for the contemporary complex urban fabric. Why do we need to do this research?
New technologies (here complexity sciences) attract architectural response. The need is to look one step ahead of modernism & the need is to produce architecture of our time. Hence, the complex urban fabric shall attempt to be more than what Modernism proposes a step ahead of what people are sticking to right now –as- plain abstraction of forms; that architecture is something more than a play of forms, should be evident from the experiences of our daily life, where architecture participates in most activities. The intention of this paper can become clearer with the help of the Para below. Benoit Mandelbrot in his conversation with Seed magazine’s Paolo Antonelli mentioned: “Walking toward the Garnier opera house in Paris, from far away, the most striking thing is the roof. You come closer, other things appear, but they are always of approximately the same degree of complication. Whereas Mies van der Rohe’s architecture seen from a distance is just a big box. As you get closer you see a grid of windows on the box, and as you get really close, you can see some things of whoever lives behind the windows. The building itself had the smallest number of scales imaginable. It is very simple to describe.”1A
(1A) Quoted from excerpts of interview of Benoit Mandelbrot (the father of fractal geometry) with Paola antonelli http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/paola_antonelli_benoit_mandelb.php The end of the modern world
“History may well record that the "modern" world ended on 11 September 2001. On that day anti-modern extremists with medieval sensibilities launched a horrific attack upon a pinnacle symbol of twentieth-century modernity: the coolly rational towers of the World Trade Center, in New York City. The twin towers were the grand expression of Le Corbusier's early twentieth-century modernist vision: rigidly geometrical towers, floating above a superblock, erasing the "clutter" and complexity of the street and replacing it with a breathtakingly "pure" and rational geometry. That was the modernist program in its essence: an art of geometrical fundamentalism, a chilling echo of the terrorists' own religious fundamentalism. It may seem odd to call Le Corbusier a fundamentalist, but the term is apt. He was a utopian visionary with the most grandiose aspirations, willing to destroy almost anything in his way to build a new doctrinaire regime. With "modernist arrogance", in Jane Ridley's words, Le Corbusier proposed to bulldoze the streets and buildings of Paris and replace them with soldier-like rows of modern towers.”1 The new modernist architecture certainly offered sleek and dramatic images of sculpturally abstract forms. But they were just that -- superficial images devoid of deeper connectivity, lacking the careful adaptation to the complexity of the city and its delicate web of history. And it was accepted, because in exchange for the loss of a few nostalgic comforts, we would get an architecture apparently offering better sanitation, labor-saving conveniences, and a lifestyle of technological elegance. At the end...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document