By Francisco G. Zambrano
We begin in the 1930's, during the rise of the Nazi party. During this time, the party was trying to gain supporters any way they could, and the method that worked the best was imagery. Imagery is ,something that can be understood world wide, regardless of age or level of education. Besides the use of propaganda, the nazi party also portrayed their power and message through their monumental, architectural design.
One of the first structures to exemplify the Nazi definition of monumental architecture, was the Zepplin Field. The purpose for this structure, was primarily for military purposes for the Nazi party. These activities ranged from military parades to speeches given by the fürher. Besides being able to house these events, it also had to house the thousands of attendees.The design for this building was based from the classical roman design. The strong geometry imposed the sense of stability and power, something that at the time was not existent and much yearned from the people of Germany. With their radical ideas, the Nazi party needed as much credibility as possible to convince the people that the Nazi party could resolve all the problems of the nation. But organization nor power were enough for their new building designs, so they went further by super sizing the structures and simplifying the designs so that they imposed presence, durability and a new future.
After the war, Germany was torn, battered and in moral distraught. Western Germany wanted to erase the pain and the remains of the past, while the east wanted to instate its own architecture that promoted its form of government. But as stated by Brian Ladd in, The Ghosts of Berlin: Confronting German History in the Urban Landscape, the "classical ornamentation influenced by Schinkel, the axial design, and the monumental scale of the buildings and streets," still hark back to the Nazi design. "They embodied the epitome of Communist centralization, regimentation, and false pomp." (Ladd, 187) Despite the fact that they somewhat completely missed their objective, East Berlin were able to create the monumental design of an urban street. Even famous modern architects such as Aldo Rossi and Phillip Johnson, have commented on the great design of East Germany, specifically that of the former Stalinallee.
The fall of the Berlin Wall changed the definition of monumental architecture from that that reflects the power of a government to that of an actual monument for people and freedom of ideas.Daniel Libeskind was one of the many architects who had a part in changing the definition. His definition of monumental architecture, through the Jewish Museum, stands for the sentiments and memories of those who lost their lives and lived through the Holocaust.
When you think of monumental deisgn, you think of giant stuctures that are over bearing. You do not always think of why they are monumentaly designed. Throughout history monumental design has mostly been used to represent or show the power of a government or ruler. Such has been the case in Berlin, where we will look at how the reasoning or definition of monumental design has changed through out the years.
We begin in the 1930's, during the rise of the Nazi party. During this time, the party was trying to gain supporters any way they could, and the method that worked the best was imagery. Imagery is ,something that can be understood world wide, regardless of age or level of education. Besides the use of propaganda, the nazi party also portrayed their power and message through their monumental, architectural design.
One of the first structures to exemplify the Nazi definition of monumental architecture, was the Zepplin Field. The purpose for this structure, was primarily for military purposes for the Nazi party. These activities ranged from military parades to speeches given by the fürher. Besides being able to house these events, it also had to house the thousands of attendees.The design for this building was based from the classical roman design. The strong geometry imposed the sense of stability and power, something that at the time was not existent and much yearned from the people of Germany. With their radical ideas, the Nazi party needed as much credibility as possible to convince the people that the Nazi party could resolve all the problems of the nation. But organization nor power were enough for their new building designs, so they went further by super sizing the structures and simplifying the designs so that they imposed presence, durability and a new future.
After the war, Germany was torn, battered and in moral distraught. Western Germany wanted to erase the pain and the remains of the past, while the east wanted to instate its own architecture that promoted its form of government. But as stated by Brian Ladd in, The Ghosts of Berlin: Confronting German History in the Urban Landscape, the "classical ornamentation influenced by Schinkel, the axial design, and the monumental scale of the buildings and streets," still hark back to the Nazi design. "They embodied the epitome of Communist centralization, regimentation, and false pomp." (Ladd, 187) Despite the fact that they somewhat completely missed their objective, East Berlin were able to create the monumental design of an urban street. Even famous modern architects such as Aldo Rossi and Phillip Johnson, have commented on the great design of East Germany, specifically that of the former Stalinallee.
The fall of the Berlin Wall changed the definition of monumental architecture from that that reflects the power of a government to that of an actual monument for people and freedom of ideas.Daniel Libeskind was one of the many architects who had a part in changing the definition. His definition of monumental architecture, through the Jewish Museum, stands for the sentiments and memories of those who lost their lives and lived through the Holocaust.
Before the wall, the monumental architecture exuded the feeling of power, pressure, suppression of that from a government, where as now the feeling represents that of the people and the freedom of ideas.
Sources
Ladd, Brian. The Ghosts of Berlin: Confronting German History in the Urban Landscape. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1997. 187. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment