9/10/12

The Inhumane Garden: An Analysis of the work of Gabriel Guevrekian


By Joel Pominville

Is cubism relatable to the human? Is there a certain disconnect from human emotion and cubist art? Maybe more importantly so, is there a disconnect from the human figure and cubist and modern gardens designed for human habitation? These are questions I asked myself as we discussed the cubist gardens by Gabriel Guevrekian. The answer can be found in an in depth comparison between cubist art, cubist architecture, and human emotion.


Cubism was originally crafted by artists Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque in Paris between 1907 and 1914. Cubist artists wanted to turn away from how nature is really seen. They strove to take the geometrical forms of nature, and reduce them to a scale and depth that represented the canvas on which they were painted. This was a notion that partly gave way to modern architecture, also stemming from movements such as minimalism and primitivism. In cubism, however, there is a fault in the simplicity of the geometry presented: the loss of human connection to the nature in which it represents. To observe this, one can look to artist Robert Delaunay and his painting Homage to Bleriot. When most viewers see a piece of artwork, there is normally a starting point or a point that draws attention to itself. With cubism, there is not a point in which to begin viewing. The viewer must see it, try to understand, and interpret it him or herself. In this flattening of dimension, the depth of nature is stripped away, leaving the viewer in a state lacking human relation to the painting.

This lack of connection is not necessarily needed in a painting, as it is not something the viewer can fully sense. By this, I mean it is not a place in which the viewer can feel, experience, and inhabit. However, in architecture, it is more important to keep a connection to the human. This leads the conversation to the cubist gardens designed by Gabriel Guevrekian. The first garden designed by Guevrekian in a cubist manner is the Jardin d’eau et de Lumiere. Although this garden was meant to be viewed and not traversed, I believe it still lacks a connection to the human element that most gardens. As one can see in the picture, the fragmentation of the garden leads the viewer to believe that they are an entity outside of the garden, not a part of it. In this case, there is a focal point, but even still, the fragmented sections block the viewer from experiencing the centerpiece, as I believe they should be allowed to.


The second garden, and Guevrekian’s most famous cubist garden, is the Garden of the Villa Noailles. This garden is considered one of the most influential modern gardens, especially in France. Although it does not draw quite as much from cubism, it still faces the same problems previously discussed. In the same way as cubist art, this garden has no true start or end. There are two points of entry, but the circulation throughout the space is a continuous loop, with no place to pause, reflect, or rest. Also, the center of the garden seems completely uninhabitable. This makes for quite an emotional disconnect from what most garden offer. Most people experience gardens in a way that they reflect upon different spaces, but also identify the overarching path of circulation in order to move between these spaces. Guevrekian’s Garden of the Villa Noailles allows for only one action: continuous movement around the uninhabitable centerpiece. Overall, the gardens are beautiful works of art. They just do not seem like works of architecture that allow for human relation and interaction.

Info about architect


Pictures
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/d/delaunay/homage_to_bleriot.jpg.html

No comments:

Post a Comment