The work of Junya Ishigami, the Japanese architect contradicts the senses and questions our perception as he creates a new kind of space. He develops abstract interrelations with the co-existence of different elements and ushers in a model of new accessible abstraction, and his work has grabbed international attention (The Nature of New Architecture 2009). When recalling the concept of "accessible abstraction" introduced by Ishigami, it would be interesting to see the use of "accessible abstraction" in Graves's work. Graves is one of the most influential designer in America in the field of architecture, painting and furniture. He has emerged as one of the most versatile critics of the modern architectural scene. Obviously he sees architecture differently than others.The concept of "accessible abstraction" Sometimes there is a no-man’s-land between in rare cases where the real essence of a work can never be grasped. Efforts need to be made to get behind the work and reach out to the ideological framework working behind. This applies to Graves’s work, which has been interpreted on a terrain that is much debated upon and partitioned under categories like neorealism and neo-rationalism. Graves’s work doesn't carry any reference to purely American traditions but is close to the international Modern Movement. Still, the architect rejects modern architecture as a social instrument (Colquhoun 336). There is no clearly defined market for his work that applies to a minority of clients.
According to Graves, as one is dealing with analogies or replicas in architecture, they get familiar enough to accept the necessary abstractions within the body of the work. When the abstract code takes over, it becomes too difficult to exclude from the argument. Graves is interested in the expression and intention of the building as it transforms to the different cultural ideas. One must understand the narrative within the architectural object and respond to it.
Graves architectural language moved towards a language of allusion and metaphor and this is what placed his work at the opposite pole. His works was practical and based on distribution of living spaces, and for him, the semantic dimensions were metaphysical and sensuous. His architecture followed the classical and academic traditions. His architectural language blurs the distinction between what is real and virtual as he treats a structure as a pure idea. His system of construction carrying few constraints becomes a pure metaphor and thus reverses the very assumptions the Modern Movement is based on. The frames behind his structures can be manipulated at will and this adds a certain openness and transparency, and at the same time they can be complex. Grave’s houses carry more similarity with the Neo-Plasticist projects than the European movement. They create an intermediate zone between the public and private realm of environment as stated by Colquhoun (36).
The affiliations of Graves’s work with the Modern Movement and his dependence on American traditions are beyond dispute. In Grave’ work, the function has been absorbed into form and is no longer a prior condition. His buildings are pure work of art with its laws, rejecting the linear relation between content and form (Colquhoun 339). It should not be forgotten that Graves belonged to a generation where Modern Movement represented everything creative in architecture.
Graves explored a realm in modern architecture that had never been fully exploited. He recombined and isolated walls, columns and windows to create new metaphoric interpretations. His work demands new descriptive vocabulary for the way it exploits the perspectives and symmetries. Graves’s elementarism can be said to be related to the Modern Movement by this process of analysis and reduction. He reduced those elements and treated them as raw material and reconstructed as a structure. Still, in the process of reduction, Graves doesn’t strip the columns, openings and spaces of their qualities and meanings. With the basic architectonic elements retaining their meaning and still being in isolation allows them to become metaphors. Graves exploits the tension between the figurations and symmetries under the demands of the modern life with a transparency that allows him to anticipate the limits of the building space without destroying the flow between inside and outside. As stated by Colquhoun (340), his work is directly related to Cubist and Purist painting as his buildings were projections into real three-dimensional space. His work, just like the collages in the paintings are built out of fragments and trembling profiles that are suggestive of the edges. Those elements create an edgy interplay of fragmentary planes, carrying a vertebral sense of order. Graves’s plans, with their multiple centers and gentle inflections are an endless elaboration and metaphorical qualification. An essential aspect can be seen in Graves’s attitude toward nature in his work. There is a repeated conflict between architecture and its setting against nature. The open structures of his earlier work allow the virtual space of the building to react to the outside space, which is allowed freely to penetrate in. However, the buildings, defined by their structural elements remain incomplete as if waiting to ark out a habitable space. The language of Cubism and advanced technology can be seen to filter through the primitive act of building. The earlier buildings evoke an all-pervading and the primary aspects of nature and still protect man from nature by nature’s own materials (Colquhoun 345). In his later works, one finds preferences for garden structures. The fragmentation of the buildings point to the natural obstacles to completeness in the face of Time and Chance.The idea of representation For Graves, it was complex to deal with the idea of representation as putting together the precise thoughts can be difficult. The architects are often bound by the culture of architecture. However, for him, his architecture should not just communicate but also participate actively in the society as stated by Akin and Weinel (27).The tradition of architecture carries two central aspects, a three-dimensional construct and the next is ourselves. These two representational ideas express in architectural elements but according to Graves, they are not abstract ideas. What interests him is how new skins can be added to familiar figures, creating new surfaces and spaces. Similar, he wants the architecture to appreciate and accept the necessary abstractions (Akin and Weinel 30) as there are analogies or replicas to be dealt with in architecture. He is interested in the intention of the building and the expression of different cultural and psychological ideas in architectural form. He gives examples of famous paintings and how a similar reflection of space can take place in a room. One responds to the presence of information and it is this participation with the architectural object that he focuses on. He takes an example from the Barcelona pavilion, which is simply -a wall of marble, another wall of marble, a ceiling of plaster, and with no decoration. According to him, the building suffers from a high level of abstraction. The building is not about seeing but experiencing the greatest spatial dimension it has to offer (Akin and Weinel 48).
He takes the example of Maison Cook and how he makes the space continuous and profane with window-walls. This is a kind of abstraction and technical metaphor where no attempts are made for setting a boundary (Akin and Weinel 52). According to him, he gets into trouble in his work when identifying the culture by virtue of the elements. For him, the new modern compositions are new but aren't using the metaphor of newness as one makes it relative to what they know. Graves' buildings, influenced by the Modern Movement are based on the open frame with a continuous space interrupted by planes and solids. There is maximum exploitation of spaces with the layered screenings. However, strictly speaking, his work cannot be called classical as one can see his earlier work drawn from a range of abstract forms and very generalized (Colquhoun 343). For him designing and recreations was not merely confined by the business of definitions. He saw much more to architecture and beyond its ability to express in three dimensions. The architecture should cater to the broader culture of society, communicating with it and motivating it to participate.
The general definition of Representation is interesting in itself as it sees something again or making a replica of something. However, it is essential to remember that those representations act as substitutions or as an interpretation of the object represented (Akin and Weinel 28). Graves believes that there are no abstract ideas in the traditional architectural thoughts.
Conclusion Graves took an alternative route in architecture and is considered a meditation on architecture. For him, the structure becomes a pure representation, and the substance of the building may not be the ideal imagined by the architect. His projects are often additions that draw attention because of their difference from the existing buildings, but still, they do not ignore them but add a new spatial meaning to them. His buildings tell stories, and their facades are based on the purity of modernist principles and are not confined to the orthodox boundaries of Modern architecture. One finds the impression of the language of Cubism or the classical tradition in Graves’s work. He tries to recreate an architecture out of its ancient elements, trying to give an intense interpretation of architecture. His work is like a meditation on architecture and is much more than those concerns with aesthetics.
Works Cited
Akin, Orner and Weinel, Eleanor F. "Representation and Architecture." Carnegie-Mellon University 1.1 (1982): 14-91. Print.
Colquhoun, Alan. "From Bricolage to Myth, or How to Put Humpty-Dumpty Together Again." COLQUHOUN 1.1 (1978): 336-345. Print.
"The Nature of New Architecture.” oris.hr. 2009. Web. 23 March. 2016.
