aro0823, 2-1

I know that teachers plan field trips in attempt to make their students translate the concepts learned in class and apply them to the real world, but I have never been on a field trip that was effective. Sure, going to the zoo to study the animals in their “natural” habitats was fun in third grade; however, I struggled to connect what we learned from the colorful textbook to what I was seeing in the screened-in wire cage in front of me. After observing examples of postmodern architecture in class on Tuesday, I left still unsure of many of the concepts. Though, upon studying the various facets of the buildings up close, everything became a lot more clear.
Unfortunately, though, many of the “rules” of postmodernism are inherently illogical. You can learn them in theory, but still be left scratching your head contemplating their existence in its entirety. For example, double-coding purposefully plays upon irony, ambiguity, and contradiction. In the instance of pluralism, the artist “withholds gratification,” forcing the viewer to look elsewhere for a unifying point of view. While “returning to the absent center,” one aims to preserve and revamp simultaneously. So, I can easily empathize with and understand why many individuals despise postmodernism; it is so unnecessarily convoluted and confusing!
I am beginning to fall steadily into the school of thought that doesn’t appreciate the goals of postmodernism. It is possible that I don’t like those goals because there is purposefully no clear destination. My life is made easier when I know the destination and have to do as little interpretation as possible. During the Renaissance, the goal was linear perspective. Artists in the Baroque Era aimed to capture every detail of their subjects. Romantics use color and whimsicalism to play upon the emotions of their audiences. Realists told it like it was with none of that fluffy stuff. And finally, modernism: semi-confusing because of the whole “essence capturing,” but overall easy to understand. Postmodernism contradicts all of the logic of past art movements. The more abstract and confusing one is as an artist the more successful one becomes. Unfortunately, for us students responsible for its critical analysis, there is a lot of room for interpretation, but simultaneously unlimited wrong answer choices.

Murphy, 2/1/09

While reading Jenks-The Art of Quotation(handout), I could not visualize what was being described. After class on Thursday, I started to understand what was being written because of seeing some visuals in the power point. But it was not until we actually were downtown, looking up at all the buildings around us, and applying what we had learned to the physical structures in front of us, that I finally understood what these types of buildings can be categorized as. Even on the way back to the van, after we were done, I started to look at buildings and place them into Jencks' Emergent Rules immediately.
I think it would be fun to walk around downtown Indianapolis (my hometown) and start to categorize the buildings there, and compare and contrast them to Orlando.
There is a great landmark in Indianapolis that I call "the pyramids". Unfortunately I cannot add the picture for some reason, but here is the link:
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/College_Life_Insurance_Co.html

These are well known in the area, and easy recognizable. In the middle of the city you see these three pyramid shaped buildings, and I would say they look out of place. Disharmonious harmony is at play in this situation, as well as pluralism. The unique building is repeated three times. I would also say anamnesis is present, because it reminds me immediately of pyramids in Egypt. The building has nothing to do with the company inside of it. I would even stretch and say that "absent center" is present here, because the three buildings are not physically connected, although it is obvious they are a collection.

MerryChristmas!, 2.1.09

It was hard for me believe how the concepts we covered in class would apply to so many buildings downtown. At first, I concerned the concepts to be rare and abstract, however, they most likely exist in every city across the world. On our way to downtown Orlando, we passed by a building on the right that exhibited the "deco" theme, commonly found in Miami beach. The sign was neon and the building had sort of a dirty feel. It certainly fit right into the buildings that most would come across right outside of a big city. Across from the deco-style building, we saw a series of what looked like condos. The condos were all connected and each apartment shared the same wall. They looked as if they had been there for quite some time, but were rather clean compared to the deco building across the street. This reminded us of urbane-urbanism. It is the idea of recreating a building to appear as though it had been there forever, but it is actually recently constructed.

The latter part of the trip, after viewing the Bank of America building, we looked across the way and saw the bus station (with no clocks) and the building adjacent to it. The bus station looked as though Disney would be a good fit for it because it seemed very cheesy to me. The top of the station was constructed to look like waves. The construction of the building was clearly visible and the architecture implied that this was purposeful. Thus, double-coding is likely the reason for this. The top of the bus station was made to look like waves, but it also serves the function of putting a cover over the station (probably for the purpose of protection from Florida rain storms).

Throughout the tour, it became apparent to me that the elements we discussed are all around us and open our eyes to new ideas that we once before did not consider. I can recall driving down i4 and looking at the bus station and thinking that it was just neat, but outrageous. It wasn't until last class that I really began opening my eyes to what is behind the construction of buildings and how much thought is really put into it. It is a new perspective that I had never considered in the past, but will always consider in the future.

coolbeans, 2/1

I thought that the field trip downtown to look at the Bank of America building and the Orlando Courthouse was a good way for the class to observe postmodern aspects of architecture. It was cool to see that even a city like Orlando has some good examples of postmodern architecture. It is interesting how buildings can take on these characteristics and it changes our perception of a building when we look deeper into the aspects of the architecture that the building is comprised of. If I had just been walking in downtown Orlando on a casual stroll and not been thinking about these things I probably would not have even noticed the buildings, or just casually have thought to myself, “Oh, that’s kind of a cool looking building”. Going downtown with the list of all the examples of postmodern architecture really helped us to try to look for these characteristics and think more about the buildings than just giving them a casual glance-over. I especially thought it was interesting how at night when the lights are on, the Courthouse has the appearance of a judiciary chair. Whether or not the architect intentionally planned it out that way or not is unknown but it was just kind of a cool example of anamnesis. Another thing that I liked was the Lynx bus stop that showed urbane urbanism. I thought it was nice that the bus stop had an old-time vibe to it because most bus stops that I see tend to be kind of ugly or just a simple bench on the side of the road. Instead of detracting from the rest of the area and sticking out like an eyesore, the bus stop stuck out as something that looked like it was from the past, and sort of contributed something good to the overall appearance of the area.

dmariel, 2/1/09

Our field trip downtown gave me an extremely useful way to think about the postmodern terms that we are learning. I would like to now apply them to other things in the world so that I can understand how they relate to our everyday life. Learning and looking at Orlando’s architecture gives me a hands on way to remember this new vocabulary. My favorite building that we observed was the Orlando courthouse. I have always thought it was a beautiful place, and now that I know some deeper meaning to its construction I enjoy its presence that much more. What stands out in my mind the most is Dr. Casey’s anamnesis relation of the shape of the 3 buildings to a justice chair. Now every time I look at the building that is all I can think of!
After looking at some of the newest Dubai architecture, I decided to look up some more pictures online. After googling Dubai architecture, I got numerous websites about the new bridge that is planned to be finished by 2012. It will be the largest and tallest arch bridge in the world when it is completed. The arches are supposed to reach 670 feet high, and there will also be a metro run through the middle of twelve car lanes. I usually don’t appreciate architecture very much due to the fact that it takes away from nature, but some of the things that are being built in Dubai are absolutely amazing, it is hard to believe it is real.
I was also skimming through a recent vanity fair magazine and one of the cover stories was about architecture. I jumped right to the pages just to see many of the buildings we covered in our class powerpoint. Although the articles next to the photos do not use any of our new vocabulary, they do talk about the switch from modernism to postmodernism in architecture. The magazine also featured many of the upcoming projects in Dubai. I definitely have a greater appreciation now for architecture and the way that buildings can show forms of power, creativity, and most importantly the history of culture.

Brookes, 1/29/09

Going downtown Orlando for class on Thursday was a really good way to relate what we are learning in CMC 300 to our every day surroundings. Before learning about these different styles of architecture, I would have looked at the Bank of American building and the courthouse in Orlando as just another building, yet since the reading, our discussions and our field trip, I have become more aware of why things are built the way they are. Looking at the courthouse, it looked powerful, dominating, serious, which is exactly what it is meant to signify. The courthouse showed disharmonious harmony, in the way that it had many different styles of windows, marble, structures that came together in a complimentary way. It was intriguing how the building looked like the actual use of the building. The way it was built signified what the purpose of the building. This shows how in previous classes we learned about signs and signifiers this can be tied in with architecture showing that the way something is built can be a clear sign of what the building is trying to signify.
Another building we looked at was the Bank of America Building. There were many different opinions about the building itself and what kind of rules and themes it followed; yet to me it was radical eclecticism in most aspects. The building did not go together at all with the “absent center” the different styles of windows, the columns, and the glass pyramid. The columns of the building looked as though it was mimicking classical style, where in ancient times it looked like a place where the ancient Greeks would do business, which is exactly what happens in the bank. This is the only part of the building that worked in my opinion. I never realized how interesting looking and analyzing different styles of art and architecture would be, yet now that I can put themes and styles with buildings and history, and see the reasons and purposes for building it in the first place.

thestig, 2/1

The study of postmodern architecture is relevant to critical media studies because it represents the achievements and power (in the sense of creativity and forward thinking) of a nation, as does the media. In Tuesday’s PowerPoint, we were taken on a journey: from the beautiful skyscrapers of the Far East to the magnificent skyline of a city full of ugly buildings (NYC). I’m glad to be studying the actual rules of postmodern architecture features, as I have always been interested in the design of a building or a space, but have never known the terminology to define the various features. I enjoyed looking at the courthouse because it reminded me of my first realization of what the architecture of a building can say about what goes on within the building. We all grew up learning that buildings with columns, like the White House, have them to represent power. The courthouse downtown was influenced by this notion, thus tradition reinterpreted. I appreciate this type of architecture because it represents the past but also reflects forward thinking.

After looking back on our field trip downtown, specifically thinking about the bus station, I decided that I’m very confused with the work. Many of us pointed out that we thought the building looked like waves, signifying that we were on the ocean, which we’re not – we’re in a city. And the office building next door doesn’t share any of the stylistic features; who would have known they are associated with one another? My question is this: do we as a culture like seeing buildings, like the bus station, that are so out of place because they bring us to the place (like the ocean), that it is supposed to represent?

I compliment the architect for trying something different and cool, but how could you have forgotten to put up a clock!