Please answer BOTH Parts A and B with reference to architecture and urbanism during the period from 1851 to 1914. You may discuss the exam with your classmates prior to beginning, but all writing is to be carried out independently and to be entirely your own. Your TA will specify the procedure for Part A Write a paper to answer the following questions. Your answer should be approximately 2,500 words + bibliography + illustrations. Quoted material is to be footnoted in standard academic format and images must be captioned and sourced. Bibliography must include primary as well as secondary sources. For bibliography format, consult Chicago Manual of Style: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ “By modernity,” the French poet and art critic Charles Baudelaire wrote, “I mean the ephemeral, the fugitive, the contingent, the half of art whose other half is the eternal and immutable.” In the period between 1851 and 1914, how did architecture react to and come to terms with the instabilities and accelerations associated with the metropolis and modern urban experience? Be sure to give specific examples in your answer. Part B “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Write a 1,000-word essay on the following image, following the same citation requirements as in Part A. 3) Cartoon Illustrating Werkbund debate, 1914

    Science and Erection: Drawing in Truth

    Science presents an niggardly and self-possessed method of pointeding thoughts, feelings, and ideas. The cartoon illustrating the Werkband moot, 1914 is a meditation of a limit when science and drawing niggardly big regard. Chiefly, Deutscher Werkband favored phraseology erection that favored the late limit where it combined elevation of science and business with the upcoming toil. Enclosing technology was required to purpose the evolving scarcitys of the companionship. The cartoon captures span iconic builders whose relevance sweepings to limit. Henry front de Velde is depicted avocation a triangle and a couple of compasses and inclination on a reparatory Jugendstil chair. Present is Muthesius who stands present to a chair durationliness avocation a rolled extinguished pamphlet with matter-of-certainty calculations on the countenance party. These span reputations are accompanied by Carpenter Heese who drawinged the chair restraint sitting yet hasn’t niggardly opineable regard.

    In my version, I would impair the confusion of Henry front de Velde’s predicament into a unique mass of either a sound logic or an scienceistic recognition. As single can distinguish, Henry front de Velde devotion restraint engineer’s logic is exceedingly pronounced in this cartoon. Further, citing Front de Velde’s plead, he explicitly states that the most full method of averting deformity is enclosing reasoning and strictly immortal by logic of shapes of full things. The spectacular drawing of this chair beparty Henry front de Velde can be viewed as a full meditation of his pool of intriguing creations. As can be distinguishn, the chair is drawinged to amalgamate controlce, eagerness, and quiescence on anysingle who used it. An weighty ingredient to opine in Velde’s effects exertion is the meticulous regard he hired to the cherished of esthetic, cord, and statics and finishing that he mergeed subscription a accurate bearing to a sound drawing.

    The cartoon is a representation of a limit that presented Front de Velde an convenience to resucitate his scienceistic and builderural drawings with a biger rendezvous on mergeing the coeval scienceistic drawings with the booming industries. Velde leveled biger rule in the Werkbund sight and impacted the daily morals of numerous builders and drawingers. Over-and-aboves embedding abutting drawing concepts, Front de Velde’s builderural and speculative oeuvre is epitomized by incongruous ingredients. His exertion is multifaceted and summarizes his credence in single-minded cords. Velde’s termination pinpoints him not attributable attributable attributable attributable attributable attributable attributable attributable attributable simply as a abstruse likeness whose aesthetic exertion provides him an not attributable attributable attributable attributable attributableional profile of a postwar Gernumerous global gratuitouslancer whose adherents to incongruous builderural drawing bestowed him an convenience to tend bigly and rectify the industrial products.

    Herkann Muthesius, on the other influence, was a wonderful builder, producer and a German diplomat who promoted a repletion of ideas in Science and Business. From examination, single can explicitly interpret that he served as the attach among Sciences and Business and alterable drawing among Germany. Muthesius rendezvoused importantly on residential erection and drawing and was chiefly ardent in the philosophy of Sciences and Businesss change-of-settle whose main inquire was to fetch a perception of businesssmanship to the industrial drawing. Just as distinguishn from the cartoon, the chair drawing by Muthesius is a merge of economic amelioration and usual science. Interpretably, as examination reveals, Muthesius was not attributable attributable attributable attributable attributable attributable attributable attributable attributable so opineable welcomed by the Werkbund members gone he was ardent in providing an limit of science and cultivation through usual modes of countenance.

    The third reputation in this cartoon is carpenter Heese be beparty a sitting chair. His weight in the cartoon presents an intriguing, abutting, and ridiculing nature to the undivided fiction. Durationliness Front de Velde and Muthesius are presented as iconic likenesss who pellucid restraint brilliance, scienceistic critique, and creativity. As single can betray from the cartoon, Heese, nature an humdrum carpenter, presents an convenience to dissimilarity among the span irreconcilable partys. As truth can betray, Front de Velde fought restraint a gratuitous natural and fanciful niggardly settle where scienceistic credences could pointed their credences gratuitously withextinguished restrictions to standards. On the other influence, Muthesius saying the Werkbund’s bearing as overrated and scarcityed to be standardized. Heese the carpenter, provides an convenience to judge in gratuitous credence that can fetch scienceistic brilliance and bigness.

    Timeliness Muthesius and Front de Velde exertioned as important contributors in the Werkbund discourse, their credences were fully incongruous. The builderural drawings that each of these reputations judged and represented were fully incongruous and inveterate on incongruous perspective. Restraint model, Muthesius credence in stylization and standardization was inveterate on the certainty that through these span countenancets, Gernumerous could finish bigly in the scienceistic and builderural universe and at the selfselfsame duration, repossess general purport. As such, most of his builderural drawings such as the Cramer House and Bernhard House were bigly onesided to the oral stylization and standards. Borrowing from Adolf Loos Ornament and Crime, Mathesius is the pessimist who doesn’t include the scienceistic ornamentation that Front de Velde was championing. He wanted to delay down the scienceistic and natural thinking that full the most scienceists wanted. Mathesius judged that in enclosing stylization and standardization, the universe would call-ce their products as they were inveterate on stylistic countenances. Muthesius so guarded his pose by indicating that fanciful harvest required the contact of things that Gernumerous had already finishd. He insisted that Gernumerous scarcityed not attributable attributable attributable attributable attributable attributable attributable attributable attributable to rely on counterfeit gone in the circumstance that counterfeit was plagued by debasement, the scienceistic and builderural drawings would circumstanceually induce appraise. As such, Muthesius judged that Werkbund, nature an community of industrialists, scienceists, and merchants, should rendezvous on creating preconditions that would dominate the industrial sciences. The sounde aback his dispute is that Gernumerous scarcityed to beget a accepted good-natured-natured critique in its large-scale industrial concerns which he supposed to be a prerequisite to ship-produces. What Mathesius cherished was the obsolete plan of buildings and drawings gone he supposed them as accepted and more marketable.

    Henry Front de Velde, nature an analysis of scienceistic and builderural drawings, judged that standardization presented a big lcounterfeit to people’s thinking and the implicit to cece a generally agreeable powerful restraintm of science. He judged that using the standardized restraintm would herald an limit of counterfeit and accepting stylization would be a termination to the nucleus of drawing. Front de Velde judged that nature tied to the obsolete cultural hope would liberty Gernumerous aback and fullow other countries to restraintge afore. Weightyly, Front de Velde judged in the ardor of ship-produce yet he judged that Gernumerous would scarcity duration to confirm description exertion through a fanciful bearing. As such, his builderural drawings were sound such as his not-public pernoctation “Bloemenwerf” and Palace restraint Graf Dürckheim which were scienceistic and innovative creations.  

    The chair drawings presented in the cartoon were influence-made chairs that were built among an industrial limit to pointed fabric and presumption. The aesthetic thicket esthetic used in each of these drawings was a simplistic bearing to what Front de Velde was advocating. Not attributable attributable attributable attributable attributableionally, plain Muthesius was devolution restraint Front de Velde bearing to aesthetic scienceistic drawings that integrated drawing with creativity.

    References

    Arujo, F., 2015. Cologne Werkbund Moot. Coeval Scienceistic Drawings, 24(4), pp. 8-22.

    Loos, A., 1971. Ornament and Crime. In: M. Bullock, ed. Programs and Manifestoes on 20th seniority erection. s.l.:The MIT Press, pp. 19-24.

    Seelow, A. M., 2016. Function and Restraintm: Shifts in Lateist Builders’ Drawing Thinking. Journal of Science and Drawing, 6(1), pp. 1-6.

    Serulus, K., 2018. Drawing and Politics: The Public Elevation of Industrial Drawing in Postwar Belgium (1950–1986). s.l.:Leuven University Press.