Hobbit style magic
Catarina Araújo
In 1972, Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour presented to the world conclusions drawn from a study carried out in Las Vegas in their publication Learning From Las Vegas - The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form.
Using direct and pragmatic critique of Anglo-Saxon characteristics, this work can be divided into two parts: in the first, the study of the architecture of the "strip” (shopping street); in the second, the theoretical explanation about symbolism in architecture and the iconography of the "urban sprawl”.
Their wish is an architecture made by architects, but not made for architects, and this should be recognised by everyone.
Promoting a shift away from scholarly discourse and an approach towards common sense, they argue that, as much as "reassessing the role of the symbolism of architecture”, architects should "acquire a new openness to other people’s tastes and values and a new modesty” when they develop projects.
Highlighting the redundant and contradictory, they seek to warn of the need for a more tolerant architecture, denouncing a modern architecture in which "architects have preferred to change the existing surroundings instead of highlighting what already exists”.
They point out that we should not forget that "refined art often follows popular art” (as it did for the Romans), and that without symbolism that can be grasped by everyone, architecture can become poorer.
They advocate that we should look "to history and tradition to move forward”, but we must not forget to "look down in order to go up”.
Using direct and pragmatic critique of Anglo-Saxon characteristics, this work can be divided into two parts: in the first, the study of the architecture of the "strip” (shopping street); in the second, the theoretical explanation about symbolism in architecture and the iconography of the "urban sprawl”.
Their wish is an architecture made by architects, but not made for architects, and this should be recognised by everyone.
Promoting a shift away from scholarly discourse and an approach towards common sense, they argue that, as much as "reassessing the role of the symbolism of architecture”, architects should "acquire a new openness to other people’s tastes and values and a new modesty” when they develop projects.
Highlighting the redundant and contradictory, they seek to warn of the need for a more tolerant architecture, denouncing a modern architecture in which "architects have preferred to change the existing surroundings instead of highlighting what already exists”.
They point out that we should not forget that "refined art often follows popular art” (as it did for the Romans), and that without symbolism that can be grasped by everyone, architecture can become poorer.
They advocate that we should look "to history and tradition to move forward”, but we must not forget to "look down in order to go up”.
