Art in Architecture

Clement Greenberg| Modernism |   Painting

                          | Le Corbusier   

                                                               Kandinsky | Leger|  Mondrian

When the question of similarity between a Modernist plan and a modernist painting arises, we try to measure the two between purity, uniqueness and self-criticism through their objective peculiarities. These peculiarities may be governed by adherence to regularity, aesthetics, free-will, flatness, color, recognizability of objects and handling of picture frame. The answer is  affirmative in many cases and negative at the same time. For the subject matter we take the plan of the Le Corbusier who is regarded as the most eminent name in Modern architecture and measure it with multiple paintings by renowned Modern artists on the scale of Modernity in them. 

SELF CRITICISM

Le Corbusier- Plan:Villa Savoye

The most striking feature of Modernist art, according to Clement Greenberg, is its ability to self-criticize in order to arrive at competence, purity and uniqueness. Regardless of it aiming at approval gained through vices like aesthetics or free-will. This idea is exhibited splendidly in Mondrian's paintings however Le Corbusier's drawings do not justify it. In Corbusier's plan, aesthetic appeal comes into play to an extent that the drawing looks carefully detailed. The staunch regularity the architect started with loses its contest to a modernist painting when it brings into play curvature that starts to break this regularity.
Taking the example of Leger- however  the objects on display are not recognizable but the whole assembly is recognized as one chaotic regularity which is irreducible- a distinctive mark of Modern art.

Fernand Leger- Card Players

FLATNESS

Corbusier did however achieve the flatness of a picture, modernist art aims at. The distinguishing feature in which modern art transcended classical art is the way of depicting the picture- perfectly flat. This flatness is again regardless of the mind that reads architecture.  The mere contrast of thick lines to thin grids distinguishes walls from flooring and inevitably creates a three dimensional image of space. Hence taking away the flatness of the picture. 

RECOGNIZABILITYAs Greenberg states, Modernist paintings maintain the recognizability or sanctity of objects they exhibit, but the space they inhabit lose its meaning. Le Corbusier excelled in representing spaces in his plan as geometric objects.  Here he proves to create a Modern painting and is very much in line with Kandinsky. 

Piet Mondrian

But concerning the picture frame, Le Corbusier is not trying to fit his geometric objects into its extents like Mondrain and Cezzane. He is more like Kandinsky in this respect, not limiting the extent of the objects to a picture frame.

The more closely the norms of a discipline are defined or fixated, the less room there is for manipulation or freedom to diverge. 

Le Corbusier played a jack in presenting the plate in modernist ways with a slight touch of his free-will. 

REGULARITY AND FREE-WILL

Regularity and adherence to a norm are the most pronounced characteristics in Modernism prevalent both in art and architecture. Le Corbusier tries to twist these characteristics slightly into aesthetic appeal and free-will. Although free-will of an artist, carefully handled, generates uniqueness in the drawing. Le Corbusier's drawing qualifies at being unique but falls short of self-criticism. Corbusier's work is similar to Kandinsky's art in Modernist effect but not in optical parameters. 

MONOTONE AND COLORED

Kandinsky, Unbroken lines

The loss of color or strong pigment brings the emphasis on mere thickness and slenderness of lines. At the very first interaction with the drawing, the viewer starts to make sense with the lines. As soon as it happens, the plan loses its contest to a painting and rather becomes a technical drawing. If Kandinsky's paintings were reduced to monotones, they would have imparted the same feeling.

Paul Cezanne : Still Life with Soup Tureen

CONCLUSION

Modern art and architecture aimed to affix their limitations, their boundaries and their vision to a far greater extent than their predecessor movements and styles. The mere retention made the scrutinizing parameters so stiff and obdurate that the object of analysis itself failed. Although Modernism flaunted these ideals and limitations bombastically in architecture, not knowing these would soon turn out to be the cause of their collapse.

.