LUIS BARRAGAN STUDIO HOUSE: 1948 The Shaping of Sanctuary By Dolores Bender-Graves In light of the time in which Lui
Views 34 Downloads 0 File size 4MB
LUIS BARRAGAN
STUDIO HOUSE: 1948
The Shaping of Sanctuary By Dolores Bender-Graves
In light of the time in which Luis Barragan came into his own as an architect, it is interesting to note how selective he was in his application of the functionalist/modernist ideal. His selectivity was due to a number of reasons, one of which was the strong nationalistic and cultural focus in Mexico at the time. The strong and active architectural and artistic movement was lead but such strong artistic figures as Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera who were friends of Barragans and for whom he built adjoining homes. To this group of intellectuals the wholesale adoption of the new European/American modernist esthetic was looked upon as the equivalent of architectural colonialism. A statement by Churchill (and David Orr) which pronounced “We are shaped by our buildings and our landscape” underscores the long held awareness of the connection between the built environment and cultural identity. At this time, 1920 and 30s, Mexico was working hard to re-establish its pre-colonial heritage. Barragans primary influences were created during his childhood. He grew up on a large traditional Mexican ranch with its configuration of a central court yard encircled by ranch buildings and in Guadalajara with courtyards enclosed by high walls and wide entrances. This inwardly focused approach translated very strongly into his Studio House in Mexico City. High garden and court yard walls block all views to the outside, capturing light and creating deep, cool shadows. This is in direct contrast the the typical modernist approach used by Neutra and Reyner Banham, who epitomized the ideal expression of modernist space to be the Farnsworth house by Mies van der Rohe. Although Neutra became a close personal friend, Barragan could not possibly envision opening up his dwelling in such a way. He felt such open structures left a person too exposed and unprotected. He once stated “I think closed in spaces give you a feeling of tranquility”. Image 1 For Barragan, the outer shell of the structure was simply an exterior surface through which light was selectively allowed to slip through to the interior. If fact, the outward facing facade tells nothing of the interior space and almost seems to discourage approach. Also, unlike many modernist buildings which were created with ambiguous spacial edge
Image 2
conditions which were neither interior nor exterior, Barragans focus was strictly and simply to the interior. The only large opening within the structure is on the inside and focused an internal garden, well hidden from any external gaze. Another strong influence on Barragans work was his religious upbringing. Religious festivals and rituals during his youth and the religiously conservative circle to whom his wealthy family belonged led him to an ongoing fascination with cloisters and monasteries. This contributed to a strong spiritual life and a connection to forms of architecture he emotionally grew to feel at peace in. In his own home, the esthetic of the monastery, or retreat, helped create spaces for quiet meditation. Thick walls, thin shafts of light and deep shadows exist throughout the home. When light pierced or filtered through a wall or ceiling opening, it would often be used to underscore the wall thickness. Simple finishes and furnishings reference a simple lifestyle and a desire to create spaces for meditation and thoughtfulness. The overall finish could have easily been considered spare but somehow is the opposite: rich, warm and welcoming. As Norberg-Schulz would state it, Barragan “identifying himself with the environment”. Unlike the modernist machine for living, which placed function above all else, Barragan placed emotional essence and connection as primary. This ideal state, a resonance between occupant and dwelling, was a Image 4 goal not only of Barragan, but also of Heidegger, and Norberg-Schulz who stated “dwelling means to be at peace in a protected place”. Although an admirer of LeCorbusier and other modernists, Barragans division of space was inspired less by the flat Cartesian grid and more by Loos’ stacking and overlapping of cubic spaces of variable heights. This was evident in his design process as he would often work with cardboard models and modify them over Image 6
Image 3
long periods in order to fully understand the spacial implications and lighting effects. Barragan treated light as an overarching determinator of the character of a space, similar to how Christian Norberg-Schulz viewed the role of light. In the Studio House Barragan shaped, bounced, filtered and screened light to highlight materials, create deeps shadow or light specific precious or sacred objects. He treated light as a tool to be shaped and sculpted.
Image 7
If Barragan’s work were viewed from the point of view of Foucault, who considered militarized space as one which could easily be observed and/or judged, Studio House could be defined as the opposite of militarized space. Barragan seemed to go out of his way to block any observation from the outside through the creation of an almost blank, enigmatic facade. The interior is divided into small, intimate and private spaces, blocking views from most directions, even within the structure.
Barragan added colour as a final step in his process and used it to make space recede or leap forward, to induce calm or energy, transform light or create pattern. Even though this was his final Image 8 step, he would often spend large amounts of time making selections, moving large panels of colour around and watching them through different times of the day and even into different seasons. Through his efforts, colour became an integral part of the essence or character of each space and an part the architecture rather then simply a decorative effect.
Image 5
If considering the space from the point of view of smooth vs striated space (Deleuze and Guattari), any set space such as this has to be considered fully striated despite the wandering nature of the plans and elevations. Even an individuals paths within this space would be very limited. With the use of thick walls and specific openings used for the purpose of shaping light, adaptation or random change of any kind would be difficult to inject into this structure. A primary spacial essence Barragan was working in this structure was one of solidity, stability and restful, unchanging, permanence, and making it changeable would only be counterproductive to the character of the home.
Bibliography: Orr D., (2007). “Architecture, Ecological Design, and Human Ecology,” in K. Tanzer and R. Longorie, eds., The Green Braid, 15-33 Banham R., (1975). “Space and Power,” in Age of the Masters, 49-62 Heidegger M., (1992). “Building Dwelling Thinking”, in D.F. Krell, ed. Martin Heidegger Basic Writings, 344-363 Norberg-Schultz C., (1994). “The Phenomenon of Place”, in Kate Nesbitt, ed. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, 414-428 McDonough T., (2004). “Situationist Space”, in T. McDonough, ed., Guy Debord and the Situationist International, 2004, 241-263 Foucault M., (1975). ”Meaning of Correct Training & Panopticism,” in Discipline and Punish, 25 pages Deleuze G., & Guattari R., (1987). “1440: The Smooth and the Striated,” in A Thousand Plateaus, 474-500 Pauly D., (2002). Barragan: Space and Shadow, Walls and Colour. BertelsmannSpringer Publishing Group, Basel Switzerland, Martinez A.R., (1996). Luis Barragan: Mexico’s Modern Master, 1902-1988, The Monacelli Press, New York, New York Zanco, F., (2001). Luis Barragan: The Quiet Revolution, Skira Editore S.p.A., Milano Italy
Images: Cover, Images 2,4,5,8 : Pauly D., (2002). Barragan: Space and Shadow, Walls and Colour. BertelsmannSpringer Publishing Group, Basel Switzerland Images 1,2 : Flickr blog rrranch’s photostream Images 6,7 : http://www.casaluisbarragan.org/