Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
net/publication/309855504
CITATIONS READS
0 1,351
All content following this page was uploaded by Armin Mehdipour on 11 November 2016.
Abstract. This is a brief survey of the life and works of Louis Kahn (1901-1974), who died the say way in
which he was born: without identity. Only several days after his death was it discovered that it was, in fact,
Louis I. Kahn, one of the dominant and probably the last humanist architect of the twentieth century. Louis
Kahn was one of the leading architects of modern times. However, he was also considered, by social theorists
to be an inspired planner. To all who had allowed themselves to fall under the spell of Kahn’s intense,
articulate personality he was clearly a man possessed by a single, compelling truth that nothing can live
unless it acknowledges a simple logical system of organization and a principle of what Kahn called “order”.
Keywords: Architecture, Humanities, Identity, Louise Kahn.
1. Introduction
Kahn was an architect with respectable personality, remarkable architectural talent in design, creativity,
humanity and a philosophy of his own. Kahn, who was considered the son of the Beaux Arts tradition,
created many masterpieces, both in this country and abroad. Each one of Kahn’s designs has its own
personality arid character. Architecture for Kahn was not a necessity for survival but a choice for an
understanding, a desire for an order between events and elements. This order was not quantitative, absolute,
and fixed, but relative, active, and infinite.
Kahn spent some years teaching architecture as a professor of architecture at Yale and later at the
University of Pennsylvania. His architectural credibility and conspicuousness was not recognized until the
late 1950’s, when, in his fifties, he had become one of the leading architects of this country and a great
ambassador to the rest of the world. Lie erected buildings with order and light, in balance and harmony with
the culture, customs, and way of life of any country in which he built. Just as one would not ask an artist to
paint a portrait specifying two eyes, one nose, and only one mouth, in the same way an architect must be
allowed to make decisions to deal with the spaces of a building, spaces which he will order and inspire. This
is the philosophy of Louis Kahn, one of the dominant architects of the mid-twentieth century.
Perhaps because of his humanistic philosophy in architecture, his works were not understood and
appreciated by the public till the late 1950’s. Even after he became an international figure in architecture, his
clients tended to be academic institutions which were perhaps more willing to experiment and were also
understanding of his design approach. He might be considered one of the last humanist architects in this
century.
61
Kahn’s buildings were designed to be like human cups of light. He created many striking examples o the
archetypal vessal of light by filling central paces with skylights. At the Trenton Bathhouse Kahn designed a
central courtyard open to the sun, while the other modules are covered and lit by a central oculus. In pursuit
of light in his First Unitarian Church in Rochester, N.Y. Kahn designed four massive hoods overlooking the
roof through whose windows sunlight bounces down into the interior.’ The First Unitarian Church is a
demonstration of Kahn’s sequence of what he called form and design. For Kahn, form is immaterial. Form is
not simply function, but a conceived order. At Rochester Kahn placed the meeting hall in the center of the
school and services around it. It is clear that for Kahn form is symmetry, as it was for the Romans.
His most successful exploration of utilizing natural light are the two buildings he designed for hot, sunny
climates; the Indian Institute of Management at Ahmadabad the second legislative capital of Pakistan, now
Bladesh, at Dacca. Kahn calls the school itself “a building within a building — one open to the sun and the
other to living”. The outer wall is pierced by gigantic circles that admit light and ventilation while shielding
the inner walls from the direct glare of the sun. This is Kahn’s solution for a climate where, during the
summer, people close their houses during the day to keep out hot winds.
At Dacca, Kahn also uses a technique of piercing walls with giant geometric holes, integrating the forms
here with shapes from classic Islamic architecture, such as the dome, the arch, and the vault. Like the Indian
Institute of Management, Dacca frequently reminds one of the elaborately produced set of children’s blocks,
this time emphasizing triangu1ar hoods (which admit light) and a light shadow interplay of rectangular solids
and silo shape cylinders. The buildings are made of brick, marble and concrete.
Unlike most of the architects who are mostly concerned with function In their designs, for Kahn,
function is the secondary consideration. He believes that as long as he has considered only the functions of
the building, he is still not building the building. A building which simply functions is not a building in his
sense and it would not have a lasting quality. It would not have the quality of being in a life, of being in a
living thing. Kahn says;
“when you make a building, you make a life. It comes out of life, when you have only the comprehension of
the function of a building, it would not become an environment of a life [5].”
Kahn believed in solving an architectural problem. The architect should go beyond the solution, for Kahn,
a building begins after the problems are solved. By this he is referring to the character of the space. First is
the need of the space and second is the character of the space. The need of a space is definable. The character
of a space is not definable. A building can be high in character or low in character and still be functional.
However, for Kahn, that is not architecture.
62
The back of the house opens freely to the sky, the lawn, and the light, presenting a far different
personality, unrestricted by the elements of the street front for an almost tight-lipped privacy. Even though,
comparatively speaking, there is not much similarity between Kahn’s work and Wright’s work, some
resemblance is apparent in their philosophy. Kahn talks about the importance of natural light in a building:
“A space can never reach its place in architecture without natural light. Artificial light is the light of night
expressed in positioned chandeliers not to be compared with the unpredictable play of natural light. The
places of entrance, the galleries that radiate from them, the intimate entrances to the spaces of the institution
form an independent architecture of connection. This architecture is of equal importance to the major spaces
though these spaces are designed only for movement and must therefore be designed to be bathed in natural
light.ArChitect1 deals with spaces, the thoughtful and meaningful making of spaces. The architectural space
is one where the structure is apparent in the space itself. The structure is a design in light. The vault, the
dome, the arch, the column are structures related to the character of light. Natural light gives mood to space
by the nuances of light in the time of the day and the seasons of the year as it enters and modifies the space
[6].”
Wright also stressed a natural light in his designs. Wright, commenting on utilization of natural light says;
“The sun is the great luminary of all life. It should serve as Such in the building of any house [7].” Kahn,
the true son of the Beaux Arts tradition, believed in and used geometric shapes in his designs, as did Wright
to a certain extent.
5. Conclusion
By all means, Louis Kahn was one of the leading architects of modern times. However, he was also
considered, by social theorists to be an inspired planner. To all who had allowed themselves to fall under the
spell of Kahn’s intense, articulate personality he was clearly a man possessed by a single, compelling truth
that nothing can live unless it acknowledges a simple logical system of organization and a principle of what
Kahn called “order”.
Kahn applies this principle, specifically, to buildings, to streets, to whole cities. For in his mind, these
were not inanimate things, they were alive, or could be, if they were created from a “principle of order”. By
order he means simply nature or organism. Cities for Kahn, were people whom he might love or hate, trust or
fear, approach with humility or with a bluster.
63
For the most important difference between Kahn and most city planners was that planners, for many
years, tried to solve problems as they arose, whereas, Kahn believed that if one gives the city the right and
the capability to live, the city will inevitably solve its own problems”. Kahn’s philosophy in planning was
“let the street live”. By this he meant that each street has to do its own task in its own way. The city streets
carry different contradictory types of traffic: buses that stop and go, private cars that do not stop very often,
trucks and so on. Different cars with different rates of movement. To carry all of these kinds of traffic on one
street is as wrong to Kahn as using hot water, cold water, waste aid electric current all through the same pipe
in a house. The consequences are not just the present congested streets, especially in the metropolitan but
also, it makes most of the buildings along the street unworkable. No building can work equally well for a
pedestrian moving three miles per hour and a car going fifty miles an hour.
Kahn’s solution for the transportation problems and planning of the cities was based on the phenomenon
of great rivers.-“express ways like rivers.”- and like rivers they carry a variety of traffic. These rivers should
be designed around the city. Rivers in turn have harbors. By harbors, Kahn referred to municipal parking
garages: large cylindrical towers; towers with all day car storage spaces at the core and for apartments,
offices or motels all around the perimeter. Here the river traffic begins to be sorted out from these harbors.
Canals branch out that serve the interior. These canals have few, if any, intersection and permit motor traffic
to move smoothly.
The beauty of Kahn’s concept is that, if put into operation, it should automatically create a city pattern
that will work and that can probably will end up beautiful. In regard to his concept in city planning, Kahn
says; “ A modern city will renew itself from its order concept of movement and this order concept of
movement- the river canal pattern – would reserve certain tendencies that threaten the heart of modern cities
[9].”
6. References
[1] Cook, John W. and Klotz, Heinrich, Conversations With Architects, (New York: 1973).
[2] Jencks, Charles, Modern Movement in Architecture, (New York: 1973).
[3] Kahn, Louis I., Notebook and Drawings of Louis I. Kahn, (Philadelphia: 1962).
[4] Pevsner, Nikolaus, Pioneers of Modern Design, (Baltimore: 1960).
[5] Scully, Vincent Jr., Louis I. Kahn,(New York: 1962).
[6] Scully, Vincent Jr., Modern Architecture, (New York, 1961 ).
[7] Architecture Forum, March, 1958. August / September, 1964.
[8] The New York Times Magazine, November 15, 1970.
[9] Progressive Architecture, September 1964. May 1974.
64