br On history What is the history of architecture for

On history What is the history of architecture for Banham? History as a system of knowledge is undoubtedly important for Banham because of its resourceful nature for future improvement and correction. Even though historical accounts on Banham\'s works have been the main concern of Whiteley\'s book (2003), on Banham\'s method and approach still fall short of delineation. One thing that is fascinating for his historical analysis is the transformations in a building system; it is because of technological inventions and its artistic appropriations. History in this sense is about the event that happens in the dynamic relationship between technological exploration and its artistic interpretation. This includes the ingenuity of design in the search for excellent function, comfort, environmental sustainability, beauty, and economic affordability; it is what he speaks of the power to deliver the promises of the Machine Age (Banham, 1981a: 11). It is unsurprising to understand why Banham values something historical in its futuristic capacity. Indeed, technological aspect plays a significant role for architectural innovation. For Banham modernity is historically interesting because of its futurist spirit that is made possible by innovative technology and imaginative art. Despite that it is barely to find evidences on the association of Banham\'s historical approach with Marxist historical materialism, both have something in common concerning history as the outcome of struggle for the future. In this respect, Banham rejects revivalism and eclecticism of architectural form without imaginative casein kinase with technological innovation. For him any attempt to revive styles of the past is a sign of weakness (Whiteley, 2003: 15). He is by no means against reinterpretation of historic buildings such as James Stirling\'s Stuttgart Gallerie in relation to Karl Friedrich Schinkel\'s Altes Museum, and Bruno Taut\' Glass Industry pavilion at Cologne Werkbund Exhibition in 1914 in relation to Classical Greek Tholos. History for Banham is unquestionably resourceful. The problem is not how to translate it bluntly word by word. In other words, history is subject to interpretation with artistic sensibility and technological ingenuity.
On modernity Even though modern movement in architecture has been an integrated part of the spirit of modernity, there are no traces of any intellectual exchange between modern architects and modern scholars (Heynen, 2000: 4). Indeed, there are hardly any evidences of contacts and exchanges of minds between them such as Ernst Bloch (1885–1977) and Max Bill (1908–1994), though as a proponent of modern industrial designer, Bill is the sculptor of Endlose Treppe in Ludwigshafen, which is dedicated to the Principle of Hope by Bloch in 1991. The similar cases happen between artists, architects, industrialists, and designers of Deutscher Werkbund and scholars of the Frankfuter Schule. Modernity in architectural world is likely less crystallized as a solid concept, if it is not superficial. It is not to say that modern movement in architecture is more about stylistic transformation. To what extent is modernity in architecture a Habermas\' unfinished project or Gidden\'s narcistic self-identity? Habermas holds that modern movement in architecture was sustained through its engagement with the past. In his analysis, Habermas comes to a conjecture that modern is characterized by the spontaneously self-renewing historical contemporaneity of the Zeitgeist to find its own objective expression (Habermas, 1990, Passerin d\'Entrèves and Benhabib, 1997: 39). In this sense, modernity is not against history; even to a certain extent, it remains faithful to keeping its secret relation to the classical. Claiming of aesthetic autonomy by architects and artists has been made since the 19th century, with Arts and Crafts movement in England, Art Nouveau in Europe and Chicago School North America. This claim is not from the thin air but substantially supported by the advent of new materials and construction methods as the consequences of industrial revolution. The shift concept of power in construction industry comes into being alongside with this revolution. However, asserting for autonomous aesthetics is not simply a trendy response or a fashionable reaction of mass form and uniformly cheap design of industrial production. The claim for aesthetic hegemony of modern movement is in a way to restore the existence and integrity of craftsmanship in the design of modern architecture. In contrast to arts and crafts movement, the Deutscher Werkbund, funded in 1907 by Hermann Muthesius, Peter Behrens, and Fritz Schumacher, goes hand in hand with industrialists to bear the industrial requirements and values of utilitarian production. Of course, Banham is aware of all these historical events that enable him to see the significant role of new materials and new constructions in the mode of production for new buildings. More importantly, for Banham it is the fact that design in the Machine Age is indispensable from aesthetic sensibility and the knowledgeable method of construction of industrial production. In this sense, design is not just to respond to human needs, but also the search for new experiences. Design is necessary to advocate new architectural form, structure, material, and spatiality that has logical and economic grounds rather than standing on the grounds of stylistic aesthetics or symbolism.