There isn’t a clear definition of contemporary architecture and what it constitutes.

While it does

not have a single style, it is still understood as an age of new ideas, radically new building

styles and in some cases a break from the past. With the myriad innovations of building

materials, technology, and a more connected forum for discourse, I think this present age shares

a unified effort of being innovative. And it is because of this trend of trying to find new

solutions to problems both old and new, that I think that contemporary architecture is Avant

Garde. Hilde Heynen writes, “Taken literally, the avant-garde refers to the front part of a

marching army, the scouts that first head into unknown territory” [1]. This movement rejects

traditional ideas that were once seen a success in creating the “right” experience within a space.

In a way, deconstructivism and architects like Shigeru Ban, Zaha Hadid, Jean Nouvel, Frank

Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, etc. were ‘accused’ of being Avant-garde. I use the word accused

because it was a time when many saw this style as being “art for art’s sake” and having no

function or subject matter. Clement Greenberg in his essay writes “In turning his attention away

from the subject matter of common experience, the poet or artist turns it in upon the medium

of his own craft.” [2] By creating something abstract, the designer leaves it up to the users to

experience the space around them differently. The Jewish Museum in Berlin, designed by

Daniel Libeskind was a typical example of deconstructivist, Avant Garde architecture. But I

believe it is so-called because it invoked an emotional experience, unlike any museum in its

time. Libeskind’s design was created based on 3 insights to his narrative: Identifying the Jewish

citizens’ contribution to the history of Germany, that the Holocaust must remain in Berlin’s

memory, and that the city and country must acknowledge the erasure of the Jewish life in its

history. Each of these narratives are sculpted spaces that tell different stories- a Holocaust

Tower, the Garden of Exile (fig 1. Bottom), the stair of continuity (fig. 1 top left). At every

part of the museum, Libeskind tries to make the user feel what the Jewish did during the

holocaust- grief, unsafe and trapped. The zig-zagging columns in the entry-void causes
discomfort in the users as it appears to be defying gravity. The corridor leading to the holocaust

tower is a dead-end with a single narrow source of light from the ceiling to create this feeling

of suffocation. And finally, the Garden of exile has massive columns and simplicity that attracts

one to tread through it. But the moment they are in this space, the tilt of the floor creates

uneasiness. Metal plates carved as sad faces on the floor connect the stair of continuity to the

museum and forces the users to walk over them and hence listen to the sharp noise it creates.

This is an example of how at first, we classify the building by its aesthetic value as being Avant

Garde but how it is, in a true sense, progressive in terms of how a user’s sense of sight, touch,

feel is ignited by their experience within that space. The museum is connected to the Baroque

style Kollegienhaus museum that is in contrast, traditional corridors with pictures on the wall.

That brings me to my second example of how a building called innovative based on its structure

and aesthetic, overlooks the radical change it brought in function and society. The Seattle

Library, by Rem Koolhaas and his firm OMA [fig.3] was dedicated to redefining the use of a

library as we now transition into a digital age. He draws attention not only to the book but all

forms of potent media, be it new or old and represents it equally. The idea of making a

continuous ramp- “a book spiral” plays an essential role in overlapping functions which is

something most libraries have not in the past. These overlapping and in-between spaces are

dedicated to librarian- user interaction and stimulate dialogue between two platforms. There is

hence a need for radical planning and design because of different viewpoints designers hold

today, the need to tackle a multitude of problems and because we have come to terms with the

fact that there is no “one size fits all” in this world we live in.

Shigeru Ban’s stunning Pompidou-Metz in Paris (completed in 2012) uses Japanese influence

and makes use of vernacular materials like bamboo. But this work and all his other projects
stand out from the rest due to its experimental design quality. The high, undulating roof allowed

three cubes of different volumes, each having ceilings high enough to accommodate artwork

that the Paris Museum was unable to display due to the 5.5m high ceilings. Ban’s renowned

disaster relief- design and use of indigenous materials take from the past, combine mass

production from the Industrial revolution and adapt it into each project in its own radical way.

David Harvey talks about a “pluralist view” and talks about McHale’s novel “A shift from

‘epistemological’ to an ‘ontological’ dominant. By this, he means a shift to questioning as to

how radically different realities may coexist, collide and interpenetrate” [3] While there can be

a Kitsch to mimic the Avant Garde, I believe that Avant Garde design can never stop as it finds

something new to address every moment.

Fig.1: The Jewish Museum, Daniel Libeskind (1988-99) (competition won in 1988, museum
opened in 2001).
Image available at: https://libeskind.com/work/jewish-museum-berlin/
 Fig 2: Seattle Library, OMA , (1999-2004).
Image available at: https://www.arch2o.com/seattle-library-oma/

Fig.3 Center Pompidou-Metz, Shigeru Ban (2010)

Image available at: https://www.archdaily.com/490141/centre-pompidou-metz-shigeru-ban-
architects

Works cited
1. Heynen Hilde. “Avant-Garde”, 20th Century Architecture, 2004, http://architecture-

history.org/schools/AVANT-GARDE.html

2. Greenberg, Clement. Art and Culture 1989, Boston, published by Beacon Press.

3. Harvey, David. The condition of postmodernity, 1989, edited by John Davey.