Since the 1990s there has been an increasing
focus on the ornamental skin or exterior surface in contemporary architecture.
This is due in part to advances such as parametric modelling and computer aided
design which allow the creation of complex geometric shapes, alongside material
advances which aid strength and pliancy. Coinciding with these advances is the
adaptation of techniques and materials from other design disciplines, such as
clothing and textiles, into architecture which enable the communication of
qualities such as transparency, flexibility and lightness which more conventional
building materials cannot express. This focus on the external skin, and the
employment of techniques associated with textiles, gives rise to analogies of
the body and dressing as a conceptual basis for these designs. Several
international firms have become synonymous with this type of architecture, one
of the most notable of whom is the Swiss firm Herzog & de Meuron.
This advent of skin focused architecture has
been widely discussed in recent architectural literature, primarily with regard
to whether it has emerged purely as a result of these technological advances, and
whether it is akin to decorative ornament, or whether there is another more fundamental
ethos behind it. Several texts mention Herzog & de Meuron in terms of their
innovative approach to the architectural skin. Curiously, despite this wealth of literature,
there has been no thorough analysis of the role of the surface, or the analogy
of the body, in relation to the works of Herzog & de Meuron. Therefore in
this dissertation I aimed to examine this advent of the architectural skin primarily
through case study analysis of three schemes designed by Herzog & de Meuron.
In advance of this analysis I looked at
the theoretical basis to this discussion. This centred around two key theorists; Gottfried Semper (1803-1879) and Adolf Loos (1870-1933). Semper’s pivotal work, Der Stil [Style in the Technical and
Tectonic Arts] (1860-63), offered a new perspective of the roots of architecture from origins in
shelter to origins in textiles. He introduced the idea of the surface as the
key element in forming architectural space, based on material effects enabling
sensory experiences. Furthermore, he introduced the theory of bekleidung (the theory of
dressing/cladding), through which these effects could be achieved. Loos extended Semper’s theories, developing the
analogy of dressing or skin and introducing the literal textile into the
interiors of his designs. He wrote extensively on issues of style and dress relating to
architecture, as outlined in his collection of essays Spoken into
the void (1897-1900). In addition, he was a resilient opponent to
the application of meaningless ornament in architecture and thus is fundamental
in any discussion regarding ornament.
These theories present the basis for the
emergence of the surface as a key element in contemporary architecture, both in
terms of the importance of the surface treatment in creating the
phenomenological event, and in the terms of the textile as a literal and
analogous architectural material. However, for much of the 20th
century, Modernism thoroughly rejected the ornamental surface in architecture
in favour of functionalism. Only in the last two decades has the role of the
architectural skin once again come into play as a key element in contemporary
architecture. Herzog & de Meuron are at the forefront of this movement.
They have developed a design ethos based on the creation of visceral or sensory
experiences in architecture, often incorporating the analogy of the textile
into their work. In this sense they develop the strategies proposed by Semper
and Loos, whereby the surface and surface treatment are fundamental elements in
the creation of sensory spaces. Through an investigation into the theoretical
and practical basis of their design intentions, and an analysis of the
application of these intentions in the case studies presented, this paper
explored this advent of skin-focused architecture. In doing this I hoped to
discover why this type of architecture has emerged at this point in time, what this approach can offer over more conventional surface treatments and
architectural approaches and whether it is more than simply ornament.
