HarvardX GSD1 course assignment on The Barcelona Pavillon

The Barcelona Pavilion, or differently known as the German Pavilion, was supposed to be the face of the German side of an international exposition in Barcelona with the burden of representing a worldwide modern movement in architecture as well as a cultural evolution of the post war Germany itself.

What differed the building from its neighbors was what eventually became its own architectural ethos of the modern world. In contrast with the other exhibition spaces, the Barcelona Pavilion was not intended as a housing space of art and sculpture but rather as a building of tranquility whose lack of exposition was exactly what transformed it into an inhabitable sculpture. Indeed, this building by Mies van der Rohe manages to separate itself in many specters from the context surrounding it, creating atmospheric effects that seem to occur in a vacuum which dissolves all consciousness of the surrounding, vibrating city. 

The pavilion is well known for its transition spaces development. The low roof and distinguished horizontal line of the building leave room for an underlying wall system that orientates spatial circulation.

                  The modern approach of Mies stands of many different aspects in his creation, be it conceptual or materialistic. The very own concept of the building is a revolutionary step toward todays hybrid architectural forms. With a roof held on eight slender cruciform columns, there is a constantly focusing sense of a mixed interiority and exteriority interlinked under a floating mass of concrete.  As Hegel has also expressed in his writings, what would serve as an improvement of architecture, rescuing it from its inevitable degradation, is exactly an infusion of the concepts addressing interior and exterior spaces. And that is exactly what Mies has projected in his contemporary creation.

The two shallow pools framing this building allow for interesting textural effects, taking advantage of the artificial lighting system and playing with its reflection. However, water is not the only means used for manipulating light in the exhibition. The travertine used throughout the building takes in sunlight and reflects it as if it was illuminated by a second light source, thus washing the space in light.

It is indeed the use of these uncharacteristic materials that gives Mies’s building its architectural recognition. He has used reinforced concrete, glass, steel as well as four different kinds of marble. What makes his choice so interesting is the mesh of both natural and manmade materials integrated in a fine geometrical theme which makes up the modern architecture. Mies has gone beyond the original potential of his materials, introducing innovatory technological procedures to create what is now the Barcelona Pavilion. A good example of his work would be the “pinning” process used on the marble to create a symmetric partition which gives these pieces a geometrical precision and clarity which will forever define them in the modern architecture.

Having said that, we could make a relation between the procedures used by Mies, with the “schism” between architecture and technology referred to by Siegfried Gideon. According to Gideon’s theory, in the 19^th century it finally became apparent that there existed a “schism” or division between architecture and technology which was at the time reflected in the separate existence of an Ecole des Beaux-Arts as well as Ecole Polytechnique in France. With this recognition came a demand for a new architecture. One regenerated and guided by engineering.

So it is exactly what we see in Mies’s construction that manages to stich together the so called schism between architecture and technology. It is this integration between natural materials industrialized by technology with a certain purpose which happened to create extraordinary designs of marble in clear cut shapes. What we observe here is an ideal utilization of technology for a purpose which serves both aesthetics and usefulness in the primary conceptual sense of the building. It is a minimal usage of materials which serve many purposes.

As a conclusion, the schism between architecture and technology indeed was recognized and became apparent in the 19^th century, leading to or maybe even a byproduct of the industrial revolution in Europe, but it does not define architecture in time. A relation between beauty or symbolic purpose and construction has been a part of architecture from its very beginning. The Greek temple for example, even in a period of limited building technology, managed to achieve its goal of creating spaces for “gods to reside on earth” while showing forth the spirit of this holy “mansion”, thus integrating available construction technologies with symbolic purposes in order to create meaningful/ beautiful stable structures. In a sense this is exactly what Mies has done in his contemporary building. He has successfully reestablished a harmonic proportion of beauty and purpose, purpose and efficiency, technology and architecture.