Las Vegas By Venturi

713 Words2 Pages

Venturi attempted to untangle what he perceived as flaws in architectural thinking when he coauthored Learning from Las Vegas (1977). This book was his self-described brilliant study of the Las Vegas Strip (Louise, 1971, p. B7). Here he acknowledged that, despite the supposed defects within the Strip, such as the sporadic placement of buildings and parking lots, the Strip was here to stay. Las Vegas helped
Venturi learn to look at an existing landscape and then go from there, accepting what he was given. The architectural community was appalled by this notion. Many felt that major boulevards across the country, including the Las Vegas Strip, were inherently flawed and had to be completely altered (Cook & Klotz, 1973, p. 248). Venturi was
again …show more content…

C13). In 1973, seven years after the release of Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, Venturi freely admitted that he had very few buildings of his own to reference and acknowledged that as a problem to maintaining his credibility (Cook & Klotz, 1973, p. 261). If he was going to try to convince architects and the public of his grand vision for the future, Venturi needed experience to back up his ideas.
Venturi did not write his books to convince anyone of anything; he did not even consider himself to be a good writer (Cook & Klotz, 1973, p. 247). His books were written so he could better understand the world of architecture. Through his research, Venturi discovered that successful architecture did employ symbolism that was native to a particular area. He was referring to a society’s vernacular, the common techniques, styles, and traditions that could be used for constructing a building in a specific region (Hoeveler, 1996, p. 93). As a result, he was cited as “the first major
American [architect] to give impetus to vernacular styles” through his writings of the
1960s (Giovanni, 1983, p. B3). It is interesting to realize that Venturi was the first to take this stance, a stance that seems only natural in …show more content…

153). He previously surmised in Complexity and
Contradiction in Architecture that the “desire for a complex architecture, with its attendant contradictions,” was fundamentally a reaction to Modernism and the architecture of the 1960s and 1970s (1966, p. 19). He recognized that most people yearn for the use of symbolism within their buildings, a kind of symbolism that they could understand. Venturi believed that middle-class Americans preferred homes “that
[were] nostalgic echoes of the past, rather than those dwellings that [were] ‘pure’ and austere statements of orthodox Modernism” (Carren, 1982, p. 30). While Venturi conceded that his buildings were never thought of as monuments, they were more successful than the Modernist behemoths because everyday people could relate to them in a much more personal way. Simply put, Venturi believed that “good architecture is regional architecture” (Giovanni, 1983, p. B3). He had identified a breach in the acceptance of Modern architecture by the American public and believed his new style, a style that involved tradition and history, was the best way to fill it. Modernism had become “stale and rigid,” according to Venturi, and his new style of

Open Document