Mies van der Rohe의 住宅 作品에 나타난 디자인 方法論의 展開에 관한 硏究

Abstract

한 건축가의 작품에 대한 일련의 역사를 서술하는 것, 즉 건축적 특성의 진화론적 담론을 구축하는 것은 개별 작품들에서 나타나는 형태적인 변화를 좀 더 포괄적인 건축사적 흐름과 타협시키는 방법을 통하여 일반적으로 이루어진다. 이러한 측면에서, 근대주의 건축 형성과 진행에 있어 결정적인 역할을 수행했던 미스 반 데어 로에는 지금까지도 근대주의 건축의 대표 주자로 평가되어 왔으며, 이는 한편으로, 이후 탈근대주의자들이 그를 대표적인 비판 대상으로 삼게 되는 주된 원인이 되었다. 하지만 건축사적 흐름을 세분하는 가지각색의 이름표들은 항상 그것을 옹호하는 자들보다는 비판하는 자들에 의해 운명이 결정되어져 왔으며, 또한, 수많은 운동들이 한 시대에 논의되었지만 지금은 논의의 여지가 없다는 점에서, 위와 같은 시각은 언제나 변화될 가능성을 내포하고 있다. 이러한 측면에서, 최근에 증가하는 미스에 대한 담론은 근대주의 건축에 대항하였던 탈근대주의 건축 이후 무질서적인 건축 사조의 홍수만이 생산된 것에 대한 반발, 혹은 그 대안으로서, 미스에 의해 이미 추구된 건축의 근본적 질서를 근대성이라는 좀 더 확장된 측면에서 재조명하려는 변화하는 모습을 보여준다. 본 연구에서 다루는 미스의 위치는 이러한 현재 변화하는 동적인 지형에 속해있다. 다시 말해, 본 연구는 그의 가장 비근대적인 작업들로부터 근대적인 측면을 발견하고, 또한 그것이 미스의 가장 근대적인 작업들로 발전적으로 전개되어 왔음을 보여줌으로써, ‘미스=근대주의 건축의 대가’라는 화석화된 절대 좌표로부터 해방시켜 현재의 건축적 담론으로 회복시키려는 노력이다. 이를 위해 본 연구의 주된 관심은 미스의 독일에서의 주택 작품 활동을 향하였다. 즉, 그의 1920년 이전 건축 활동으로 논의의 폭을 확장하여, 그것들이 이후의 작품들보다 열등하거나 과거 지향적이라기보다는 세기 전환기의 건축적 혼란을 극복하려는 근대적 노력이었음을 확인하고, 계속해서 그 특성이 이후 독일에서의 작품 속에서 일련의 발전적 전개 과정을 보여주고 있었음을 설명함으로써, 미스의 독일시기 작품에 내재된 근대성의 복합성을 설명하려 시도하였다. 연구의 진행은 다음과 같은 순서로 이루어졌다. 서론에 이어 <2장>에서는 미스의 독일에서의 활동과 최근의 담론들을 비평적으로 살펴봄으로써, 독일시기 미스 건축에 대한 연구의 부족함과 편협성이라는 기존의 한계가 1920년 전, 후 건축적 특성을 단절적으로 이해함에 기인하는 것임을 제시하고, 이를 극복하기 위해서는 독일시기 동안의 건축적 주제와 이를 바탕으로 하는 주택 디자인 방법론의 전개 양상을 연속적으로 논의해야할 필요성을 제안하였다. <3, 4장>에서는 건축적 주제를 파악하기 위하여, 먼저 미스의 언설을 분석하였는데, 발표된 언설이 없는 1920년 이전의 경우, 19세기 시대 상황 논의를 통해 그의 건축적 주제를 예상하였고, 이를 당시 작품을 통해 확인한 후, 독일시기 전체 건축적 주제의 전개 양상을 살펴보았다. <5, 6장>에서는 디자인 방법론에 대해 논의를 전개하기 위하여, 미스의 작품 중에서 1920년을 경계로 일련의 계열을 이루며 전개된 유일한 건축 유형인 주택에 집중하였다. 특히 세기 전환기 독일 주택의 일반적인 디자인 고려 사항으로부터 평면으로부터 입체를 구축하는 ‘구성적 측면 범주’와 자신의 건축적 주제를 대조적 요소의 이중성으로 표현하는 ‘개념적 측면 범주’라는 두 가지 분석 인자를 도출하여, 주택들을 통시적으로 분석하였다. 이를 통해, 상이한 특성을 갖는 것으로 이해되는 1920년 전, 후 시기의 디자인 방법론이 실은 서로 관련성을 지니며 발전적으로 전개되고 있음을 살펴보았다. <7장>에서는 이상의 논의 과정에서 확인된 미스의 건축적 특성의 전개 양상이 내포하는 현대적 의의를 제안하였다. <8장>은 결론 부분이다.; The aim of this study is mainly to understand the diversity of Mies van der Rohe(1886-1969)'s architecture in Germany(1905-38). Mies's works in Germany have been understood as having the two contrary characteristics, one was the stylistic and conservative trait before 1920 and the other was his typical modernist trait which was taken in radical aesthetics of architectural Avant-Garde after 1920. However, it is the fact that there was a developmental progress in the series of his works in Germany, because this kind of dichotomy is based on the early 20th century modernist architectural theories. Therefore, for accomplishing the aim, the method carried out in this study focused to grasp the evolutionary progress of Mies's architectural theme and design methodology before emigrating to America. To understand Mies's architectural theme, this study analyzed his statements fundamentally. However, the early theme was assumed by discourse on the 19th century German historicism and architecture which had influenced Mies's architecture definitely, because there were not published statements before 1920. This hypothesis were tested through his works of those days, and on this base, the evolutionary progress of the architectural theme was constituted. To understand his design methodology, this study especially focused on his private houses, the only architectural type which were developed through his German Period. Particularly, two factors for analysis, 'the category for the compositional aspect' and 'the category for the conceptional aspect,' were deduced from the turn-of-the-century common design strategies to construct a proper German regional houses. His residential works in Germany were investigated chronologically through these categories. The following conclusions are made from this study. First, by comparing Walter Gropius and Hannes Meyer with Mies, all who had been the directors of Bauhaus, it was presumed that Mies's architectural theme headed for the unity between art and technology. However, analysis of Mies's statements showed that there were extreme disparity in understanding of art and technology at each period and both parties finally synthesized, which means that the disparity was caused by fundamental contradiction between his traditional concept of art and modern technology, and his architectural theme had progressed dialectically. Therefore, the characteristic of Mies's architectural theme after 1920 could be summarized as the evolutionary progress searching for the unity between art and technology. Second, the 19th century of German architecture was the period of historical styles and was influenced by German historicism which were a dominant ideology at that time. Historicism had a characteristic searching for the unity between the individuality and the community, accordingly had a possibility to rationalize the multiple values of modernity. The 19th century German architecture brought in this combinative trait to solve intrinsic chaos, and used various styles finally. Therefore the 19th century architectural discourse on the historical styles involved the dual meaning of historicism, harmonizing the individuality and the community. It means that the characteristic of the 19th century architectural discourse was the struggle for the unity between subjectivity and objectivity. Third, Mies had a self-consciousness to project his own architectural theme on works already before 1920. However he should have devoted to clients who were influenced by historicism and should have followed the 19th century German architectural actualities in many aspects. Therefore, it could be anticipated that Mies would had the design strategy of using contrastive factors dually to express the paradoxical circumstances. By examined his early works based on this recognition, it was found that Mies had used classical style elements and medieval style elements doubly in an individual work. It means that his early architectural theme was expressing the unity between subjectivity and objectivity connoted in the 19th century historicism, in non stylistic and dualistic ways. Therefore, his early architectural theme could be summarized as the evolutionary progress searching for the unity between subjectivity and objectivity which could be understood as the beginning of the theme after 1920. Fourth, the result of the chronological analysis of Mies's house design methodology through 'the category for the compositional aspect' was as follows: Mies's early German period(1905-20) houses used both ways of block composition which were used by the turn-of-the-century German houses to construct the body from the planar residential programs. Specially, the methodology was changing from the single block composition which was representative of classical formality to the interlocked block composition. In case of his mid German period(1920-28), Mies's houses maintained the early German period methodology in the first half of the 1920s. In the latter half of the 1920s, he used blocks arranged diagonally. It was the progressive design strategy to create a modern open plan inside even if the building was constituted by the combination of the blocks outside.In case of his late German period(1928-38), Mies's house design methodology was dramatically changing from former periods in compositional aspect, because the deconstruction of the block composition became common phenomenon after Barcelona Pavilion. But on the other hand, in contrast to this deconstructive design methodology, a normative layout of partitions was established gradually. The deconsruction of the block and the regularity of the partition layout helped to realize the open plan. Fifth, the result of the chronological analysis of Mies's house design methodology through 'the category for the conceptional aspect' was as follows: The methodologies used in Mies's early German period houses were identified as 'asymmetric balance,' 'duality of cubic block and skeleton frame,' and 'contraposition of human and natural areas.' The first and second methods mean that he used stylistic motifs instrumentally, which showed that his early houses transcended the past-referential trait of the 19th century architecture. The third methods had an effect on human area raised up over natural area, which created a space promoting the relation to the objective and emphasizing the autonomic subjective. In case of his mid German period, the early characteristics continued except the character of 'asymmetric balance.' The character of 'duality of cubic block and skeleton frame' was expressed by the ways of hiding a principal structure system. The character of 'contraposition of human and natural areas' gradually expanded the scope into the relation between inside and outside of the building and the landscape. The last two methods were found also in his late German period houses. The former was expressed by the ways of hiding a principal structure system too, but in this case, it was for the effective expression of the open plan. The latter had trait that the relation of both areas gradually became intimate. Sixth, in respect of design methodology as mentioned above, it became obvious that Mies had consistently endeavored to put his architectural theme into practice and to solved the inherent conflict between a legacy of massive aesthetics of the early houses and the desire to organize the open plan after 1920 simultaneously. Especially, the phases found at the houses in Germany were preserved and metamorphosed at Farnsworth House, which meant that the evolutionary progress discussed in this study also made progress in America continuously. Seventh, there was discordance between the theme and the methodology synchronically. This situation was generated because he never renounced a conservative tradition in methodological aspect even if he took a favorable attitude toward modern technology in thematic aspect. This point of view made it possible to understand the diversity of his works in Germany and made an offer the basis of connecting his architecture with the contemporary architectural discourse from the point of modernity. In conclusion, even though Mies's private houses in Gremany had two contrary aspects, this study could show that the architectural characteristics of the houses progressed not discontinuously but evolutionarily in the background. This evolutionary viewpoint located conservative works before 1920 on the starting point of the progress, which had a possibility of overcoming the discontinuous recognitions, and expanded the existing recognition that the idea of open plan that had begun in Block Country House Project was completed in Barcelona Pavilion, which had a possibility of overcoming the narrowness of discussion about the works after 1920. Additionally, the inherent modern aspects of his conservative works before 1920 and the inherent classic aspects of his modern and Avant-Grade works after 1920 which had investigated in this study could introduce the possibility to grasp his oeuvre in the context of modernity. Above all, it was comprehended that the greatness and the permanence of Mies's architecture was generated from continuous searching for harmonizing the primary essence in architecture and the various material conditions of each epoch.