Authorship issue has become a significant problem in architecture from 15th century and there is more then one thing that complicate better understanding of the concept, especially in the 20th century with all the modernist movements. Paradigms of authorship seams to be inbred in concept of architectural practice.. The 19th century industrialisation resulted in mass production made widely accessible products The design process Charles Jencks is famous architectural historian with special interest in postmodernism as well as a landscape architect and cultural theorist. His started his history with design in the wood studio. In his writing he presents his overlook on the shift from modern to postmodern architecture. The author attempts to analyse the change in architectural design from the first rections to the Bauhaus pioniers in its post-war revolution to the 20th century. Jencks states that the post war victory of first generation of modernist was strongly led by Mies van Der Rohe as well as Le Corbusier and Gropius followed by such a big names like Peri (Pei) or Bunshaft. His intention is not easy to understand , despite very descriptive title, as he fails not only to develop the concept of “the language of post modern architecture” but as well just simply explain it clearly enough . The book presents the point that the new style and approach called “post modernism” is still about to apeare. The name post-modern was created by understanding that post modernism would be clearly strong departure from modernism and the author defends it on many grounds. but its important to understand that the label dosing matter but the concept, idea does. He divides the process to three stages: the Death of Modernism, The Modes of Architecture Communication and the last one-Post Modern Architecture all generously illustrated in Black and white as well as colour. Part1 2nd partPart 3Post modernist are neither “Hisoricists” nor “Revialists”. The final section presents the argumentThe author’s comments on architectural forms are perceptive, bright and funny. His attempt to best capture the architectural movements of 20th century in they complexity deserves acknowledgment. the attention to architectural metaphors is extremely interesting but he use very narrow audiance for his analysis consisted only architects, critics or students, his fellow colleagues and not looking at large public and he fails to demonstrate the existence of such a language. Part one starts whenhousin development in St. Louis were demolished acerb continuous demotes from vandalism. The author presents the view that the failure was in its design”There are professions more harmful then industrial design, but only a few of them.… designers have become a dangerous breed.” (Papanek, 1972, p.14)
The opening line from Papanek’s book is as provocative these days as it was in 1971 when the Design for the Real World was published. The author worked on the book from 1963 and most of the writing took place in Scandinavia where he was at the time a guest lecturer at many design schools, like one in Stockholm or Helsinki. His persistency in need for a change in design philosophy with a strong point on sustainability forced a change in design vision.
The 60’s the strong faith in progress and innovation driven by counters developments in science and technology that been changeing modern design since industrial revolution took another turn and from consumer activism moved towards environmentalism