Has Modernism Removed Instinctual Inspiration?

Having gone through an Environmental Design undergraduate program, the value of concept strengthened design has been seared into the back of my mind.  According to the teachings I have received, special design will never be truly successful if manifested without a base thesis.  These may be derived from emotional experiences realized within a project site, a theoretical or philosophical breakdown of a project’s typologies, or even from the deconstruction of a single “meaningful” word; the thesis is an educated inspiration for driving all factors of materiality and design.  

Like an artist, architects focus emotional energies toward the production of a “masterpiece,” but much unlike the artist, architectural plans and design are frowned upon when the creator argues that decisions were made “just because.”  Why is this an unacceptable response to conceptual formulation?  Being an artist myself, when I feel the need to use a set of colors together on a canvas, there are never usually any underlying concepts that provoke me to do so.  The artistic actions are made in order to achieve a piece that stimulates positively (most times) in a visual manner.

According to Simon Sadler in his writings, An Avant-garde Academy, the “New Brutalism,” developed by Le Corbusier in the 1950’s and 60’s, influenced groups such as Team 10 to go beyond what previous methodologies thrived off of in Modernism.  “Team 10 wanted an overt appreciation of local factors, climate, and customs.  Design solutions would be achieved by feeling rather than rationalizing.”  If this was a valid motive toward formal design at the start of the Modernist movement, why is it not continued, or allowed to continue today?  Now to clarify, Team 10 honed design around feelings because they, “…wanted an architecture that created a sense of habitat,” but pure drive by gut instinct, if you may, should be valid reasoning in design.  

I do firmly believe that strong concept allows for justified motives and creation through development, as Le Corbusier has shown in his works and through, The City of Tomorrow and its Planning, though when does there become too much rationalization or meaning in a design?  And could the combination of logical conception and pure emotion bring to light something new?  This thought goes back to previous questions presented in my earlier blog entries about architects and their real world influences in virtual reality design.  Without design constraints of over applied conceptual meaning (similar to the earlier constraint of worldly conditions), what could be achieved, or even inspire future designs to achieve?  Corbusier stated that his intention behind his city plans was, “…not to overcome the existing state of things, but by constructing a theoretically water-tight formula to arrive at the fundamental principles of modern town planning.”  People are too unpredictable to formulate into any equation.  

Rather than generating a rigid system of (arguably) redundancies to appeal to communities of rationality, I believe a morph of this concept with emotional articulation could equate into a systematic efficiency that stimulates the visual desires of the citizens.  When stimulation becomes intertwined with human experience, productivity, health, and happiness increase as seen when incorporating daylight and exterior views within hospital and office building designs. 

The notion of conceptual basis will never dissolve from the world of architectural design due to its high levels of continuous drive and inspiration, nor will instinctual motivation of actions.  As coexisting partners in artistic emotion, why discriminate one over another?  As young children, we are told that our inner conscience (or gut instinct) will usually provide the correct answers to dilemmas.  If a hybrid conceptual base could be formulated to accommodate the logical and creative hemispheres of the brain, new levels of creativity may be born to lead toward a new era of environmental design.