The Tectonic Complexity of Minimalist Architecture

The Tectonic Complexity Minimalist Architecture Chih-Ming Shih* 1, Kuang-Hsu Huang 2 and Yu-Ting Kuo 3 1 Pressor, Department Architecture, National Taiwan University Science and Technology, Taiwan 2 Ph.D., Department Architecture, National Taiwan University Science and Technology, Taiwan 3 M. Arch., Department Architecture, National Taiwan University Science and Technology, Taiwan Abstract This study analyzed tectonic development minimalist architecture according to material and immaterial characteristics and ontological versus representational aspects tectonic form. Among early minimalist architects, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Louis I. Kahn represent two different architectural fields thought regarding simplicity: Mies employed immaterial constructions made steel and glass to present ontological and representational tectonic features, whereas Kahn used material constructions composed brick, stone, and concrete to present ontological tectonic features. Following immaterial and material characteristics structural elements derived from Mies and Kahn, contemporary minimalist architects have transferred tectonic form from ontological to representational aspect by combining two architects. In addition, y extended expression form from space to skin with multiple layers, which exhibits tectonic complexity minimalist architecture hidden behind simplicity its form. Keywords: minimalist architecture; tectonic; simplicity; complexity 1. Introduction Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, who used immaterial and transparent characteristics glass and steel, is considered as an important initiator modern minimalist architecture. His immaterial architectural form implemented "Bekleidung" Theory Gottfried Semper, who was an architect, a scholar, and an aestic critic. In Great Exhibition held in London in 1851, Semper noted architectural trend that separated enclosure and structure, in which cast iron and gutta-perchas were employed for simulation stone and wood, respectively, through casting, stamping, and molding for symbolic conservation. Recognizing both architectural symbolic value as well as its enclosure, Semper developed subsequent "Bekleidung" Theory (Semper, 1989). Since "Bekleidung" Theory declared that enclosure and structure were separate, it provided an appropriate foundation for Mies' immaterial and transparent architectural form. Mies used light glass enclosures covering structure to allow for *Contact Author: Chih-Ming Shih, Pressor, Department Architecture, National Taiwan University Science and Technology, #43, Sec.4, Keelung Rd., Taipei, 106, Taiwan, R.O.C Tel: +886-2-2737-6716 Fax: +886-2-2737-6721 E-mail: scm@mail.ntust.edu.tw ( Received April 6, 2010 ; accepted October 7, 2010 ) transparency immaterialization and transferred stone pillars and trabeated structure Greek architecture into slender steel pillars and steel frames, which implemented simplicity in immaterial and transparent architectural form. However, immaterial architectural form was not only way to express simplicity. Some architects in modernist period, such as Louis I. Kahn, were not influenced by Semper's "Bekleidung" Theory, but rar explored anor aspect minimalist architecture using concrete, stone, and brick, which transformed materiality to traditional architectural structures made stone. The analysis in this paper begins with discussion tectonic feature Mies, which was presented in immaterial construction, and n moves on to discuss tectonic features Kahn, which were presented in material construction. What we mean by tectonic refers to Frampton's definition. In Studies in Tectonic Culture, Frampton defined it as mutually interdependent relationship between order structure ( inner architectural thinking a specific architect) and method construction ( outer architectural form) in art form (Frampton, 1995, pp.19-21), and distinguished ontological tectonic features from representational ones. The first presents accordance in materials and construction enclosure and structure, while latter presents discordance in relation enclosure to structure (Frampton, 1995, pp.16-19). Journal Asian Architecture and Building Engineering/May 2011/22 15

After categorizing and illustrating immaterial and material characteristics and tectonic features via Mies and Kahn, analysis clarifies tectonic features contemporary architects who, following Mies and Kahn, manipulate simple form in ir works. 2. The Implementation Immaterial Tectonic Form The early works Mies, such as Brick Country House in 1923, Concrete Country House in 1924, and Monument to Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg and Wolf House at Guben in 1926, were mainly constructed brick, which presented materiality. However, Glass Skyscraper on a Prismatic Plan in 1919 and Glass Skyscraper on a Polygonal Plan in 1920 were mainly constructed glass and steel, which innovatively presented transparency and simplicity space. Starting with German Pavilion in 1929, Mies obviously made transformation from mainly using bricks to present materiality, to overt use glass and steel to present immateriality. Using architectural form a glass enclosure outside with a steel structure inside became foundation for incorporation transparency and simplicity in later works Mies, including Farnsworth House at Plano in 1950, 860 and 880 Lake Shore Drive Apartments in Chicago in 1951, and Crown Hall at Illinois Institute Technology in 1956. Mies began an architectural trend in his presentation transparency and simplicity form via glass enclosures and steel structures. In German Pavilion 1929, work established immaterial expression Mies. He did not choose a structure made stone, reminiscent architectural tradition; instead, he opted to use steel and glass to represent modernism in an immaterial form. In implementation materials, Mies avoided traditional decorative effect carved stone, using instead simplest form to present materials' characteristics. Mies used eight freestanding cruciform slender columns to support a 50 centimeter thick, huge, steel-structured hollow ro, and arranged transparent and semi-transparent glass walls in interior in accordance with a free plan to create a labyrinth-like experience space. He also used reflective glass and polished stone to create transparent and reflective visual effects between glass and stone walls. These choices not only broke definite space border created by stone in traditional architecture but also transferred relation between inside and outside to an ambiguous and multi-defined condition, which resulted in weightlessness and transparency immaterial tectonic form (Fig.1.). Since Mies did not attach non-metal materials to steel structures he designed, visitors could comprehend relationships structural system's articulation. Regarding structural design, Mies chose to use steel as main material and designed eight freestanding cruciform columns to support ro. Although cruciform columns were composed four L-shaped steel plates, he covered m with polished chromium-plated steel plate to create visual simplicity (Fig.2. left). In vertical enclosure, Mies used glass to create transparency and delicate hardware to combine glass, ceiling, and floor to present a clear visual articulation. In this way, Mies' works were mostly comprised immaterial constructions made steel and glass in order to present ontological tectonic form. However, while striving to accomplish greatest immaterial visual effect, Mies also endeavored to manipulate representational tectonic form. The German Pavilion provides an excellent illustration this. Although it mainly presents ontological tectonic form, Mies manipulated representational tectonic form in horizontal enclosure. The ro appears to be constructed concrete; however, it is actually made a steel frame structure and covered with non-load-bearing gypsum plates. By analyzing ro, authors found that Mies intended its steel-structure to produce a visual effect that was not unlike concrete in nature. In fact, a ro with a steel frame structure that follows rules structural mechanics should produce same thickness in ro plate; however, ro German Pavilion appears to be an imitation a reinforced concrete structure. Mies reduced thickness edge ro plate, which caused visitors to misinterpret steel structure ro as a reinforced concrete structure ro (Fig.2. right). In addition, since vertical structures beneath ro are composed slender steel columns and vertical enclosures are constructed different types glass, allowing for transparency, imitation concrete ro structure appears immaterial in form, all which give it visual illusion floating. In Crown Hall at Illinois Institute Technology, Mies also used a transparent architectural form constructed steel and glass to produce immateriality. By exposing articulations steel structure, he revealed structural mechanics and relations between structure and enclosure. The Crown Hall is a transparent square box with a steel structure, and enclosure comprises glass and I-shaped steel. The main load-bearing structure is composed eight I-shaped steel columns located in enclosure which support four steel plate beams from which hangs ro. In hope enhancing immaterial tectonic form, Mies did not include in his design placement any columns in interior. Accordingly, ro Crown Hall at Illinois Institute Technology exhibits same visual effect as that German Pavilion, giving illusion weightlessness (Fig.3.). Mies hung ro from four high anti-tension steel plate beams to create an illusion stretched space. The loading four plate beams, supported by eight steel columns in enclosure, creates a space without columns that is minimal in 16 JAABE vol.10 no.1 May 2011 Chih-Ming Shih

nature. In vertical enclosure, Mies used extensive minimal in nature. In vertical enclosure, Mies used glass extensive walls glass to ensure walls that to ensure mass that mass building would building not would appear not overly appear flat, overly and designed flat, and I-shaped designed steel I-shaped columns steel for columns enclosure. for For enclosure. horizontal For enclosure, horizontal enclosure, ro, Mies used ro, steel Mies plate used beams steel plate to hang beams to steel-frame hang ro steel-frame structure, ro which structure, created which an immaterial created an visual immaterial effect visual similar effect to that similar in to German that in Pavilion. German The transparent Pavilion. The walls transparent included glass walls that included was inlayed glass that in metal was inlayed frames in welded metal to frames steel welded columns to and steel connected columns and with connected architrave with via architrave L-shaped via hardware. L-shaped As hardware. with As German with Pavilion, German Pavilion, vertical enclosures vertical enclosures were designed were with designed delicate hardware with delicate that presented hardware a that clear presented articulation a clear articulation structure and enclosure structure (Fig.4.). and enclosure (Fig. 4). Fig.1. 1. Ludwig Mies Mies van van der Rohe, der Rohe, German Pavilion; German Exterior Pavilion; (left) Exterior (left) and Construction (right) and Construction (right). Fig. 2. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, German Pavilion; Plan Fig.2. Ludwig Column Mies van (left) der and Rohe, Section German Ro Pavilion; (right). Plan Column (left) and Section Ro (right) Fig.3. Fig. Ludwig 3. Ludwig Mies Mies van van der der Rohe, Rohe, Crown Hall at Illinois Institute Technology; Institute Technology; Façade (left) façade and (left) and Construction (right). Institute Technology; façade (left) and Construction (right). Fig. 3. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Crown Hall at Illinois Fig.4. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Crown Hall at Illinois Fig. 4. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Crown Hall at Illinois Institute Technology; Detail Articulation Between Institute Technology; I-Shaped Detail Steel Piers Articulation and Glass Between I-Shaped Steel Piers and Glass. The works contemporary Japanese architects Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa appear at first glance The to works be similar contemporary to those Mies Japanese in that architects y are Kazuyo made Fig. 4. Ludwig Sejima steel Mies and van structures der Ryue Rohe, Nishizawa with Crown Hall glass at appear enclosures Illinois at first and glance present to be immaterial similar to tectonic those Mies transparent in that forms. y are Institute Technology; Detail Articulation Between I-Shaped However, made different steel structures from Mies, with Sejima glass and enclosures Nishizawa and Steel Piers and Glass. chose present anor immaterial way to design tectonic ir transparent structures. forms. The Toledo However, Museum different from Art, Mies, designed Sejima by and Sejima Nishizawa The works contemporary Japanese architects and Nishizawa, chose Kazuyo anor Sejima being a way and single-story Ryue design Nishizawa construction ir appear structures. at and first made The Toledo locally-produced glance to Museum be similar glass, to Art, those corresponds designed Mies in that to by its y Sejima site. are The and museum Nishizawa, made appears steel being structures to a be single-story a steel with structure glass construction enclosures with and slender made steel present locally-produced columns immaterial installed glass, inside, tectonic corresponds but transparent in reality, to its forms. site. main The load-bearing museum However, appears different structure to from is be Mies, made a steel Sejima concrete structure and Nishizawa walls, with which slender are steel chose located columns anor in its installed way to design interior. The inside, ir inner but and in structures. reality, outer forms The main architectural load-bearing Toledo Museum design structure Art, are discordant is designed made in by nature concrete Sejima and (Fig.5.). walls, Nishizawa, being a single-story construction and made Within which locally-produced are structure, located in glass, its building corresponds interior. The is to a its inner compound site. and The outer forms slender museum architectural steel appears columns to be and a design steel concrete structure are discordant load-bearing with slender in nature walls (Fig. supporting steel columns 5). Within flat installed slab inside, structure, ro, which but in reality, building is constructed main is a compound load-bearing structure slender is steel made columns concrete and walls, concrete steel covered with concrete and appears to be floating. load-bearing which are located walls in supporting its interior. The flat inner slab and ro, outer which Since enclosure is constructed glass walls is forms constructed architectural steel design covered are discordant with concrete in nature and that appears (Fig. hide 5). to Within main be structure floating. structure, behind Since building glass enclosure is façade, a is visitors compound might misunderstand slender steel columns articulation and concrete constructed structure load-bearing and walls glass enclosure. supporting walls that Since hide flat slab architects ro, main which structure behind wanted to allow is constructed glass for visual façade, steel penetration covered visitors with might concrete misunderstand glass façade, appears articulation to be floating. structure Since and enclosure enclosure. is y Since constructed inlayed architects glass unframed walls wanted that glass hide to walls allow main into for structure ceiling visual and penetration behind floor, glass which façade, produced glass visitors façade, an might ideal misunderstand y visual inlayed effect transparency unframed articulation glass and an walls immaterial into structure tectonic and ceiling form and enclosure. (Fig.6.). floor, The which Since architects produced architects used an a ideal considerable wanted visual to allow effect amount for transparency visual glass to accomplish penetration design glass concept façade, transparency y inlayed and an immaterial tectonic form (Fig. 6). in The unframed glass walls into ceiling and floor, vertical architects enclosure, making concrete slab-like ro which produced used an a ideal considerable visual effect amount transparency glass to appear accomplish and to an float immaterial on design air to tectonic concept present form an transparency immaterial (Fig. 6). The visual in effect. vertical architects enclosure, used a considerable making amount concrete slab-like glass to ro appear Sejima accomplish to and float Nishizawa design on air concept to hid present transparency steel immaterial structure in visual and its effect. articulation vertical enclosure, inside making ceiling concrete and slab-like floor ro in an attempt appear Sejima to to enhance and float Nishizawa on air to simplicity present hid an steel immaterial and structure horizontal visual and its effect. transparency articulation inside space. In ceiling addition, and y employed floor in a an Sejima and Nishizawa hid steel structure and its compound attempt articulation to enhance steel inside structure ceiling simplicity and and concrete and floor load-bearing in horizontal an wall transparency attempt structures, to enhance rar space. than simplicity In addition, a purely and y steel horizontal employed structure. a Since compound transparency se two steel architects space. structure In addition, covered and concrete y relation employed load-bearing a structure wall compound structures, and steel enclosure rar structure than and along a concrete purely with load-bearing steel relation structure. Since wall two structures, se types two structural rar architects than systems, a covered purely which steel relation structure. manifested Since se two architects covered relation structure representational and enclosure tectonic along form, with visitors relation ten structure and enclosure along with relation misinterpret two types two types structural composition structural systems, systems, which which structure. manifested manifested In contrast, representational works tectonic Mies tectonic are form, comprised form, visitors visitors mostly ten ten purely misinterpret steel structures composition with revealed structure. articulations, structure. In In which contrast, present works ontological Mies are are tectonic comprised form mostly mostly via accordance purely steel structures with and with revealed enclosure. articulations, which present ontological tectonic tectonic form form via via accordance structure and and enclosure. enclosure. JAABE vol.10 No.1 May.2011 Chih-Ming Shih, Kuang-Hsu Huang, and Yu-Ting Kuo 3 JAABE vol.10 no.1 No.1 May May.2011 Chih-Ming Shih, Kuang-Hsu Huang, Chih-Ming and Yu-Ting Shih Kuo 173

Fig.5. Kazuyo Sejima & Ryue Nishizawa, Toledo Museum Art; Exterior (left) and Concrete Load-Bearing Walls and Steel Columns (right) Kahn exhibited structural mechanics brick in enclosure Exeter Library, in which widths brick piers brick façade decrease gradually from ground floor to ro, while each opening brick façade is constructed with a flat arch. With this approach, grand brick façade could be said to demonstrate a material visual effect. The structure and enclosure were two independent structural systems that supported ir own loads. The main structure behind brick enclosure was formed reinforced concrete, which was different from material and corresponding structural system enclosure. Kahn also used anchors and a waterpro layer to connect two (Fig.8.). Fig.6. Kazuyo Sejima & Ryue Nishizawa, Toledo Museum Art; Unframed Double-Layer Glass Walls (left) and Detail Articulation Between Ceiling and Double-Layer Glass (right) 3. The Implementation Material Tectonic Form In 1950s, in contrast to Mies' minimalist and immaterial architectural forms, Louis I. Kahn emphasized material forms and clearly displayed relation structure to enclosure in exterior. In doing so, he clearly showed characteristic materials used, along with structural mechanics corresponding structural system. In Kimbell Art Museum, Kahn used concrete and limestone to create a material form in accordance with structure and enclosure. The exterior Kimbell Art Museum was based on a specific module, which was n developed into a series rectangular masses with an arched ro. The construction reinforced concrete structure and arched ros were clearly visible in façade. Since main structure was constructed reinforced concrete, and walls and ros were not load-bearing elements, Kahn attached limestone slabs to exterior enclosure walls in an effort to suggest to visitors that main structure was a series reinforced concrete structures, rar than load-bearing walls. Additionally, to clearly present structures' relationships to enclosure, Kahn used glass to separate arched ceiling from façade to emphasize structural independence structure and enclosure; hence, façade did not consist load-bearing walls. Moreover, inlaid in peak arched ro was a linear glass groove for natural lighting and a distinct presentation arched ro, which was made cantilever-reinforced concrete, rar than a traditional load-bearing arched ro, which would typically be made stone or brick (Fig.7.). Fig.7. Louis I. Kahn, Kimbell Art Museum; Exterior (left) and Relation Structure and Enclosure (right) Fig.8. Louis I. Kahn, Exeter Library; Exterior (left) and Relation Structure and Enclosure (right) Tadao Ando is a contemporary minimalist architect whose work manifests material tectonic form architectural reinforced concrete. In contrast to Kahn, Ando does not focus on presenting structural mechanics different materials. His architectural reinforced concrete structures appear to be massive stone-like images at first glance; however, most flat concrete pieces, each comprised a concrete wall and a concrete ceiling, have glass linear openings for individual subjective reinforcement. Meanwhile, natural light flows onto flat concrete slabs and shines throughout interior, creating a unique atmosphere. The Place Meditation was designed as a seven-meter high architectural reinforced concrete tube. This tube is covered with an architectural reinforced concrete circular ro surrounded with a glass circle, which allows natural light to shine down into interior, creating a tranquil space. For sake creating 18 JAABE vol.10 no.1 May 2011 Chih-Ming Shih

a peaceful atmosphere with natural lighting, articulation circular ro and tube is irrational in terms mechanics reinforced concrete structures (Fig.9.). The Church Light also demonstrates principle irrational structural mechanics. The glass cruciform slices wall behind altar into four architectural reinforced concrete flat pieces, resulting in a short beam at top glass cruciform and two short columns at its left and right corners (Fig.10.). Since se irrational mechanics a reinforced concrete wall, such as a short beam and two short columns, could cause structural weaknesses, Church Light was not designed to present principles structural mechanics, but rar architect's own thoughts on design. Although works Kahn and Ando could all be said to represent material tectonic form, ir ideas concerning design were different. Kahn followed objective characteristics material, which were clearly portrayed in relationships between structure and enclosure; in contrast, Ando pursues a personal interpretation materials used and conceals relationships structure and enclosure. Hence, Kahn produced ontological tectonic form, while Ando produces representational tectonic form. Kimbell Art Museum displays noticeable differences between structure and enclosure. Kahn attached limestone only in enclosure, and façade, rar than structure, visually enhancing articulation and relation structure and enclosure. In addition, he separated reinforced concrete structure and nonload bearing enclosure wall by inlaying in façade a circular linear glass opening around arched ro to emphasize differences between structure and its enclosure. Zumthor's style was different in that he did not emphasize presentation principle structural mechanics, as did Kahn. Except for ro, reinforced concrete structure Thermal Bath Vals was covered with gneiss. Additionally, although gneiss enclosure is non-load bearing in nature, it was constructed with principles structural mechanics stone or brick. This presents an ontological tectonic form, rar than simply attaching a reinforced concrete structure without referring to rules structural mechanics (Fig.11.). Visitors cannot clearly comprehend relation between structure and enclosure from exterior. In category tectonic form, Thermal Bath Vals combines both ontological and representational tectonic forms. Fig.9. Tadao Ando, Place Meditation; Interior (left) and Section (right) Fig.10. Tadao Ando, Church Light; Interior (left) and Section (right) By applying categorization ontological and representational tectonic forms, we can clearly recognize difference between Kahn and Ando. However, Swiss architect Peter Zumthor presented anor interpretation how to emphasize material tectonic form. At first glance, Thermal Bath Vals appears to be a similar ontological tectonic form. Like Kimbell Art Museum, both are made reinforced concrete structures covered with stone on various portions walls. However, at first glance, Fig.11. Peter Zumthor, Thermal Bath Vals; Exterior (left) and Construction Gneiss Enclosure Façade (right) 4. The Combination Material and Immaterial Tectonic Form The greatest difference in structural tectonic form between early and contemporary minimalist architectural works is that in former, structure and enclosure are constructed for most part steel and glass, or concrete, brick, and stone, as in works by Mies and Kahn. However, in latter, works adopt a multi-material and compounded multistructural system. The result is complexity in relationship between structure and enclosure, which are made different materials and with different structural systems. Meanwhile, contemporary minimalist architects have presented ir personal interpretations specific materials with corresponding designs structural system in tectonic form enclosure. This form incorporates a combination immaterial and material characteristics material and ontological versus representational aspects tectonic form. For instance, Art JAABE vol.10 no.1 May 2011 Chih-Ming Shih 19

Museum Bregenz by Peter Zumthor, Dominus Winery in Napa Valley by Herzog and de Meuron, and Nakagawa-machi Bato Hiroshige Museum Art by Kengo Kuma all incorporate form multi-layer skins and semi-transparency in ir enclosures. Peter Zumthor's Art Museum Bregenz is constructed reinforced concrete, in material tectonic form, but enclosure is constructed a steel structure and ground glass, in immaterial tectonic form. The structure and enclosure are different in that materials used in structural systems and enclosure are semi-transparent immaterial tectonic forms in nature, while concrete structure inside blocks visual penetration building. The building itself is composed a semi-transparent, material, ontological tectonic form; however, included in enclosure is a semi-transparent, immaterial, representational tectonic form, enabling visitors to view articulation steel elements, ground glass, and steel structure behind ground glass façade. The main structure Art Museum Bregenz is three reinforced concrete load-bearing walls and beamless reinforced concrete flats behind ground glass façade. The enclosure is a double-skin façade made two ground glass skins and a steel structure in between m (Fig.12.). Zumthor designed delicate and specialized hardware, rar than a steel frame, to fix each piece square ground glass outer ground glass skin to display subjectivity and characteristics each piece ground glass. Since ground glass façade was installed without a steel frame, it seems naturally fused into gray-blue sky and lake site, which presents visual effect multi-layer semi-transparency between immaterial and material tectonic forms (Fig.13.). The Dominus Winery in Napa Valley by Herzog and de Meuron appears to be formed a solid stone box at first glance; actually, however, enclosure is a light filter skin presenting tectonic form between a semi-transparent material and immaterial. The main structure Dominus Winery is comprised a combination reinforced concrete load-bearing walls and a steel structure. The articulation two structural systems is unrevealed in exterior. The structure and enclosure are made two different materials and structural systems, utilizing combination material and immaterial with representational tectonic form. The enclosure is constructed steel cages fixed on steel columns façade and filled with stones. Herzog and de Meuron used two different sizes stone in two floors in response to functional requirements space; façade wine cellar on ground floor uses smaller stones in steel cages to prevent snakes from inhabiting cages. The natural lighting makes for an unstable interior climate; meanwhile, double façade (stone façade outside and concrete wall inside) enhances stability climate, as higher density stone absorbs heat and releases it at night. The façade first floor, where fice is located, is covered with larger stones, which responds to requirements natural lighting and vitalization (Fig.14.). Herzog and de Meuron did not design specialized hardware to combine steel cages with steel columns in façade, but simply welded m toger, for stone wall constructed steel cages could bear its own loading without aid or supporting structural elements (Fig.15.). The architects interpreted a regular material, stone, in a revolutionary tectonic manner between material and immaterial multi-layer tectonic forms, producing a material tectonic form in wine cellar on ground floor. In relation to immaterial tectonic form, design allows natural light to shine throughout space, between stones and into interior. Kengo Kuma's Nakagawa-machi Bato Hiroshige Museum Art also reveals a combination immaterial and material multi-layer tectonic form. The structure museum is comprised combined reinforced concrete load-bearing walls, and a steel structure. The relation and articulation structure with enclosure are hidden, which represents material representative tectonic form. The vertical and horizontal enclosures museum are constructed wide timber palings to create a skin semi-transparency, but main structure museum is a compounded reinforced concrete and steel structure. The ro consists multiple layers: timber palings on top, ground corrugated sheets, steel structure supporting and connecting different layers, and anor layer timber palings at bottom, which creates a specialized natural lighting effect that produces a tectonic form between immaterial and material semi-transparency in space (Figs.16., 17.). Steel structure Steel structure Fig.12. Peter Zumthor, Art Museum Bregenz; Façade (left) and Enclosure and Structure (right) Kengo Kuma's Stone Museum presents an antitectonic feature that subverts principles 20 JAABE vol.10 no.1 May 2011 Chih-Ming Shih

The reinforced concrete beamless slab Steel structure The timber palings Ground corrugated sheet The steel structure The timber palings Fig.17. Kengo Kuma, Nakagawa-machi Bato Hiroshige Museum Art, Relation Enclosure and Structure Fig.13. Peter Zumthor, Art Museum Bregenz; a Section Double-Skin Facade. The non load-bearing steel structure frame Steel cages filled with stone The non load-bearing steel structure frame Fig.18. Kengo Kuma, Stone Museum; Horizontal Stone Palings Type 1 Building (left) and Horizontal Stone Palings Type 2 Building (right) Fig.14. Herzog & de Meuron, Dominus Winery in Napa Valley; Facade (left) and a Section Façade (right) The non load-bearing steel structure frame Steel cages filled with stone The non load-bearing steel structure frame Stone column Stone paling Steel column Stone column Stone paling Fig.20. Kengo Kuma, Stone Museum; Stone Palings Type 1 Fig.15. Herzog & de Meuron, Dominus Winery in Napa Valley, Plan Façade Fig.16. Kengo Kuma, Nakagawa-machi Bato Hiroshige Museum Art; Exterior structural mechanics a load-bearing stone wall. The museum has two types stone building, designed with different structural systems. The first is made a steel Fig.19. Kengo Kuma, Stone Museum; Section Façade Type 1 Building Steel column Fig.21. Kengo Kuma, Stone Museum; Plan Façade Type 1 Building frame structure, and enclosure is constructed non load-bearing stone columns. The columns include chiseled grooves, allowing for installation stone palings horizontally between stone columns. The stone façade presents an immaterial tectonic form and semi-transparency that is similar to timber buildings, which challenges tradition that stone can only be used to present material tectonic form. Accordingly, first building type presents innovative tectonic aspects. The museum's second building type is constructed a load-bearing wall structure made stone slabs, with JAABE vol.10 no.1 May 2011 Chih-Ming Shih 21

Fig.24. Kengo Kuma, Stone Museum; Corner Stone Load-Bearing Wall Type 2 Building Fig.23. Kengo Kuma, Stone Museum, Corner Stone Load- Bearing Wall Type 2 Building Fig.22. Kengo Kuma, Stone Museum; Section Façade Type 2 Building structure also functioning as enclosure. The architect inlaid sliced stones into square openings between stone slabs to allow natural light to shine through, into space. This presents a multi-layer, semi-transparent space that is totally different from solid and closed atmosphere material tectonic form a traditional stone building. Furrmore, Kuma drew out stone slabs forming corner stone load-bearing wall, which subverted principles structural mechanics stone (Fig.18.-24.). 5. Conclusion The two representative architects early minimalist architecture, Mies and Kahn, used purely geometrical forms to present simplicity and emphasized characteristics materials and corresponding structural systems. The difference between Mies and Kahn is that former used steel and glass to present immaterial tectonics and lightness form, whereas latter used concrete, brick, and stone to present material tectonics and massiveness form. The similarity between m is accordance between structures and enclosures ir works with material and corresponding structural systems, and use ontological tectonic forms to produce simplicity. Contemporary minimalist architects, while following immaterial and material tectonic forms Mies and Kahn to produce simplicity, developed different tectonic forms that contrast with Mies and Kahn. Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa have followed Mies' immaterial tectonic form, but structures and enclosures ir works demonstrate discordance, which is presented via representational tectonic form. Tadao Ando chose to follow Kahn's material tectonic form, but did not pursue principles structural mechanics or use ontological tectonic form to present materiality, as did Kahn. Ando has presented a representational tectonic form. Besides following Mies' and Kahn's immaterial and material tectonic forms, some contemporary minimalist architects such as Peter Zumthor, Herzog and de Meuron and Kengo Kuma choose to combine immaterial, material, ontological, and representational tectonic forms, and personally interpret material within corresponding structural system and combine immaterial, material, ontological, and representational tectonic forms, that present multiple tectonic expressions. Through an analysis immaterial and material characteristics and ontological versus representational aspects tectonic form, we uncover development minimalist architecture. The early minimalist architects used ontological tectonic form to emphasize eir immaterial or material characteristics materials to stage combining ontological and representational tectonic form to reveal characteristics a specific material. Contemporary minimalist architects prefer to use multiple materials and combine immaterial, material, ontological, and representational tectonic forms, which reveal complexity behind form minimalist architecture's simplicity. Acknowledgments This research is supported in part by The National Science Council, Taiwan (NSC 94-2211-E-011-029). References 1) Frampton, K. (1985) Modern architecture: a critical history. New York: Thames and Hudson Ltd. 2) Frampton, K. (1995) Studies in tectonic culture. Massachusetts: MIT. 3) Laugier, M.-A. (1977) Essai sur l'architecture (An Essay on Architecture) (A. Herrmann, Trans.). Los Angeles: Hennessey & Ingalls. (Original work published 1753). 4) Semper, G. (1989) The Four Elements Architecture: And Or Writing (H. F. Mallgrave & W. Herrmann, Trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1951). 5) Semper, G. (1989) Style in Technical and Tectonic Arts; or, Practical Aestic (H. F. Mallgrave & W. Herrmann, Trans.). Los Angeles: Getty Publications. (Original work published 1860-1863). Figure Credits 1 (left), 3 (left), 7 (left), 8 (left), 9 (left), 11 (left), 12 (left), 14 (left) Photos were taken by authors. 1 right), 2 (right), 3 (right), 4, 5 (right), 6 (right), 7 (right), 8 (right), 9 (right), 10 (right), 11 (right), 12 (right), 13, 14 (right), 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24 Figures were redrawn by authors. 2 (left) Reprinted from Frampton, K., Studies in tectonic culture. (Massachusetts: MIT, 1995). 5 (left), 6 (left) Reprinted from Schittich. C. ed. (2007). Glass museum in Toledo: SANAA, Tokyo. Detail: Review architecture, series 2007, 1/2, Glass Construction, pp.35-39. 10 (left) Reprinted from Futagawa, Y. ed., GA Architect 12: Tadao Ando, Vol. 2 1988-1993 (Tokyo: A.D.A. EDITA Tokyo co., Ltd, 1993). 16,18 (left), 18 (right) Reprinted from Botond, B., Kengo Kuma: Selected works (New York: Princeton architectural press, 2005). 20,23 Reprinted from Schittich. C. ed. (2002). Steinmuseum in Nasu: Kengo Kuma & Association, Tokio. Detail: Review architecture, series 2002, 1/2, Brick and block walls, pp.58-56. 22 JAABE vol.10 no.1 May 2011 Chih-Ming Shih