By Ed Thomas
ABSTRACT:
Designing a residential condominium complex for a wealthy, established suburb with its elegant, old style houses is a challenge faced by many architects. Should they design to attract residents with a new design or should the architects simply design something ‘safe’ to blend within the existing landscape, a camouflaged building that sits comfortably in its urban surroundings? The Op Art Lofts (2014) in downtown Oakville, Toronto provided architect Stephen Teeple of Teeple Architects with such a challenge. This paper argues that his design has mostly successfully answered this challenge.
This paper explores the aesthetic techniques and style he used which borrow directly from the Op Art painting movement of the 1960’s. It is argued that such historical tactics maximise the visual impact and acceptance of the building as a place where people want to live. This paper also argues that Teeple and interior designers Cecconi Simone have succeeded with both internal and external treatments engaging visitors and property buyers alike while maintaining integrity to the Op Art Movement. It examines colour and patterning through an analysis of the works of Op artists. Artwork examples by Victor Vasarely and Bridget Riley are considered, offering technical and visual background to the building and its façade. The use of high contrast black and white face, and jigsaw patterning are explored as being reminiscent of the Op Art era.
This paper determines that the Op Art Lofts’ use of Op Art inspired tactics are, indeed, appropriate in their setting and its resultant architectural form speaks to the local public whilst satisfying the accommodation, aesthetic and shelter needs of its residents. Whilst it lacks the precision, intelligence and rigorous geometry of other Opt Art inspired structures it has produced an appealing outcome. It has produced a structure with feeling and visual appeal.
Designing a residential condominium complex for a wealthy, established suburb with its elegant older houses is a challenge faced by many architects. Should they design to attract residents with a new design or should the architects simply design something contextual to blend with the existing urban landscape, a camouflaged building that sits comfortably in its surroundings. The Op Art Lofts in downtown Oakville Toronto provided architect Stephen Teeple and Teeple Architects with just such a challenge.
In arriving at their apartment design Teeple Architects had to grapple with the placing of the building in ‘comfortably backward Oakville’ (John Bentley Mays, 2001), a heritage, wealthy area ‘with its faux-chateaux and storybook neo-Georgian mansions’ (John Bentley Mays, 2001). The dilemma of designing a ‘contextual’ building to blend in with its surrounds or designing a novel structure which stands out is a challenge regularly faced by current day architects. Teeple Architects met this design challenge by drawing broadly on the Op Art Painting movement of the 1960’s and using these historical tactics to enhance its visual impact to achieve acceptance of the building as a place where people want to live.
With its 188 loft residences, the Op Art Lofts apartment building comprises two 10-storey cubic towers offset from one another and connected by a two–floor podium. Its façade is bleached white with random black-framed windows and balconies creating jaunty patterns. The strong colour contrast (black and white) is typical of the techniques pioneered by the Op art Movement of the 1960’s when the use of monochrome and geometric patterns flourished. The use of contrasting colour and geometric forms are part of the technique and style that Teeple Architects draw upon. The building façade gives the viewer the impression of movement and hidden images, a hallmark feature of Op Art works as the following brief examination of the history of Op Art shows.
Figure 1: Op Art Lofts in Oakville
The 1965 Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) exhibition entitled The Responsive Eye brought Op Art into popular consciousness. The exhibition showcased 123 paintings and sculptures by artists including Victor Vasarely, Frank Stella, Josef Albers and Bridget Riley. The movement blossomed at a time in history when there were new interests and advances in technology, psychology, computing and aerospace. At this time there was a collision of art and science. Although The Responsive Eye exhibition was popular with the general public it was less well received by the critics who dismissed it as ‘trickery’ of the eye (Evan Orensten, 2006).
Frank Popper summarises the typical techniques drawn upon by Op artists. He describes how Op Artists made use of phenomena such as ‘the after-image and consecutive movement; line interference; the effect of dazzle; ambiguous figures and reversible perspective; successive colour contrasts and chromatic vibration…..’ (Frank Popper, 2015).
In the landmark Responsive Eye exhibition Bridget Riley exhibited two paintings – Current (1964) and Hesitate (1964). Both of these geometric works were in black and white. Although Riley started to introduce greys in the mid 60’s and went on to include some colour in her later works, these were amongst her most famous pieces. Riley’s early use of simple and contained shapes and lines eventually expanded to include vertical bars.
Figure 2: Bridget Riley’s ‘Hesitate’ (1964)
Even before Time magazine coined the term Op Art in 1964 early Op Art tendencies were apparent in the works of Victor Vasarely and others. Vasarely was often able to generate the sensation of movement on a flat surface and the illusion of depth where in fact there was none.
In his 1938 painting The Zebras Vasarely uses crisp black and white stripes to convey the curved nature of the zebras’ shape. The stripes are not contained by any contour lines. Yet the stripes make the zebras stand out from their background and at the same time merge with it. In his 1956 exhibition This Is Tomorrow John McHale installed his dazzle panels, black and white images that were also precursors to the Op Art movement.
Figure 3: Victor Vasarely’s ‘The Zebra’ (1938)
Zanker sums up Op Art in his examination of illusory motion in A New Look at Op Art: Towards a Simple Explanation of Illusory Motion by writing the following – ‘Using perspective illusions or chromatic tension, sometimes leading to perception of flicker or movement in stunningly simple geometrical patterns, a new form of visual art was developed in the 1960’s …’ (Johannes Zanker, 2004: 149). Zanker goes on to suggest that the link between science and art is not of a superficial kind. He considers the scientific structures of motion illusions through observations of eye movements and simulations of induced optic flow. He then examines current experimental and computational evidence and concludes that ‘the illusion is indeed caused by involuntary image displacements picked up by low level motion detectors…’ (Johannes Zanker, 2004: 156).
In his paper The Nature of Op Art: Bridget Riley and the Art of Nonrepresentation, Rycroft points out that ‘Op Art was a generator of perceptual responses, possessing a dynamic quality which provoked illusory images and sensations in the spectator’ (Simon Rycroft, 2004: 355). The notion that the viewer ‘was required to be a partner in reciprocal perceptual experiences’ (Robertson, 1971: 56 ) is discussed. This theme is also developed by Solso in his paper Cognition and the Visual Arts. Solso emphasizes the importance of context in viewing generally and art in particular. He believes there are three forces at work – location, physical composition of the visual field and the personal history of the viewer (Robert Solso, 1994: 124). He discusses the late French impressionist Paul Signac’s use of the ‘pointillism’ style and its use of dots and dabs of paint. Using features and context, the mind processes the information to make sense of what it sees. ‘Much of art has been purposely designed to create a form of creative tension in the viewer that cries out for resolution…..disturbing art forms demand active participation in the construction of reality’ (Robert Solso, 1994: 124). This is true for Op Art as well and contributes to the success of the technique used by Teeple Architects in their building design in Oakville.
The Op Art Lofts façade draws from traditional Op Art tactics and uses modern architectural techniques to help achieve these effects. As we have seen optical art typically uses abstract patterns composed of a stark contrast of foreground and background colours to create chromatic tension. This enables the piece to produce an effect which tricks the eye into perceiving movement. The Op Art Lofts uses black and white to create such a contrast. Black framed windows placed in a lively and unpredictable manner in conjunction with the stark white walls help achieve this effect. It’s difficult for the eye to concentrate on one particular feature and so it shifts looking for something to grasp onto, creating the illusion of movement.
Teeple Architects facade design uses a ‘window-wall’ system and is a departure from the more commonly fabricated condominium ‘skins’. It allows the design to achieve the Op Art effects described previously with its pre-cast concrete and punched openings – the less organised facade patterning is thus produced to excite the eye.
Collaborator interior design firm Cecconi Simone has produced modern interiors which are well-accepted by buyers. Modern interior spaces feature hardwood flooring, painted concrete ceilings, granite countertops and ceramic wall and floor tiles. As Elaine Cecconi points out care was taken to reflect the op art theme both inside and out in a manner acceptable to potential purchasers – ‘we took the whole idea of randomized composition and created modern interiors while striking a balance with Oakville’s expectations’ (OpArt Lofts, Urban Toronto).
Returning to Rycroft’s paper The Nature of Op Art: Bridget Riley and the Art of Nonrepresentation, in Op Art of the 1960’s the relationship between the spectator and the canvas was brought into very sharp focus – ‘This is the real arena of dramatic confrontation, the receptacle for transmissions from that picture plane which….serves primarily as a sounding board or a magnetic field in reverse: transmitting colour and light, or light as colour, which do not exist in themselves on the actual surface of her paintings. They come into being, incorporeal and always unexpected, unpredictable, at a precise stage in their journey toward you’ (Simon Rycroft, 1971: 355).
The idea that the spectator and painting were interacting created a sense of unease in some critics – ‘the paintings….tended to subjugate the viewer through a forced physical reaction that was mysteriously created by the games that the art played with sight and perception’ (Simon Rycroft, 1971: 358).
The notion of ‘embodied experience’ is discussed by Brisbin in his consideration of M3 Architecture’s 2006 teaching facility for Brisbane Girls Grammar School (Chris Brisbin, 2011, 156). In this case the building’s skin is ‘imbued with pictorial techniques and cognitive effects recalling 1960’s op art’ (Chris Brisbin, 2011, 145). As with the Op Art Loft apartments the building ‘does not appear to belong to local vernacular building traditions……’ (Chris Brisbin, 2011, 145).
The BGGS building façade warrants Brisbin’s consideration as ‘the façade stimulates and optical effect similar to 1960’s op-art works….’ (Chris Brisbin, 2011, 151).’ The perceptual effect that underpins Riley’s work, and which informs the batten-screen design of the BGGS, is known as the moire effect – the visual interference pattern that occurs when grids are overlaid….the moire effect transforms the BGGS’s inanimate façade into a rippling animated surface (Chris Brisbin, 2011, 151). Brisbin continues ‘ ….in the BGGS, depth is included into the very surface of the building through the systematic twisting of vertical strands in front of the façade relative to a pre-defined routine of choreographed concave and convex undulations’ (Chris Brisbin, 2011, 156).
Similarly, the façade of the Givenchy flagship building in Seoul which was opened earlier this year draws on op art devices too. Located in the Seoul fashion district of Gangnam Gu, (the Champs Elysees of Korea), the Milan-based Italian design firm Piuarch is responsible. The structure was realized in close collaboration with Givenchy’s creative director, Riccardo Tisci. According to Silvia Ghiacci it features an optical façade which is rapidly ‘becoming an urban landmark’ (Silvia Ghiacci, 2015: 1).
The building sits on prestigious Cheongdam Dong street in company with other high end fashion brands such as Louis Vuitton, Prada, Cartier and Burburry. High-end hair and nail salons abound and the street is also home to entertainment companies like SM, JYP and Cube. The building has 4 floors of women’s and men’s fashion and accessories housed in a glossy black cube resting on a fully glazed ground floor.
The graphic geometrical structure is designed as a sort of enclosure and ‘…the building’s façade is a kind of second skin in relief: an expression of urban identity which grows out of the evocation of the characteristic ‘T’ cut for which the brand is well-known (Silvia Ghiacci, 2015: 2). As architetth points out, ‘inside the cut, at the upper corner of the building, appears a surface of satin brass which becomes an urban element for all those who follow the great way of Cheongdam’ (architectth: 2015, 1). The gold coloured T references luck and prosperity- particularly potent in the Asian culture. The dark ashlar surface made of electropolished steel plates reflects the everchanging light and surrounds. The building’s façade bespoke panels were made in Korea – the pressed iron was deformed on one side only using modern fluid press technology. The square modules (110 cms x 110 cms), each with 5 holes and 4 protrusions were secured by a stainless steel frame attached to the rear tubular structure. Each panel was attached 8 cms forwards or away from the plan of the front panel. Optical fibres are used for point source lighting.
The result is a skin inspired by optical art and by the characteristic ‘use of fabrics that Givenchy made in the latest collections’ (architectth: 2015, 4). According to architectth, Riccardo Tisci’s work at Givenchy is ‘pervaded by continual reference to the artistic movements’ (architectth: 2015, 4) which Piarch sought to match with its tailored use of materials. As Foley suggests Tisci is ‘one of the most influential designers in the world,’ (Bridget Foley, 2015: 1) and he ‘produces work that awes. His runways are collisions of dissonant elements that contrast, conflict and contort, ultimately fusing into powerful statements of major fashion with an undercurrent of dark romance’ (Bridget Foley, 2015: 1). It is precisely this ‘collision of dissonant elements’ influence which we see so closely reflected in the Seoul Givenchy structure. The building’s surface flows, ripples and shifts in the light yet is constructed from rigid metal. It is systematic, precise and stylish.
Figure 4: Givenchy Flagship Store in Seoul (2015)
The building is further enriched as a result of Piarch’s research of the Italian art movements of the 1960’s – particularly the work of Lucio Fontana and Enrico Castellani. Fontana was influenced by Op Art and its concern for precise arrangements of colour, line and shape to create the illusion of space and movement. Fontana (1899 – 1968), son of an Italian born trained sculptor, lived most of his life in Milan. He was concerned with light and space and in 1949 he exhibited Concetti Spazialli (Spatial Concepts), a series of punctured canvasses.
Figure 5: Concetti Spazialli’s ‘Spatial Concepts’ (1949)
Like Vasarely who used geometric forms to show depth in two dimensions, Fontana was concerned to break the illusion of dimension in painting and to reveal actual space. In his work Attese, 1965, it is clear that Fontana used his precise cuts to show painting was a three-dimensional object, not just a surface. This theme comes through successfully in the rippling Givenchy façade.
Similarly, Castellani focused on changing the surface configurations of his works to alter viewer’s perceptions of space as evidenced in his work Superfice Nera 1959. He placed nails behind a canvas stretched over a wooden frame (much like the façade of the Givenchy building façade).
Figure 6: Enrico Castellani’s ‘Superfice Nera’ (1959)
Castellani‘s interest in the play of light and shadow is a clear link to the façade and in a sense he merged painting, space and architecture. The reference by Piarch to these three creative individuals – Tisci, Fontana and Castellani is a powerful force and has produced a strong, appropriate face for the luxury Givenchy store. In many ways it eclipses the Op Art Loft design as imprecise and lacking intelligence and depth of meaning.
Tisci is also concerned about fabric textures such as herringbone (as reflected in the interior parquetry flooring pattern) houndstooth (as reflected in the façade as light reflects off it) and fabric tailored construction. With its strict use of geometric patterning and references to tailoring, the Givenchy building mirrors the brands contemporary elegance philosophy in fashion design.
Not surprisingly, the interior of the Givenchy building is simple, elegant and minimal with parquetry flooring, sleek clothing booths and clothing dummies suspended from the ceiling. Stone basalt and calacatta marble create an elegant, contemporary feel. The marble-clad internal stair adds impact.
In his The Architecture of Happiness Alain Botton looks at the emotional content of buildings and urges us to pay more attention to the psychological consequences of design in architecture which effect our happiness and well-being. He writes ’Despite their claims to a purely scientific and reasoned approach, the relationship of Modernist architects to their work remained at base a romantic one…..’ (Alain de Botton, 2006: 33). Perhaps this is why the Op Art Loft apartments are so appealing.
Pallasma too (Geometry of Feeling: A Look At The Phenomenology Of Feeling) asks why so few modern buildings appeal to our feelings when he writes ’Analysis of the formal structure of an architectural work does not necessarily reveal the artistic quality of the building or how it makes its effect (Juhani Pallasamaa, 1986: 22). He goes on ‘….. it is an expression of existence, of human presence in the world. It’s a direct expression ….. of which neither the creator of the work or the person experiencing it is aware’ (Juhani Pallasamaa, 1986: 24). Further, he says ‘the reality of how a building is experienced has been overlooked’ (Juhani Pallasamaa, 1986: 25).
Teeple Architects have succeeded, through use of op art influences, in producing an appealing building for Oakville. It is successful in that it is consistent with the deep-rooted culture of Oakville – Sheridan College, one of Canada’s largest fine arts programs is located there. Oakville also has a large number of art galleries in its downtown area. Relative to the rest of Canada Oakville also boasts a very high per capita income. However, the design the Op Art Lofts may not endure the test of time. As De Botton reminds us when reflecting upon beautiful objects ‘….they embody good qualities rather than remind us of them. They can thus outlive their temporal or geographic origins and communicate their intentions long after their initial audiences have disappeared’ (30). Pallasma would, no doubt, agree that The Op Art Lofts are an appealing structure that evoke positive feelings. Although more analysis work will be done on future op art influenced constructions, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Givenchy flagship store with its precise and rippling façade, is an clever piece of work. The Op Art Lofts, however, with their less sophisticated design still provide a strong design solution for the residents of Oakville, and that may be sufficient in itself.
LIST OF CITATIONS IN ESSAY (BIBLIOGRPAHY)
John Bentley Mays. “The Globe and Mail”. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
Rycroft, Simon. “The Nature of Op Art: Bridget Riley and the Art of Nonrepresentation.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space Environ. Plann. D: 351-71.
Robertson, B. “Introduction and biographical note, in Bridget Riley: Paintings and Drawings.” 1971. 3-29.
Rycroft, Simon. “The Geographies of Swinging London.” Journal of Historical Geography: 358.
Solso, Robert L. “Cognition and the Visual Arts.” Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1994. 124. Print.
“MoMA 1965: “The Responsive Eye.” Cool Hunting. N.p., 17 Feb. 2006. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
“Op Art : Grove Art Online.” Op Art : Grove Art Online. Oxford Index, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
Zanker, Johannes M., and Robin Walker. “A New Look at Op Art: Towards a Simple Explanation of Illusory Motion.”Naturwissenschaften 91.4 (2004): 149-56. Web.
Zanker, Johannes M., and Robin Walker. “A New Look at Op Art: Towards a Simple Explanation of Illusory Motion.”Naturwissenschaften 91.4 (2004): 149-56. Web.
Brisbin, Chris. “Optical Follies: Dazzle Shed and Brisbane Girls Grammar School /// Chapter in Sweat: The Subtropical Imaginary.” (2011): 145-156. Print. 22 Oct. 2015.
Ghiacci, Silvia. “Brioni Flagship Store Milan | Arketipo.” Arketipo. Arketipo Magazine, 18 Dec. 2014. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
Ad Editorial Team. “Givenchy Flagship Store In Seoul / Piuarch.” Www.architectth.com. N.p., 19 Feb. 2015. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
Foley, Bridget. “Riccardo Tisci Opens Up About Givenchy Opening to the Public.” http://www.WWD.com. WWD, 02 Sept. 2015. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
Botton, Alain De. The Architecture of Happiness. New York: Pantheon, 2006. 33. Print.
Pallasmaa, Juhani. Geometry of Feeling: A Look At The Phenomenology Of Feeling. 22-25. Print.
“OpArt Lofts.” Urban Toronto Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
I M R . D N A 