The Combination Of Immaterial And Material Qualities in Architectural Projects Such As The Farnsworth House

According to anthropologist Ashley Montagu, “We in the Western world are beginning to discover our neglected senses”. In architecture, this expresses itself in the emphasis and utilization of immateriality along with materiality. Immaterial architecture involves the “subjective and unpredictable”. The immaterial qualities of a building are less concrete than the material, but rather they are parts of the design that create sensory effects without physically being constructed. They typically provoke the senses of smell, sound, and vision. Thus, the combination of immaterial and material qualities in architectural projects results in a much deeper sensory experience.

One project that exemplifies this is the Farnsworth House in Aurora, Illinois. The house was designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe in the mid 1900s for Dr. Edith Farnsworth as a nature retreat from Chicago. The project beautifully combines the immaterial and the material to achieve Mies’s design concept. This beautiful combination of the immaterial and the material, culminating in the Farnsworth House, depends on the strong interplay and connection between the two.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified writer

Proficient in: Modern Architecture

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

In order to talk about the immateriality of the project, the material qualities must first be understood. According to Leon Battista Alberti, the materials and construction of a building are of the utmost importance, and there should be an ordered system for these aspects of the design.

In the case of the Farnsworth House, the design consists of uninterrupted horizontal floor and roof planes, eight W-shaped steel columns in parallel rows 28’ apart, a glass façade of panels 9’ 6” tall by 10’” wide, steel stilts elevating the house from the ground, and “floating” stairs leading to the entrance.

Mies’s concept for the materiality of this house was a “glass box of almost nothing”, a floating cage refined through sleek and modern materials, colors, and details. These material qualities support Mies’s overall design concepts for the project. As a nature retreat, the project is meant to have a very strong connection with its surroundings. The floor to ceiling windows of the glass façade are what physically create this tie between the building and nature, as the transparency distorts the boundaries between interior and exterior with such easy and undisrupted viewing both outward and inward.

The stilts also allow for the house to have a light touch on the landscape, mindful of the friendly connection between the two. Ultimately, Mies’s design was meant to make a statement as a sort of floating glass cage to view nature, while simultaneously creating a space that does not disrupt the landscape but rather unifies nature, humans, and the house. All of this sets the stage for and is enhanced by the immaterial qualities of the design. The strongest immaterial qualities of the design revolve around the strong connection with nature and stem from the materiality of the glass façade. The effect of the almost invisible façade is that the surrounding nature is so visually apparent. The landscape simply unfolds before the inhabitants. However, the protected feeling resulting from typical opaque façades is not completely lost in this house. The chosen site for the house is a secluded wood area, in the hopes that the surrounding trees would help make the glass façade concept possible by preserving a fair amount of privacy and providing some shading.

The natural lighting of the house is also an immaterial effect of the glass façade design choice. The visual effect of natural lighting can be so beautiful in many different circumstances – on a bright sunny day, during a stunning sunrise or sunset, on a bright starry night, and the list goes on. The fact that the lighting conditions of the house are constantly changing due to the dependence on outside conditions is an impressive immaterial quality as well. However, the glass façade also brings with it negative side effects, which presents an issue to the practicality and livability of the Farnsworth House. The difficult regulation of interior temperature poses the largest threat; however, even the practicality of natural lighting, specifically issues of glare, is questioned.

Another immaterial quality, though unintended, involves a threat to the building, though its effects are beautiful. The house is located near the Fox River, and though there was an attempt to avoid flooding with the steel stilts, the house has flooded six times in its existence. Though this creates maintenance issues, the visual immaterial effects are stunning – the flood waters close the gap created by the stilts and illustrate beautiful symmetry in the resulting reflection. One final immaterial quality also involves the intentional absences of material in the design but in a different way. There are many floating aspects to the design, including the stilts which create a floating effect for the main body of the building and the stairs which are constructed with purposeful absences of material to provide the appearance and feeling of floating. This floating quality supports the overall concept by creating that light touch on the landscape, which deemphasizes the architecture and allows the nature to shine.

Overall, the Farnsworth House provides good support for the arguments of both Juhani Pallasmaa and Jonathan Hill. Pallasmaa advocated for the use of both the material and the immaterial in architecture to create deeper experiences involving all of the senses. The Farnsworth House clearly does this. However, what is interesting about Pallasmaa’s perspective is his distrust of “timeless materials”. He makes it clear that he prefers materials that show their wear and tear, giving the architecture a deeper sense of history and context. However, he keeps an open mind about the encouraging potential of timeless materials in incorporating more immaterial sensory effects.

The Farnsworth House is a great example of this, as the glass façade, a fairly timeless material, is a prime ingredient in creating many of the beautiful sensory experiences. The house is proof of Pallasmaa’s foresight that “relative immateriality and weightlessness” can be used to create a “positive experience of space, place, and meaning”. Similarly, Jonathan Hill’s argument that a combination of material and immaterial qualities, in “conjunction not opposition”, is needed for successful architecture is clearly illustrated in the Farnsworth House.

The house is the beautiful product of the material and immaterial working together to create a powerful experience and make a strong statement. Without one or the other, the house would not have the same effect. After research and analysis of the Farnsworth House, I believe the project is a sensational fusion of the material and immaterial, and Mies’s complex design thinking and meaningful concept produced a powerful statement. However, the issues of practicality and purpose for architecture really come to light for me in this project.

As I greatly prefer to spend my time outdoors than indoors, I truly appreciate the attempt to minimize the boundary between the two and create a strong connection with the outdoors even while residing inside the house. The panoramic views, natural lighting effects, floating qualities, and the appearance of sleek simplicity in the architecture are all breathtaking and successful. However, I struggle with the issues of practicality and livability presented by this design. According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, there have been countless debates and even lawsuits over the “livability” of the design, yet it is still considered a “pivotal moment” in Mies’s career.

My personal conviction is that the job of architects is to create spaces that others can thrive in. A huge motivator for my pursuit of a degree in architecture is to be able to someday design spaces that fulfill the needs of others and make their lives better. This is why I struggle with the Farnsworth House. I love the project’s synthesis of the immaterial and material to generate fascinating spatial experiences and a strong statement. Yet, if the purpose of a house is to provide a dwelling place and that is the one thing the project cannot successfully do, I believe the architecture has largely failed. The issue is smaller if the purpose of the house is not residence, though I still question the project’s worth if it is not useful to people but simply makes a statement about nature. However, since the project claims to be a place of residence, I think it must produce a habitable space to be truly successful. What good are all the amazing qualities of the Farnsworth House if no one can live there? Unfortunately, I acknowledge that making the house more livable may diminish some aspects of the design. However, if there was a way to increase practicality and functionality without disrupting the simplicity, concept, and experience of the existing Farnsworth House, I would be in support of exploring that design. Ultimately, the Farnsworth House is a very complex project masked in a simple form. The design clearly illustrates the inseparable nature of the material and the immaterial and the power of these combined with a passionate concept. The implications of this design bring both thrilling spatial experiences as well as troubling moral questions. All of this from some thoughtfully designed planes of steel and glass. The Farnsworth House is the essence of simple yet complex, and that fact stems from its immateriality.