For modernist architects claiming aesthetic authority is mor

For modernist architects, claiming aesthetic authority is more shown by practice; notably ranging from its heroic periods from 1920s to 1930s in Western Europe. Such authority could have not happened if the shift of power in construction industry did not take place. Indeed at those periods, the transformations of aesthetics happened in European Bleomycin Sulfate from elitist and bourgeoisie milieu to be more liberal and industrial culture. The shift of power from bourgeoisie authority to industrialist society opened a new horizon for artists and architects to deal with new techniques and materials. The Industrial production system and capitalistic market economy liberates people from predetermined societal identity to self-identity based on individual freedom. British sociologist Anthony Gidden characterizes modernity by its capacity for self-identity, which is in some way possibly narcissistic (Gidden, 1991). So far, modernity in art and architecture shows itself to be independent from the authority of the past. The problem is the fact that until now there is no any valid strategy of modernity to carry on the Enlightenment project. The debate on Immanuel Kant between Habermas and Foucault reminds us of that modernity begins with Kantian enlightenment\'s critique, which is neither about right or wrong, nor about good or bad, but about maturity (Dreyfus and Robinow, 1998: 110). Modernity is about maturity, which is characterized by the responsibility of person in using his/her rationality as well as the awareness of the limit of reason. The project of modernity in Kant\'s Enlightenment is many ways a rejection to claim of universal truth in human nature. Indeed, Kant is probably the first philosopher in the West who begins to ground philosophy in the reality of the presence that consists of three main areas of concern: epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics.
On functionalism Engagement with the present constitutes Banham\'s critical essays on architecture. Functionalism becomes the key concept to survey and analyse how architectural works engage and concern with the present situation; without this ideology, the relationship between architecture and history in the context of modernity does not find its sense of movement. Technologically revealing and unveiling the function of things is probably the essence of modern design culture. Function stems from Latin fungi meaning perform. A thing is functional because of its usefulness and worth for human being. Banham (1981b: 320) acknowledges Sigfried Gideon as a forerunner of historians and critics who employ functionalism as a “blanket” term for progressive architecture in 1920s. However, he is not satisfied with the implementation of the word “ functional” or “functionalism” that labels or attributes newly emerging architecture in Western Europe, Great Britain, and USA, as presented by Henry Russel Hichcock and Philips Johnson under the title: “the International Style” as well as by Alberto Sartoria\'s “Gli Elimenti dell\' architettura Funzionale”. For Banham, functionalism is more than “blanket”, “label”, and “attribute” of new style of architecture, but it is about a general idea of aesthetics in the Machine Age. Functionalism does not simply comprise the imaginative design that utilizes and conceptualizes the most recently industrialized material, honest and technologically innovative construction, and rational form. It is clear for Banham that functionalism contains futuristic emulation. Unlike his forerunner, Sigfried Giedeon, modernist buildings for Banham are not seen merely from the voluminous quality of its spatial design. Under the notion of “space conception” Giedeon investigates its quality of design in defining domains, in exploring the sensibility of spatial complexity, as well as in organizing buildings that bring them all together as a composition for optical perception (Gideon, 1941). The importance of Giedeon\'s approach to history lies in its attempt to find a new paradigm of architectural history which is not based on style. Despite that his concept of architecture as a growing organism is arguable as a theoretical framework, Giedeon\'s categorical “space conception” of historical development of art and architecture is considerably an original endeavour of historical narrative. It is beyond the mainstream of historians and critics between 1920s and 1950s, such as Banham\'s mentor: Pevsner. Indeed, Banham does not openly endorse Giedeon\'s move for a new historical approach. However, he is not satisfied with the historical and critical analysis without taking seriously technological ingenuity into account.