in contrast to modernist glass-sheathed skyscrapers. His design of its
exterior elevation is classically tripartite, having an arcaded base and
arched portal; a tall, shaftlike body segmented by slender mullions
(vertical elements dividing a window); and a crowning pediment
broken by an orbiculum (a disklike opening). The arrangement
refers to the base, column, and entablature system of classical archi-
tecture (FIG. 5-14). More specifically, the pediment, indented by the
circular space, resembles the crown of a typical 18th-century Chip-
pendale high chest of drawers. It rises among the monotonously flat-
topped glass towers of the New York skyline as an ironic rebuke to the
rigid uniformity of modernist architecture.
MICHAEL GRAVES Philip Johnson at first endorsed, then dis-
approved of, a building that rode considerably farther on the wave of
postmodernism than did his AT&T tower. The Portland Building
(FIG. 36-65) by American architect Michael Graves(b. 1934) re-
asserts the wall’s horizontality against the verticality of the tall, fen-
estrated shaft. Graves favored the square’s solidity and stability, mak-
ing it the main body of his composition (echoed in the windows),
which rests upon a wider base and carries a set-back penthouse
crown. Narrow vertical windows tying together seven stories open
two paired facades. These support capital-like large hoods on one
pair of opposite facades and a frieze of stylized Baroque roundels
tied by bands on the other pair. A huge painted keystone motif joins
five upper levels on one facade pair, and painted surfaces further de-
fine the building’s base, body, and penthouse levels.
The modernist purist surely would not welcome the ornamen-
tal wall, color painting, or symbolic reference. These features, taken
together, raised an even greater storm of criticism than that which
greeted the Sydney Opera House or the AT&T Building. Various
critics denounced Graves’s Portland Building as “an enlarged juke-
box,” an “oversized Christmas package,” a “marzipan monstrosity,” a
“histrionic masquerade,” and a kind of “pop surrealism.” Yet others
approvingly noted its classical references as constituting a “symbolic
temple” and praised the building as a courageous architectural ad-
venture. Whatever will be history’s verdict, the Portland Building,
like the AT&T tower, is an early marker of postmodernist innovation
that borrowed from the lively, if more-or-less garish, language of
pop culture. The night-lit dazzle of entertainment sites such as Las
Vegas, and the carnival colors, costumes, and fantasy of theme park
props, all lie behind the Portland Building design, which many crit-
ics regard as a vindication of architectural populism against the pre-
tension of modernist elitism.
ROBERT VENTURI As a coauthor ofLearning from Las Vegas
(1972),Robert Venturi(b. 1925) codified these ideas about pop-
ulism and postmodernism, and in his designs for houses he adapted
historical as well as contemporary styles to suit his symbolic and ex-
pressive purpose. A fundamental axiom of modernism is that a build-
ing’s form must arise directly and logically from its function and struc-
ture. Against this rule, Venturi asserted that the form should be
separate from function and structure and that decorative and symbolic
forms of everyday life should enwrap the structural core. Thus, for a
Delaware residence (FIG. 36-66) designed in 1978 with John Rauch
(b. 1930) and Denise Scott Brown(b. 1931), Venturi respected the
countryside setting and its 18th-century history by recalling the stone-
based barnlike, low-profile farm dwellings with their shingled roofs
and double-hung multipaned windows. He fronted the house with an
amusingly cut-out and asymmetrical parody of a Neoclassical portico.1010 Chapter 36 EUROPE AND AMERICA AFTER 194536-65Michael Graves,Portland Building, Portland, 1980.
In this early example of postmodern architecture, Graves reasserted
the horizontality and solidity of the wall. He drew attention to the mural
surfaces through polychromy and ornamental motifs.Image not available due to copyright restrictions