Statement
By examine Richard Haas’mural between 1970s to 1990s in the context of postmodernism, I try to answerthe following question, what is the value of mural painting when the essence ofits architectural canvas –presumed rational value of structures,representations, methodologies of origins and ends, and deductive process - hasbeen shown to be a simulacrum? The paper argued that Haas’ mural, as adis-simulacrum, leaves untouched difference between reality and illusion. Hiswork exposed the lost collective memory and the disconnection of the simulatedimaginary from the real.
Introduction
Haas is well known forpainting “make over” layers to the building façade and engages the public in a largecity scale. The introduction will cover his mural work between 1970s to 1990sand some critics from both art and architecture field.
1. What is the difference between Haas’ murals from othercontemporary mural?
Haas’ mural are purelyarchitectural Trompe-l'œil and received their value by representing an alreadyvalued architecture. Haas’ illusionistic murals surpassed the political and socialmeanings of contemporary mural and reconstructed the lost public memory andurban history. His work contributed to the architecture and urban design bycreating a fiction between human, history and cityscape.
Fictionof representation
Architecture as simulation
2. Based on the social value, why do I consider his exteriormural is better than interior mural?
2.1. Interior mural.
Fiction of history. Timelessvalue
His interior mural’s valuederived from a source outside itself. Interm of reconstruction of the lost of history, his mural will be compared withthe installation “ghost” from Whiteread. In both cases, the artwork has thecapacity to reveal itself as a text and reading event. Reader has conscious ofhis own identity as a reader rather than as a user or observer. Haas’ His work reached the level ofindication rather than a level of meaning or expression.
Utopia urban site. Treatcity as collective memory.
2.2 Why do I consider his externalmural has a higher value than interior mural?
Haas’ mural questioned thevalue of its canvas—the building. He propitiated the order and form of modern architecture.As we know, both renaissance and modern architecture relay on faith. ForRenaissance building, the origin was sought in natural or divine sources or ina cosmological or anthropomorphic geometry. ( reflected in Trompe-l'œil) Therational became the moral and aesthetic basis of modern architecture. (reflectedin abstract and deductive process). Architectural looked rational-representedrationality-represented truth. Haas questioned the architecture’s modern valueby superimpose the renaissance value directly to the building facade. Similaras Christo’s wrapping fabric, Haas masked modern architecture with anon-rational, organic, mysteries layer.
3. Why is Haas’ artwork could be interpreted ascounteract of simulacrum?
Fictions become simulationwhen it does not recognize its condition as fiction. Whereas simulation attemptsto obliterate the difference between real and imaginary, dissimulation leavesuntouched the difference between reality and illusion. Haas’ mural exposed thelost history, the disconnection of the simulated imaginary from the real. Haas’mural provided the sign as well as the trace, a record of motivation, a recordof action, not just an image of another object-origin.
The end of simulation
Trace and Sign vs thesimulation of truth
Windowsto the Past
Conclusion
Its relation to aself-evidently meaningful origin could somehow transcend the present in movingforward a timeless future, a utopia. And once the continuity of history isbroken in our perception, any representation of the classical falls into asimulacrum. Haas’ mural provided atrace, a partial or fragmentary sign without objecthood to signify the currentsimulacrum in architectural form. His representation of classical form can bedescribed as a belief, a dissimulation. In another words, by revealing itselfas distinct from its former reality, it terminates a simulation of reality.
