About Robert Venturi's "Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture" and OPPO

In my last blog I talked about my brand of choice, which in this case was the OPPO company. I was talking about how architecture can be used to symbolize certain features of this company.

Robert Venturi talked in his 'gentle manifesto' about the commercial stripe in Las Vegas, USA. Here architecture becomes symbolic, a box could become a church or a palace. But what it truly is about are the signs, that support the space. So a street sign becomes part of an architecture, symbols become one with the space, to give the feeling of what is desired. How can this be applied to my brand?

Well Venturi talked about this "Duck house", the so called Long Island Duckling. The shape of the house correspond to what is sold inside, so in a way the house becomes a street sign as well. So should my future space be a huge smartphone like commercial building and act as a connection between outside and inside?
Or another example would be the so called "decorated shed", a box with an independent street sign that shows what inside the box happens.

I think implementing both examples to create the language of my brand surely would be too much, rather than being to symbolic and maybe become to ironic, I will have to look deeper and further into the matter of the OPPO brand.

I agree with Robert Venturi that the architectural language from the modernists may be plain and that all that matters is the plan. As Venturi said in his manifesto 'Words and symbols may be used in space for commercial persuasion.' For me this means that symbols are here to guide and help people to understand the space. 'If the plan is clear, you can see where to go.' is true as well, but people see spaces different than the architect may see it in plan. After all it is theoretically. The human mind works different on everyone, anyone has a different point of view of something. So why making general assumptions?

So what I want to emphasize on is on the people that will use the space. I can make a huge sign that says that here is the OPPO flagship space. But will a person benefit from it? I say no! People benefit from what is inside and the function program within the space. That is what people truly benefit from. In my case I try to create a space which addresses the people with low income, people who live in the slums. Well surely there is no need to make a sign that this is a slum right? So why would I label my building? Rather than that it should show itself in the architectural language and at the same time shouldn't be to dominant. It should please the people who use the space.These people, in my opinion, won't mind if I use marble for the flooring or limestone. For them the function of the space and the possibilities of it comes first. And I think that is something that can't be displayed by just be symbolic, using a sign or creating a facade which correspond only commercially and not on a more human scale.

For my that is the nature of my building, to be a bit humble and human in scale, but be precise to address the right people in the right place.
Yes it is true what Venturi observed in Las Vegas and that it is a commercialized space after all. But for my Flagship space, I would rather go with symbols which are not straightforward. The language of my space should be connected to what the brand stands for, but it should also connect the people to it. After all, the architecture is the link between the people and the brand.