Not every architect is given a job to design a building on an unoccupied plot of land, free of any major icons in the landscape. Although this does happen, the design of the building is not just to design a great structure; a great building's design is meant to enhance and celebrate the union between building and site.
The architecture should enhance the landscape, as well as the landscape should enhance the architecture. In designing, it makes the job much easier to have a unique and specific landscape to work with. It makes it all the more challenging, but at least its not just a blank canvas. There are constant problems (if you want to call them problems) that are to be observed in working with the site. The social contexts (is it an urban or remote environment?), the topography, the historical contexts, the way in which light affects the area, and so on. Working with an urban site, the architect cannot merely look at the plot of land that their future building will occupy. They must take into account the neighbors, the community, and the entire region and how this building will ultimately affect it. To disregard site is to throw away a golden opportunity of exploration and discovery. The modernists had it wrong when they thought that there can be a perfect building type that will be universal in style.
Cleared flattened sites are irritating to me. Unless this is something that really evokes the architects vision, I see it as a short cut. The architect cannot assume that
In the readings done this week was a wide survey on the opinions and reflections on order and proportion in architecture. The first essay was Rudolf Wittkower's "The Changing Concept of Proportion." This essay takes a look at how music, geometry and mathematics all relate to ratio and proportion in some kind of way.
The interesting thing to me in this essay was how he first relates the Greek musical scale to architectural ratios. Even though these things are very basic (ex. 1:2, 1:2:4) its still an interesting concept on the "beauty" of a ratio. Later on Wittkower explains the importance of irrational number should be a part of ratio and proportion as well. Just like the golden rectangle is most easily explained through geometry, not everything can be explained through one system. Since the egyptians discovered certain aspects and phenomena different to what the Persians discovered, they in turn came up with different orders and organization. It's obvious even today that cultural boundaries have an affect on the way architecture is conceived. Take for example Japanese culture.... Its common to find a modular system that works for particular programs. Their system first begins with said module--and therefore they have a particular system in place before the design even begins. Other cultures may have a different idea (different size module) and therefore will have a completely different design outcome.
Many architects have different strategies in accomplishing their designs--whether it be based upon a concept, an expression, a formula, or a function. One architect that grabbed my attention based upon reading Wittkower's work was Iannis Xenakis. This man worked with Le Corbusier on a few projects, but what was really interesting about him was his ability to fuse architecture with music and mathematics. He creates buildings that are specifically housed to have a specific work of music performed that is composed for the said building. He factors in how the accoustics will sound, and also taylor's the music for the building. Here is a view of one of his works:
Architecture is a creature!
According to Pallasmaa, it is governed by its own rules and value systems. I totally agree with this statement. When taking architectural history, I learned of the numerous -isms architecture has become. Its almost as if a building cannot be deemed "good" unless it is compared to that specific idealized archetype. We have different species of buildings! Who's to say a dog is a good dog when compared to a horse?
I believe with the expansions in technology and the human consciousness, we (as humans) have been able to go so much further in the last 200 years as far as advancement and change in this field than we have in the last 2,000. Now, I'm not knocking any classics now, they hold a big place in my heart as well, but the ever-changing realm of contemporary architecture makes me wanna do a flip. I dig the challenges that come with analyzing the theories and expressions in today's architectural world.
Elementarism is a load of crap.
I mean, my spell check on here says that elementarism isn't even a real word.
The whole is always greater than just the sum of its parts. I'm an artist; I have to live by this. "Analysis of the formal structure of an architectural work does not necessarily
reveal the artistic quality of the building or how it makes its effect." Says Pallasmaa. AGREED.
He further goes on to say: "The artistic dimension of a work of art does not lie in the actual physical thing; it exists only in the consciousness of the person experiencing it." Now this is something... He's saying that the psychological experience is an individual one given by the artist, but what is that to say about a collective consciousness? Do we not all carry the same basic needs as humans? I forget the formal term, but I often have a problem of assuming people think the same way that I do. My logic says that we are all pretty much the same creature here, so what makes us all that different? Oh sure, childhoods, memories, experiences... they all play a pretty big role in forming who we are as individuals, but there is still the Human Element (I keep going back to the DOW commercials...) that connects us all.
We all have the same needs pretty much- to be loved, to have a good mother and father figure, to eat, have shelter, etc.. So why is architecture such a widespread and subjective field? I believe the creative drive that is found in people is to strive to create something new and original--and in doing this as an architect, it still has to work; its gotta function.
Listening to Florence and the Machine's album "Lungs"... Its a good one btw....
"Architecture exists in another reality from our everyday life and pursuits--They seduce our imagination to wander away from the world of everyday realities. The quality of architecture does not lie in the sense of reality that it expresses, but quite reverse, in its capacity for awakening our imagination"
I love this--It gives me a quantifiable ability to judge architecture, and I like to think that the public eye could use this quality as well. There is such a good gap in the taste of the public vs the architectural intellects. That's always bothered me since I started architecture school. The fact that my professor can see such beauty in something, but when I try to profess that same beauty to say--my family--its hard for them to understand. My mother always had said that "charm" should be the strongest factor in the design of a building. How exactly do you define charm?
CHARM:
capture: attract; cause to be enamored; appeal: attractiveness that interests or pleases or stimulates;spell: a verbal formula believed to have magical force
- thanks google
The Problem of Architecture: That is the question of the day....
I keep asking myself, "What makes someone's aesthetic opinion?" This has a lot to do with the type of person you ask. It seems that well educated people have a much broader view of what they think "pretty" buildings are, but then again the realm of architecturally educated folks, that tends to be something completely different.
Since I've been in architecture school, my family will often ask me "Sierra, what do you think of this building?" That to me is an infinitely hard question to ask. Structurally, its probably sound if its standing and performing its job correctly. Check. Is it functional? It probably contains a number of rooms that have specific jobs as most buildings do... check. But what is it, this aesthetic property that buildings have (or don't have) that evoke such an opinion? What makes it beautiful?
I don't like to generalize; I'm not a fan of philosophy. Architecture is anything but a black and white kind of thing, it is a spectrum. The more I learn about architecture, the more I realize how little I know. Art to me is so much easier to create because it can be an extension of yourself. Architecture, as Scruton describes, should be impersonal and viewed at a distance because it is a permanent part of man's environment. It's something that is immovable. Music is not always something that is forced upon you (unless you work at KLPI!), you can decide what books you want to read (at least leisurely ones), but architecture is apart of your life whether you like it or not!
One thing that Scruton does not hit on much in his writing is the time factor. There are many buildings that outlive the test of time (the monumental beauty of the pyramids), but is beauty a fad? Why was the Art Nouveau period of architecture so short lived? Surely many people thought in that time period that it was a sensational time for architecture. Why did it die out? Maybe something more sensational came along to grab the attention of folks. Does that make that period any less beautiful? Maybe so, but beauty should not be a trend. I believe that something beautiful is something original. It's just about impossible to create anything now that is 100% original. When one designs, there will almost always be some kind of influence of what that person knows on how they create things. Unless you have some kind of untapped resource in your subconscious that you can access....
RSS Feed