Urban Artifact

876 Words2 Pages

The study and theories of architecture over the years has been interpreted, transformed, and implemented in many ways some of which are coherent and related to one another and others which completely refute all other approaches. In this paper I will discuss the Theory of the Urban Artifact as posed by Italian Architect Aldo Rossi In his work "Architecture of the city"(1966). The title of the Rossi's book "Architecture of the city" reflects his understanding of the city as a man-made object, a single work of architecture in its totality, one that is not individual rather it is composed of many different parts that make up this totality. For Rossi one of the main elements for understanding a city is its urban artifacts. Rossi sought to establish …show more content…

Like the city Urban Artifacts are characterized by their own history and forms. An Urban Artifact may be a building, street or a district. An Urban Artifact depends more on its form than its material, it is a complicated entity that has developed in space and time. If the same artifact had been built recently in modern times it would not have the same value as it would not contain the richness of its history which is a main characteristic of an urban artifact. To consider one urban artifact will lead to several questions such as individuality, Locus, memory and design. These urban artifacts help shape the form of the overall city and a key to understanding the urban artifact is realizing their collective character. Rossi strongly refutes characterizing an artifact by its relation to function as he states that functions are dominated by form and the form determines the individuality of every urban artifact. He argues that since every function can be articulated through a form and forms in turn contain the potential to exist as urban artifacts, Forms allow themselves to be articulated as urban elements. In contrast to function which all forms are capable to incorporate with some alternations and transformations if …show more content…

Rossi states that in the nature of urban artifacts there is something that makes them very similar to a work of art. As they are material constructions but not restrained within the material they are something different, and as they are conditioned by the technicalities of their material and construction they in turn condition. This aspect of art in urban artifacts is linked to the quality and uniqueness of the artifact itself. Urban Artifacts are very complex and therefore difficult to define. If a person takes any urban artifact such as a building or street and attempts to describe it that concept will always differ from another person's description such as a person who lives and experiences that artifact an example can be given for a tourist and resident, a tourist may describe and experience the artifact in a different way in comparison to the resident who may have a history or a certain memory in relation to that artifact and thus he portrays it in a different light, this same phenomenon is seen in works of art where two individuals may analyze the same work of art but have two completely different understandings. Rossi States urban artifacts are deeply rooted in the collective and therefore in the memory of the collective. Urban artifacts are manifestations of social and religious life. From this theory of urban artifacts Rossi tackles the idea of permanence. He states that permanence

Open Document