Maintaining Integrity: Architecture
Winston Churchill once said, “we shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us.” Architecture has long shaped the lives and environment of many, dating back to the beginning of time and born of the human need for shelter. It has greatly influenced history and culture from the ancient pyramids of Egypt to the Sydney Opera House in Australia. Because these structures are often genuine works of art, many controversies have arisen concerning the protection of architecture and the rights of architects in their creations. Although it has not always been recognized as worthy of protection under copyright law, all architects should have the right to copyright their work in order to maintain integrity.
Architecture has long been seen as a work of art. “The art of designing and constructing buildings has generated countless inspiring and commanding structures across the globe.” Among these include St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, The White House, and the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Each of these structures is unique to its location, its surroundings, and its creator. “Architecture conceptualizes space and ensures that a structure is both habitable and in harmony with the surrounding environment” Therefor, it is important that each architect gets the credit they deserve for crafting each piece. Each and every building, home, monument, and establishment has a certain place within our world and contributes to our cultures and lives more than we realize. “Architecture makes a key contribution to human heritage. It identifies culture, space and time and creates the environment in which we spend a good part of our lives.” (Ortega) Because it has such great influence, it should not be overlooked as just the making o...
... middle of paper ...
...rchasing the plans for each house as required. A jury found Hallmark liable and awarded substantial damages.” (PR Newswire) However, it is also common for architecture to be copied without being made into a court case. For example, local architect Andrew Patterson recently built a home for his own family in Corona del Mar on 604 Orchid and not long after the home was completed, another developer constructed a house nearly identical to it right down the street at 616 Orchid. Such small projects often don’t make it to courts or even to the public’s attention but are constantly occurring everywhere. It is very degrading for such talented people to put so much hard work and effort into a piece and then see it being stolen without any consequence. The Pattersons were so upset that they moved out of their brand new home shortly after. This is shown in the pictures below.
Gehry draws his inspiration from famous paintings such as the Madonna and Child which he qualifies as a “strategy for architecture” (Friedman M. , 2003, p. 42) and which he used as an inspiration for a project in Mexico . Through his interpretation of the paintings and artwork, Gehry looked for a new kind of architecture. His search for a new type of architecture culminated in 1978 with his own house in Santa Monica. What was once a traditional Californian house would be redesigned to become one of the most important and revolutionary designs of the 20th century, giving Gehry international prestige and fame. Frank Gehry’s “Own House” uses a mixture of corrugated metal, plywood, chain link and asphalt to construct a new envelope for an existing typical Californian house. This house has been inspired by Joseph Cornell, Ed Moses and Bob Rauschenberg. Gehry comments on his house by saying that there was something “magical” (Friedman M. , 2003, p. 54) about it. He admits having “followed the end of his [my] nose” (Friedman M. , 2003, p. 54) when it came to constructing the “new” house, which led Arthur Drexler, former Director...
“The architect’s role and their intellectual responsibility is to fight to maintain their vision and little bits get chopped off all the time, but if they’re only little bits, it’s not too bad.’’
He suggests that the use of “electronic imaging prevents imagining and promotes thinking about architecture rather than bring architects, contractors, clients and critics to think within architecture” (275). Inspired by Frascari, the strategy of technography is encouraged (278). This is a “different way of thinking about the relationship between a [working] drawing and a future building. Rather than “simply Cartesian, technical lines showing edges, corners and joints these technographic drawings reveal both the symbolic and instrumental representations of the future building.. it is to make visible what is invisible”. Ridgway remarks, “The fact that any of this could be considered contentious indicates that extent to which architects have become alienated from the heart of their profession” (279). He asserts, “Part of any technography must be an acknowledgement of the historical context of construction knowledge. This is not only so we can better understand our rich architectural ancestry, but because it re-establishes a connection with the origins of our profession in building” (279). Rather than a “miniature projected representation of an imagined building, details are drawn as poetic constructions themselves, following the logic of drawing and not building and representing the “built detail symbolically, in addition to instrumentally. The symbolic and practical are one and the same thing” (280). “What are the symbolic qualities we are trying to embody in our buildings and how would we represent them in drawings?” becomes the question (278). These drawing “may not be easy or straightforward to understand or interpret.
From the early Greek temples of yesteryear, to the high-tech autonomous buildings of tomorrow, the question of whether the function of a building or its aesthetics qualities are more important has plagued the minds of architects around the world. Webster's II New College Dictionary (Please do not use the encyclopedia or the dictionary to open your essay--way too high school.) defines aesthetics as "The branch of philosophy that provides a theory of the beautiful and of the fine arts" (18). The definition of Functionalism is defined by Webster's as "The doctrine that the function of an object should determine its design and materials" (453). Now, if the function of an object decides the type of design and materials used how does one integrate aesthetics into design, and moreover, how important are aesthetics to an architect? Frank Lloyd Wright was one of the greatest and most renowned architects of the 19th and 20th centuries, and while his buildings where lauded for displaying great artistic design, the issue of function was compromised by the blatant fact that his roofs leaked. This is because he let the aesthetics of his buildings become the focus of the structure, and neglected to adequately address the function of the building allowing for this problem to take root in his designs (Palermo, 4 Mar. 1999). As is apparent from Frank Lloyd Wright, there is a certain balance that has to be attained between aesthetics and functionalism in order for a structure to be appreciated as a successful building.
Architecture is such a wide thing when we talk about buildings and projects. Architecture is defined as the art or practice of designing and constructing buildings. One of the Renaissance man who not only define...
In order to create innovative public architecture, considered to be the most civic, costly, time intensive and physical of the arts, the project holds a degree of risk, strife, and negotiation . Overcoming these tasks and creating worthy public architecture is a challenge designers try to accomplish, but are rarely successful. The people involved in a potential public building, can be larger than the building itself. Public architecture tries to please all, even the doubters and critics, but because of the all these factors, a building is closer to failing than succeeding.
Architecture, the practice of building design and its resulting products, customary usage refers only to those designs and structures that are culturally significant. Today the architecture must satisfy its intended uses, must be technically sound, and must convey beautiful meaning. But the best buildings are often so well constructed that they outlast their original use. They then survive not only as beautiful objects, but as documents of history of cultures, achievements in architecture that testify to the nature of the society that produced them. These achievements are never wholly the work of individuals. Architecture is a social art, yet Frank Lloyd Wright single handily changed the history of architecture. How did Frank Lloyd Wright change architecture?
In the process of development of human society, architecture and culture are inseparable. Cuthbert (1985) indicates that architecture, with its unique art form, expresses the level of human culture in different historical stages, as well as the yearning towards the future. According to his article, it can be said that architecture has become one of the physical means for human to change the world and to conquer the nature. Consequently, architecture has been an important component of human civilization. Since 1980s when China started the opening and reforming policy, a variety of architectural ideas, schools and styles have sprung up. Accompanying with a momentum of...
Frank Lloyd Wright has been called “one of the greatest American architect as well as an Art dealer that produced a numerous buildings, including houses, resorts, gardens, office buildings, churches, banks and museums. Wright was the first architect that pursues a philosophy of truly organic architecture that responds to the symphonies and harmonies in human habitats to their natural world. He was the apprentice of “father of Modernism” Louis Sullivan, and he was also one of the most influential architects on 20th century in America, Wright is idealist with the use of elemental theme and nature materials (stone, wood, and water), the use of sky and prairie, as well as the use of geometrical lines in his buildings planning. He also defined a building as ‘being appropriate to place’ if it is in harmony with its natural environment, with the landscape (Larkin and Brooks, 1993).
The author explains architecture as an identification of place. Architecture starts with establishing a place. We define ‘place’ as a layout of architectural elements that seem to accommodate, or offer the possibility of accommodation to, a person, an activity, a mood, etc. We identify a sofa as a place to sit and relax, and a kitchen as a place to cook food. Architecture is about identifying and organizing ‘places’ for human use.
Remarkably, unlike in the description of art or music, the notion of atmosphere remains largely unaddressed in architecture. Atmosphere, can be argued, is the very initial and immediate experience of space and can be understood as a notion that addresses architectural quality, but the discussion of atmosphere in architecture will always entail, by definition, a certain ambiguity. After all, atmosphere is something personal, vague, ephemeral and difficult to capture in text or design, impossible to define or analyse. Atmosphere, Mark Wigley says, “evades analysis, it’s not easily defined, constructed or controlled”.
Buildings reflect the values and ideas of society within periods. The role of architecture in shaping society and vice versa largely depends on the period in question and who or what affects first. The Enlightenment, and the subsequent period the Post-Enlightenment, reflect the biggest change for current ideas regarding architecture and society and current theories. At the same time, individual identities and understanding of society, progress and truth all follow a similar evolving path. It is during this dramatic shift in thinking that the role of architecture to society and the idea of progress and truth becomes a more complex relationship. How this relationship works and its implications is based on the theory that there is a direct link between the two. One cannot develop without the other. Who leads whom and to what extent they influence each other is evident in architectural trends and pioneering works by architects such as Robert Venturi, Frank Gehry amongst others.
Over the last four years of studying architecture, I have seen the power that it has to shape communities, shape lives, and to create new ways that people interact with each other. The way architecture can help enhance living and allow for creation of new interactions of people is one of the reasons I find the subject so interesting. The way architecture can shape a whole culture and the way that the culture then in turn shapes the architecture is fascinating to me. Architecture is also not a static subject, it is constantly evolving and adapting with time to take on new forms, create new spaces, and to provide commentary on the history of our time on Earth. The depth that architecture has, and the evolution of the subject is something I have fallen in love with through my study of it. However, when I first started out studying architecture, I had no idea of the depth that the subject had, and it was an incredibly daunting realization; however, it was as equally exciting. I have always had a love for learning and architecture has just fueled that fire. Even after completing my bachelors degree, the learning has not stopped. I get to learn something new about architecture daily, and getting to say that is an opportunity I am thankful to have. It is not just about the learning however, its
Integrity is how somebody lives their life. In this life we live, we face choices every day that only we can answer. We dictate how we run our own lives, and they way we run them defines us. Integrity is doing the right thing versus the wrong thing. People, if nothing else, can always have their pride, their integrity. It is something that means a lot to some people and then nothing to others. The ones who value their integrity highly are the good people in this world, and the opposite is true for those who do not value their integrity.
Behind every architectural work there is an architect, whether the architect is one man or woman, a small group, or an entire people. The structure created by any of these architects conveys a message about the architect: their culture, their identity, their struggles. Because of the human element architects offer to their work not just a building is made, but a work of art, a symbol of a people, a representation, is also created.