Simon Unwin, the author of the book ‘Analysing Architecture’ says that the ‘the purpose of architecture is to design buildings’ is an unsatisfactory definition because the definition limits architecture to just the designing of buildings. He feels that architecture involves more than just designing buildings. He also believes that the definition fails to explain the real purpose of architecture and transfers the problem of comprehending the word ‘architecture’ to the word ‘building’. This definition doesn’t go in-depth to analyze and understand the essence of architecture in our everyday life. It fails to relate human life and needs to the buildings built. The author explains architecture as an identification of place. Architecture starts by People and their activities are an indispensible component of architecture. People are contributors and participants of architecture unlike in other arts like paintings, plays, music etc. where people are mostly spectators to be entertained. Architecture is an art that we see and use every day and everywhere. ‘Through identifying places and organizing them, we make sense of the world we inhibit’ (Unwin, 2014). Places organize our experience of the world and manage our relationship with other people. Architecture also helps us understand people, societies and culture. The way people organize places is related to their beliefs and their aspirations, their opinions and their world view. As world view vary, so does architecture. Architecture is interpreted and created differently by people and societies. Conditions imposed on architecture like people using and paying for the products, activities a place can accommodate etc. yield very different types of architectural products for people to use like residential buildings, commercial towers, educational facilities, places of worship, sports stadiums etc. The true essence and spirit of architecture is understood and acknowledged by people whose activities it
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.
The book, Towards A New Architecture by Le Corbusier is not at all what one would expect. Thinking that the great master architect would limit himself t...
So rational engagement with architecture is a more effective means to comprehend and understand architectural form.
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.
For instance, highly populous and famous cities such as Oslo, New York, Alexandria, and San Francisco hold some of the important architecture projects that have shaped individuals’ lives. Reporter David Owen, in his New Yorker article “Psychology of Space”, argues how the architecture firm Snøhetta utilizes their magic through their projects to build people’s moods, shape their relationships with cities, buildings and other individuals, and create illusions with exhilarating effects. The author’s argument is rhetorically compelling because his arrangement of ideas, selection of words, and supporting evidence maintain his public engaged in the magic of architecture and persuade anyone reading his article that architecture plays a critical role in their lives in numerous
world of living to make it their own, they are placemaking. Placemaking extends beyond the act of
Architecture is the concept of bringing structure, materiality, form and space together as a whole, provide people with enclosed atmosphere to experience. Considering this, it is important to identify that materiality and the purpose of details has been a key methodology to bringing architectural intentions into the design in an affective manner, more over producing an architectural expression. However, this position is rather declining in architecture, reducing tectonics and materiality to being secondary to form and space. With the start of modernism, the attempt to achieve minimalistic style has caused detailing to increasingly develop into a decorative aspect of a building, neglecting its individual contribution to architecture.
Everyday experience tells us that different actions need different environments to take place in a satisfactory way. This fact is of course taken into consideration by current theory of planning and architecture, but so far the problem has been treated in a too abstract way. ‘Taking place’ is usually understood in a quantitative, functional sense with implications such as spatial distribution and dimensioning. But inter-human functions are not similar everywhere, they take place in very different ways and demand places with different properties, in accordance with different cultural traditions and different environmental conditions.
Buildings, like individuals, are embellished distinctively, making some look excellent and critical and others plain and customary. Each building has an exceptional history. Like individuals, buildings age and change with the times. A few buildings are offered "surgery" to restore them to their unique state; others buildings "kick the bucket" from disregard, mis chances and ailment. An alternate probability is that a building of one style might later experience a significant conversion into the style of an alternate time period, making it look fully changed. The architecture of the United States has comprised of a wide assortment of styles all around its history. Home styles in the U.S. are locally assorted and the shapes they have assumed have been affected by numerous different sorts of architecture. The outcome is a varied blend of distinctive home styles that can frequently be found inside the same neighborhood, even on the same road or square of that road.
What is architecture? Is it the practice of designing or rather the art of designing buildings? Is architecture the necessity of shelter? If so, then when did humanity transcend living in caves and progress on to communal living as seen in the remains of Catalhoyuk? Humanity did not stop the progression of architecture at communal living; architecture continued to evolve to accommodate the ever increasing needs of humanity. Has architecture existed since the days that humanity resided in caves and simply evolved with humans to become the modern day building method? These questions and many more have been asked and debated for centuries, and as architects we study the arguments and ideals of the greatest of the host who have asked: what is architecture?
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.
By the end of 18th century, with the industrialization of steel and glass, architecture began to take on a different role in the society. Architecture was no longer about building structures for an individual, but was about concerning with beauty, style, and aesthetics within the technology of space (Conway 8). The idea that building plus art equals architecture was no longer valid, as the equation undermined the true meaning of architecture. In Understanding Architecture, Hazel Conway states, “the allocation of living space is economically, socially, and culturally determined” (6), when discussing the purpose of architecture. This means that the surrounding environment of the building, also referred to as built space, is often intertwined with social relationships. Built space can be defined as the philosophical way of referring to architecture. To a certain extent, the architecture becomes about the philosophical investigation into built space, rather than establishing a single building. Through the examples of artists and architectures, such as Rachel Whiteread, Robert Smithson, Meis Van Der Rohe, and Gordon Matta-Clark, this paper will demonstrate how art pushes architecture into critical examination of built space. In doing so, it will be evident that artists and architecture define sculpture, object, prototype, installation, network, building, assemblage, and/or habitat differently.
The role of the architect is a question that evokes a spectrum of answers from Norman Foster’s definition; ‘Architect is an expression of values… the way we build is a reflection of the way we live.’ [Foster, cited in Tholl, 2014: Online] This debate of who and what an architect should be and do is not a recent one to emerge but has lead many architects and designers as far back as Vitruvius [15BC] to produce documentation on what they believed to be the make-up of an architect. In Vitruvius’ ‘The Ten Books On Architecture’ he quickly establishes two fragments that make an architect, the manual skill and the theory and scholarship.
The branches of architecture are civil, sacred, naval, military, and landscape architecture. The history of architecture traces the changes in architecture through various traditions, regions, overarching stylistic trends, and dates. Architecture is a form of art as well as a science. It is an art because it is a way to express your creativity. With architecture being a form of art it is an outlet for creativity and a way to express your views on society. There is one architect per 2,000 head of population. However, only 20% of buildings are actually built by architects. This means we are in need of more architects!
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