The readings this week were:
Rudolf Wittkower, "The Changing Concept of Proportion" Idea and Image: Studies in the Italian Renaissance (London: Thames and Hudson, 1978) 108-123
Dom. Hans van der Laan, "Strumenti di Ordine: Instruments of Order" Casabella: Monthly Magazine Number 633, April 1996 (Milano: Elemond Spa, 1996) 70-77
David Pye, “Chapter 10: Architecture. Inventing the objects,” from The Nature of Design (London: Studio Vista, 1969) 90-91.
I'm not going to call anyone out this week but instead I'm going to talk about what I was thinking about in class regarding ratios and proportions in buildings. These thoughts mainly regarded the article by Wittkower but were highlighted by all 3 and reinforced the previous few weeks'. The readings this week were pretty straightforward and while they were all a little dry, excluding the one by David Pye (eesh, that rhymed, didn't it. : p yuck.) But I guess I wanted to, instead of debating the topic, carry the theory on. Because it was a valid one.
Basically in his writings he outlines the basic need for proportion and ratios to a rational human architect. He states that
"Modern psychology supports the contention that the quest for a basic order and harmony lies deep in human nature."
He then goes on to question what the general basis for it is.
"Is it then an instinct like hunger and thirst, or is it due to an intellectual urge?"
So basically he's asking do we do this (establish proportions and ratios) because its instinct, or because we get bored? Its a good question and I think the answer is both. I think we are curious and that is embedded in our nature. But I think when the first man discovered stacking stones and enclosure, when architecture was first invented, we tried to discover an easy way out. That is to say, an easy way, a formula, to make things look good.
He then asks if we've succeeded if we've made " one system of proportion that is true, right, and satisfactory." Then he makes the comparison to food, that we all evolved different culinary instincts and recipes based on surrounding climates and ingredients.
So from here I want to ask several questions to the reader. Is proportion timeless?
What proportion(s) if any do we have/use today?
How long have we been in our current state of proportion/anti-proportion?
And, finally, what will our next proportion be?
Is it timeless? I believe that in a sense yes, it is. We still utilize the golden section in our buildings and especially in our partis. I contend that they aren't as deeply embedded as they used to be. However, the square, the triangle, the section are all ratios which are still around and used by modern and well-known architects. So in a way I think this is kind of an answer to my second question. But I also think that, as we did with religion, we have also preached proportioning and ratio tolerance. Which isn't really a bad thing. We still have our preferences. But I think alot of architects today non-chalantly create these extravagant forms that disregard all classic sense of proportion. And this is going on as I see it since post-modernism fell as a practiced architecture style and it gave rise to a more deconstructivist approach. I feel that what we have is knowledge of the classic systems but a dissregard for them. This is exemplified in Ghery, Hadid, Big, Koolhaas, and Himmelblau. So how long will this anti-proportion last? Will we get tired or curvy, sleek, but non-regulated forms and abandon them in favor of a more traditional approach? I hope not. Nature isn't regulated. I feel that ever since man first took refuge in the first cave and conceived of an idea of an enclosure elsewhere we've been trying to mimic nature and it's forms. Nature has no boxes, the closest thing to a straight line is the edge on a honeycomb cell. Circles are found in nature but only as the result of a carpenter bee. I feel that we will never return to a common occurrence of box-ish and regulated forms and spaces. And I feel none too sad about it.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Geth, Legion, and Alberti.
In reading and connecting with my classmates over the interwebs, I stumbled upon something that caught my attention. Not in a good way. The only reason I feel comfortorable calling Kristin out on this is because we're friends. Go look at http://flamboyantcuttlefish.blogspot.com/ . In her blog she states that Alberti is "quite pedantic and difficult to read." No argument. But what she goes on to say is that he is simply making a list of the building, describing the difference of lineaments and structure as this.
Alberti states that architecture is created through lineaments (the outline or design of the details of the building) and structure (the actual construction and physicality of the building).
I disagree.
So that I wont sound like Steve Jobs in the squabble over the entirely new Itunes icon, I'll delve a little deeper. What I think you said was that lineaments were but mere outlines. But lineaments can't be described so easily. I think that to describe lineaments you would also have to describe yourself. I'm saying this because I think that they are subjective. To be more specific I beleive that we contextualize what exactly lineaments are. What I think Alberti is hinting at is that the lineaments are our perceptions of the building not just formally but purposely. Here's what makes me think that.
Since that is the case, let lineaments be the precise and correct outline, conceived in the mind, made up of lines and angles, and perfected in learned intellect and imagination.
What he's saying is that there is a distinction in architecture, between what is perceived and what simply is.
Your take on what something is would be based on your past experiences with it, your upbringing, nature, nurture, and all that jazz. There are too many variables to name them all. It reminds me of Mass Effect 2. For those of you familiar with the game I'm talking about the conversations Shepard has with Legion. Specifically the portion where legion explains that the geth (alien robot race) aren't all on the same side. He goes on to say that the difference between what side they fight on is how they build thier concensus, for them it is infalibly calculated, and for them to disagree means that they are both right but one has more information.
Its like you saying 4 is more than 3, but your friend stating 3 is more than 2. Both are equally valid, one just take one more variable into consideration. This is why i play video games for the philosophy. Here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-cusTeK1VA
Legion says alot of really deep stuff for a robot. If you have the time I personally listen to all of the dialogues from him. If you listened to the vid you'll get what I'm about to say. As architects and designers I beleive it isn't our role to "impose concensus" on the public based on our own valid one, but rather to build concensus by doing our homework and as Alberti said, perfecting lineaments "in learned intellect and imagination."
Alberti states that architecture is created through lineaments (the outline or design of the details of the building) and structure (the actual construction and physicality of the building).
I disagree.
So that I wont sound like Steve Jobs in the squabble over the entirely new Itunes icon, I'll delve a little deeper. What I think you said was that lineaments were but mere outlines. But lineaments can't be described so easily. I think that to describe lineaments you would also have to describe yourself. I'm saying this because I think that they are subjective. To be more specific I beleive that we contextualize what exactly lineaments are. What I think Alberti is hinting at is that the lineaments are our perceptions of the building not just formally but purposely. Here's what makes me think that.
Since that is the case, let lineaments be the precise and correct outline, conceived in the mind, made up of lines and angles, and perfected in learned intellect and imagination.
What he's saying is that there is a distinction in architecture, between what is perceived and what simply is.
Your take on what something is would be based on your past experiences with it, your upbringing, nature, nurture, and all that jazz. There are too many variables to name them all. It reminds me of Mass Effect 2. For those of you familiar with the game I'm talking about the conversations Shepard has with Legion. Specifically the portion where legion explains that the geth (alien robot race) aren't all on the same side. He goes on to say that the difference between what side they fight on is how they build thier concensus, for them it is infalibly calculated, and for them to disagree means that they are both right but one has more information.
Its like you saying 4 is more than 3, but your friend stating 3 is more than 2. Both are equally valid, one just take one more variable into consideration. This is why i play video games for the philosophy. Here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-cusTeK1VA
Legion says alot of really deep stuff for a robot. If you have the time I personally listen to all of the dialogues from him. If you listened to the vid you'll get what I'm about to say. As architects and designers I beleive it isn't our role to "impose concensus" on the public based on our own valid one, but rather to build concensus by doing our homework and as Alberti said, perfecting lineaments "in learned intellect and imagination."
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Art, Craft, Intention, Expression
So we were discussing vitruvius and scruton in class and the proffessor was talking about this idea of art v. craft. It struck me that that would be a good topic for a post. Lets see what the two had to say on it.
Scruton write here in his "The Problem Of Architecture"-
Moreover, the attempt to treat architecture as a form of 'art' in Collingwood's sense involves taking a step towards expressionism, 9 Collingwood began his exploration of art and the aesthetic from a distinction between art and craft. Initially it seems quite reasonable to distinguish the attitude of the craftsman -who aims at a certain result and does what he can to achieve it-from that of the artist, who knows what he is dOing, as it were, only when it is done. But it is precisely the case of architecture which casts doubt on that distinction. For whatever else it is, architecture is certainly, in Collingwood's sense, a craft. The utility of a building is not an accidental property; it defines the architect's endeavour. To maintain this sharp distinction between art and craft is simply to ignore the reality of architecture -not because architecture is a mixture of art and craft (for, as Collingwood recognized, that is true of all aesthetic activity) but because architecture represents an almost indescribable synthesis ofthe two.
I'd have to agree with Collingwood and Scruton. I do and have always believed that it is an incredible blending of art and craft (or math and science). But here's what he goes on to say-
towards seeing architecture in the way that one might see sculpture or painting, as an expressive activity, deriving its nature and value from a peculiarly artistic aim. For Collingwood 'expression' was the primary aim of art precisely because there could be no craft of expression. In the case of expression, there can be no rule or procedure, such as might be followed by a craftsman, vvith a clear end in view and a clear means to its fulfilment; it was therefore through the concept of 'expression' that he tried to clarify the distinction between art and craft. Collingwoodif he can identify the feeling it is because he has already expressed it. Expression is not, therefore, an activity whose goal can be defined prior to its achievement; it is not an activity that can be described in terms of end and means. So if art is expression, it cannot be craft (although its realization may also involve the mastery of many subsidiary crafts).
Here's what I think. I am not going to argue Intention versus Expression. I think that its like arguing pre-determination or fate. And almost as pointless. I think its not either expression or intention, art or craft. I think that, like a grayscale, it starts mostly as one and ends mostly as the other. Consider this. All actions or expressions begin with a prompt. For the architect it is a RFP, but say your cat knocked over your antique ming vase and shattered it. That is the prompt. You then analyse what happened and an intention builds. You know your emotional aim, It is then manifested in an expression. Whether it is kicking the cat or crying because something beautiful was destroyed. It is an expression. In much the same way I believe that architecture or the act of architecting something begins with the analysis and the intention forms and as you are executing your intention it slowly becomes expression. Any student and I'm sure most good architects can honestly say that you put the initial momentum into a project. But as you move on and it developes itself. It developes its own mind and reveals opportunities and potenial back to you.
Here's one more example to look at. Valve made a game called team fortress 2. In the xbox360 version of orange box (the game title that TF2 came in) they had an aim with was a strong stylized concept and a game that conveys all of its messages through visuals in gameplay as opposed to through the HUD. Go get the game and walk throught the commentary that they formulate.
I believe architecture should be an expression or at least have an expressionistic quality, because without expression we have the products of intention but without a humanistic feeling, they lack emotion and depth.
Scruton write here in his "The Problem Of Architecture"-
Moreover, the attempt to treat architecture as a form of 'art' in Collingwood's sense involves taking a step towards expressionism, 9 Collingwood began his exploration of art and the aesthetic from a distinction between art and craft. Initially it seems quite reasonable to distinguish the attitude of the craftsman -who aims at a certain result and does what he can to achieve it-from that of the artist, who knows what he is dOing, as it were, only when it is done. But it is precisely the case of architecture which casts doubt on that distinction. For whatever else it is, architecture is certainly, in Collingwood's sense, a craft. The utility of a building is not an accidental property; it defines the architect's endeavour. To maintain this sharp distinction between art and craft is simply to ignore the reality of architecture -not because architecture is a mixture of art and craft (for, as Collingwood recognized, that is true of all aesthetic activity) but because architecture represents an almost indescribable synthesis ofthe two.
I'd have to agree with Collingwood and Scruton. I do and have always believed that it is an incredible blending of art and craft (or math and science). But here's what he goes on to say-
towards seeing architecture in the way that one might see sculpture or painting, as an expressive activity, deriving its nature and value from a peculiarly artistic aim. For Collingwood 'expression' was the primary aim of art precisely because there could be no craft of expression. In the case of expression, there can be no rule or procedure, such as might be followed by a craftsman, vvith a clear end in view and a clear means to its fulfilment; it was therefore through the concept of 'expression' that he tried to clarify the distinction between art and craft. Collingwoodif he can identify the feeling it is because he has already expressed it. Expression is not, therefore, an activity whose goal can be defined prior to its achievement; it is not an activity that can be described in terms of end and means. So if art is expression, it cannot be craft (although its realization may also involve the mastery of many subsidiary crafts).
Here's what I think. I am not going to argue Intention versus Expression. I think that its like arguing pre-determination or fate. And almost as pointless. I think its not either expression or intention, art or craft. I think that, like a grayscale, it starts mostly as one and ends mostly as the other. Consider this. All actions or expressions begin with a prompt. For the architect it is a RFP, but say your cat knocked over your antique ming vase and shattered it. That is the prompt. You then analyse what happened and an intention builds. You know your emotional aim, It is then manifested in an expression. Whether it is kicking the cat or crying because something beautiful was destroyed. It is an expression. In much the same way I believe that architecture or the act of architecting something begins with the analysis and the intention forms and as you are executing your intention it slowly becomes expression. Any student and I'm sure most good architects can honestly say that you put the initial momentum into a project. But as you move on and it developes itself. It developes its own mind and reveals opportunities and potenial back to you.
Here's one more example to look at. Valve made a game called team fortress 2. In the xbox360 version of orange box (the game title that TF2 came in) they had an aim with was a strong stylized concept and a game that conveys all of its messages through visuals in gameplay as opposed to through the HUD. Go get the game and walk throught the commentary that they formulate.
I believe architecture should be an expression or at least have an expressionistic quality, because without expression we have the products of intention but without a humanistic feeling, they lack emotion and depth.
6
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Assignment Zero
My name is James Edward Lamb III and I am a Senior in Architecture at Louisiana Tech University.
This blog is an assignment
So, I was in class today and the proffessor read this quote, "The architect should be equipped with knowledge of many branches of study and varied kinds of learning, for it is by the architect's judgment that work done by the other arts is put to test." -- from Vitruvius, The Ten Books on Architecture, (New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1960)
It got me to thinking. I'm not just a student of architecture. I'm a student of art as a whole. Because to be an architect is to be a specialist in everything remotely pertinate to your design. So In addition to whatever posts I make pertaining to architecture and my studio projects, I will probably review movies, games, books, furniture, plays, and anything else I can get my hands (or my eyes) on.
This blog is an assignment
So, I was in class today and the proffessor read this quote, "The architect should be equipped with knowledge of many branches of study and varied kinds of learning, for it is by the architect's judgment that work done by the other arts is put to test." -- from Vitruvius, The Ten Books on Architecture, (New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1960)
It got me to thinking. I'm not just a student of architecture. I'm a student of art as a whole. Because to be an architect is to be a specialist in everything remotely pertinate to your design. So In addition to whatever posts I make pertaining to architecture and my studio projects, I will probably review movies, games, books, furniture, plays, and anything else I can get my hands (or my eyes) on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)