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.
No comments:
Post a Comment