top of page

Introduction-week 1

Architecture is:

1. The art or practice of designing and constructing buildings.

2. The style in which a building is designed and constructed.

 

The etymology of the word ‘architecture’ can be defined as arkhi meaning chief and tekton meaning builder or carpenter. This definition demonstrates the fundamental basis of architecture. The architect should have an overview of the building, as an object, but also as an activity of construction. The process of creating a building starts with an idea or “concept”, which, taking in consideration some outer factors such as the space, light, its relation to other buildings, but also the inner ones that is the spiritual connection with that idea, is then transformed to a “form”, leading to construction of a building. Except form and space making, architecture is more about functionality of buildings, the main point where it changes from sculpture. The techniques that an architect uses, whether if he is designing a street or a chair, are varied and complex and require a lot of effort, thinking, drawing and designing. But, according to me, this pain and tiredness is nothing compared to colorful, exciting and wonderful world of architecture.

What is architecture?-week 2

         Defining architecture as just “an ornament added to building” as Ruskin said, or as “an embellishment added to building which is not a structural necessity”, according to me is very superficial. I agree more to Vitruvius saying: “Architecture is a science involving much “discipline”, or mental training, and deep knowledge of various kinds, so that by its judgment all work done by the other arts have to be tried and approved.” According to him, architecture has two elements: “Fabrica et rationcinato”=knowledge of practical building+application of thereto of reasoning. In order to be successful, an architect should fulfill both of them. “Discipline” includes knowledge in arithmetic, geometry, optics, philosophy, astronomy etc., so in other terms it is stated that practice should be guided by theory, in order to achieve the goal of architectural buildings. To this definition we can add the condition of beauty and the inclusion of the aesthetic sense, within the realm of Reason. Because architecture is construction, but it is construction with a new spirit, with an artistic aspiration. To sum up, Architecture is the poetry of construction, compared to poesy or “Frozen music”, compared to music.  

The meaning of art-week 2

       Art is an elusive term, which means that is difficult to find and explain. This happens because Art has always been considered as a metaphysical phenomenon, so it highly abstract, or relating to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses. Art is an attempt to create pleasing forms. Such forms satisfy our sense of beauty and the sense of beauty is satisfied when we are able to appreciate a unity or harmony of formal relations among our sense-perceptions. Any general theory of art must begin with this supposition: that man responds to the shape and surface and mass of things present to his senses, and that certain arrangements in the proportion of the shape and surface and mass of things result in a pleasurable sensation, whilst the lack of such arrangement leads to indifference or even to positive discomfort and revulsion. So, this means that the arrangement of shapes should lead to harmony in order to be pleasing for the eye. The sense of beauty is a very fluctuating phenomenon, with many manifestations through the history. So we should remember that all types of art are of equal interest according to their historical time. We also should mention that art is not beauty, maybe in some cases art equals to no beauty. There is no beauty without some strangeness.  Beauty is more giving pleasure, while art is more intuitive. Art is deeply involved in the process of perception and thought. It is related to our senses and is measured by our way of perception. Art is an idealization of nature, the whole process of life and movement which includes man. The common feature between all works of art are the elements of form, which are universal.  A formless or informal expression may or may not deserve to be called a work of art. “Order without diversity can result in monotony and boredom, while diversity without order can result in chaos.”

Also, another point I figured out was that pattern alone does not constitute a work of art. Provisionally we may say that although a work of art always involves a pattern of some kind, all patterns are not necessarily works of art. Such a statement needs some definition of its terms. A `work of art' generally implies a certain degree of complexity; we refuse the term to a simple geometrical design of circles and triangles, and even to the intricate but accomplished design of a machine-made carpet, although such patterns may be well-balanced or symmetrical. The artist is mainly concerned with the affirmation of this objective existence. When he passes from sensibility to moral indignation or extra sensuous states of any kind, then the work of art to that extent becomes impure. This means that a work of art is fairly adequately defined as pattern informed by sensibility. Pattern implies some degree of regularity within a limited frame of reference. Beyond this simple conception of pattern we get increasing degrees of complexity, the first of which is symmetry; instead of repeating a design in parallel series, the design is reversed or counter-changed. The next complexity was to abandon symmetrical balance in favor of distributed balance. The work of art has an imaginary point of reference (analogous to a center of gravity) and around this point the lines, surfaces and masses are distributed in such a way that they rest in perfect equilibrium. The structural aim of all these modes is harmony, and harmony is the satisfaction of our sense of beauty.  The form of a work of art is nothing more than its shape, the arrangement of its parts, its visible aspect. There is form as soon as there is shape, as soon as there are two or more parts gathered together to make an arrangement. Form does not imply regularity, or symmetry, or any kind of fixed proportion.

I realized that the essential difference between art and sentimentality: sentimentality is a release, but also a loosening, a relaxing of the emotions; art is a release, but also a bracing. Art is the economy of feeling; it is emotion cultivating good form and an artist is somehow a genius.

In conclusion, we can say that artist will be the greatest whose intelligence is widest-a man who sees and feels, not only the object immediately before him, but sees this object in its universal implications sees the one in the many, the many in the one.

Form and style in Visual Arts- week 3

One of the most common ways of classifying different types of design is in terms of the sense or the senses primarily addressed, e.g., as visual, auditory or audiovisual. This implies the distinctions among types of trait, as well as pattern or design, which in some types of art are only suggested, while in the others are also presented. Also it is very important for us to have some information about the frame and reference, whether the development is mostly in two or three dimensions in space or in time. 

                According to the visual sense, we have 3 categories of design:

  • Visual static surface design

  • Visual static solid design

  • Visual mobile temporally developed design

Visual static surface design:

“Static” refers to the presented factor only, and has nothing to do with possible suggestions of movement. That’s why thematic development is presented mostly in two dimensions in space, with little or no determinate change or movement. It can be presented in a flat, curving or polyhedral surface and the main components are line, texture and color, with slight variations of surface shape, mass and void shape. Three main subdivisions of visual static surface design can be distinguished (Arabesque: indeterminate type, though linear developed design):

1-Strip design: It is long and narrow, mostly extended in one dimension, lengthwise. It is usually developed by producing more units to right, left, or both, or by division, in increasing the size and inner complexity of each unit: e.g. in heraldic designs. Strip design accepts a definite boundary in second dimension. Internally, it is adapted between the area of two boundaries. Conventional types include egg, dart, fret, wave and guilloche. Varieties appear in three ways: Firstly, as to the dimensions in which the presentative development occurs: whether it is actually flat or slightly 3D. Secondly, in terms of suggestive development where a design which is presentatively flat may be suggestively three- dimensional, giving illusions of solidity, depth, or apertures, as if by cast shadows. Thirdly, as a result of the presence or absence of representational development. Strip design may be purely abstract or realistic through linear lines alone.

2-Bounded-area design:  This is limited within given two-dimensional area and is usually related internally to the size and shape of the area marked off, as to a rectangular or circular frame or border. Designs of this type may be representatively flat (as in painting), or three-dimensional (as in sculptural relief). The relation of design to representation is especially important in the bounded-area type. Main components are line color, solid shape and texture. When the framework is thematic or decorative, as in Persian carpets, the main units are repeated and arranged arbitrary to make a pattern (we don’t know how to continue, there is no rule), so each unit becomes representational.  On the other hand, we have paintings, also called abstracts, which are nonrepresentational as in Mondrian paintings. Some of them are very special since they are asymmetrical, irregular and free-flowing. Utilitarian objects, such as buildings, chairs, robes, and boxes often provide the frameworks for design in bounded areas. These can be representational, thematic or both.

-Allover design:  is unbounded in two dimensions, with a tendency to indefinite repetition or prolongation in two dimensions and four directions. Termination is usually arbitrary and sudden rather than prepared, that’s why it resembles to a pattern. The proliferation of a design tends to flow from one side to another of the box or other object, ignoring its edges and corners; there is no beginning and no end. A common feature of allover design is to arrange the units on two coordinate, intersecting systems of lines (horizontal and vertical or diagonal) and not along a single main axis as usual in strip design. Conventional types include spot, stripe, scale, interlaced, flowered, figured, and scenic patterns. It is much used in dress fabrics, upholstery and drapery fabrics. This type of design can be flat or three-dimensional, both representatively and suggestively.  Like strip design, allover design is usually decorative rather than pictorial in its comprehensive framework. It tends to repeat units, over and over, in various directions on a given surface, flat or curving, as long as the room is available.

 

Visual static solid design

This type is three-dimensionally presented; it has considerable extent in thickness or depth as well as in length and breadth. The thematic units themselves consist of different solid parts, which are thematically arranged. Thus there is more use of solid masses, voids, and surface shapes than in static surface design, in addition to line, color, and texture. Usually the temporal order is not definitely determined. Here we have 4 categories:

1-Exterior design: this type consists of viewing the object from outside. The object may present many different designs as seen from different points of view, as opaque, solid parts fall into different arrangements through parallax, overlapping, and partial concealment by other opaque parts. Common varieties of three-dimensional design are found in vases. Some of these types permit indeterminate or slightly determinate kinds of motion as in lace.

2-Interior design: surrounding or partly surrounding the observer, as when he is inside the building, room, garden, or enclosed city square. The Gothic cathedral is highly developed in this respect, presenting different patterns of ribbed vaults, clustered piers, horizontal balconies, windows, sculptures, and paintings, as one moves around and changes the angle of vision. The temporal order of perception is only partially determined.

3-Combinations of the two: As in the connection between exterior and interior designs in the cathedral. Rose window of the cathedrals contributes to the façade from the exterior and for the colored illumination from the interior. A palace surrounded by a park also combines exterior and interior designs. Dioramas and stage tableaux can also combine inside with outside views.

4-Intermediate between surface and solid design is sculptural relief which varies as to the amount of three-dimensional development. When the relief is very low and applied to a flat panel, it tends to be perceived as static surface design with a bounded area. When high and partly detached from the background, it approximates static solid design.

​

Visual mobile temporally developed design

1-Mobile surface design: This type comprises visually presented thematic development in  time, as well as change and motion in determinate sequence, mostly in two dimensions of space. As some common examples, we can mention pictures, shadow plays and lumia, all presented as flat images on flat or curving surfaces. The shapes may be representational or nonrepresentational, with or without three-dimensional suggestions.

2-Mobile solid design: presents solid figures (not merely represented ones) in more or less determinate motion. It is developed in three-dimensions of space and in time. Examples are found in dance, ballet, in marionettes and other mobile sculpture, in acrobatics, fireworks and decorative waterworks. Not all examples of these arts are highly developed thematically. Their movements are limited in range. Speed is usually indeterminate.

 

AUDITORY DESIGN

This is presented in more or less determinate temporal sequence. It may or may not be combined with mobile visual design. There are 3 categories:

1-Musical design: It is based on thematic development of rhythm, timber, consonance etc. and it is developed through the use of instruments and human voices.

2-Word-sound design: It is presented aurally when literature is spoken, thus it resembles to music because of the rhyme and rhythmic phrasing.

3-Verbal-music design: as in song, opera and oratorio, is a combination of musical and word-sound themes and patterns.

 

AUDIOVISUAL DESIGN

This type involves some temporal change because of the evanescence of sounds. There are 2 categories:

1-Audiovisual surface design: Mobile visual patterns combined with music, word-sound or both, is found in motion pictures and shadow plays with incidental music and spoken verses.

2-Audiovisual solid design: It is produced by combining mobile solid patterns with auditory ones, as in dance and ballet with music.

 

SUGGESTIVE THEMATIC DEVELOPMENT DESIGN

The foregoing list distinguishes types of design mainly on a basis of presentative development, according to the sense primarily addressed and the way in which the presented factor is developed in space, time, or both. It should be emphasized that such factors are capable of elaborate thematic development. In literature, especially prose, thematic development is mostly suggestive. So, it seems like references to ideas and emotions such as war and peace, joy and sorrow, selfishness and unselfishness, and every type of image derived from the senses, can be arranged into patterns.

I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.

Perceptual Bases-week 4

                  In architecture, we (me and my architecture fellows) learn to observe better the surroundings and to understand better their aim and their function. According to that, we can understand and claim that buildings aren’t just some simple static objects, but they represent a form of communication, and, like language, they have vocabularies and syntax. So, these tools are used by architects to communicate the particular concerns of society, a client or the users of the building. Architectural expression is continually evolving into new forms based on, or in contrast to the past. Forms of the past that remain valid are carried into the present, while the others that become antiquated are dropped from use. In this text’s facts and information, I understood that the emphasis is on the appropriate visual image and the visual ordering techniques that can be used to create architectural statements.

                Architectural statements

I agree to the statement that buildings that are recognized as good architecture are those buildings which contain communication in themselves and express them gently and elegantly. It is this quality of this communication that becomes the main basis for the collective evaluation of a building and for public criticism too. From the examples given in the text (Acropolis, Parthenon, Agora), I understood that any building has its symbolism (of pride in this case), which is carried through the ages to the present. Also, many contemporary designs use the power of classic colonnade, but of course with some changes responding to the concerns of a different style.

                The work of architects, according to me, is very difficult referring to the fact that they need to communicate concerns by emphasizing some forms and suppressing the others, a very complicated technique. To maintain this work, architects use some modes of communication that are:

1-Vision (connected to light directions, strength and color), is the main mode used by architects, partly because of the way the profession has evolved and partly because vision is one of the clearest way of perception and many symbols of society are received by sight.

2-Temperature and humidity

3-Sound

4-Texture: conveys meaning-different impressions from various textures.

                 In my opinion, as it also mentioned in the text, the most important and probably the most difficult issue an architect has to deal with is the image that the building will communicate. The choice of image will affect the attitude and behavior of the ultimate users of the building. In addition, each building requires a number of communicating elements to reinforce a total image or to separate and express different aspects of a single building. After deciding an overall image, architect has to address the relative importance of individual elements. So, architects need to make a hierarchical list of elements, an arrangement of concepts in order of importance to ensure that a less important concept will not take precedence over a more important one. The next step is to use which of a number of design techniques to use in a particular project. This choice is based on concepts and issues involved and may take divergent paths depending on the project. What’s important then? As I understood, it is important that an architect must command a wide variety of design techniques and know when and where they are appropriate.

                  It might be easy to make a list of concepts, but building a total architectural composition can be extremely difficult because each building is composed of very small detailed areas, with their own differences, that have to be fitted together to produce a single architectural form. If any architectural form is not thought as a total composition of elements, strong contrast can occur that will give total misleading or irritating information.

As the building form develops in the design process, the architect must evaluate the appropriateness and success of the visual stimulus. In this function, drawings and models of building design are used. Although this process is difficult and time-consuming, visual information must be evaluated visually.

                    The source of architectural statements 

From the text, I understood that an architect should choose the appropriate materials for giving the building that specific structure. Three questions must be answered. The first involves the intended meanings of the building and the forms or images related to these meanings. The second involves the relative importance of the meanings to be expressed. Finally, there must be a logical order of building construction that will develop these images visually while providing good physical enclosure. Answers to these issues become the basis for the architectural design. An error at this stage of thinking will inevitably produce an error in the final solution, no matter how elegantly the concepts are expressed architecturally. The difficulty of a problem is compounded when we realize these decisions are opened to a range of interpretation. There are many situations in which incorrect images have seriously affected the usability of a building f.e. the continuing debates for the appropriateness and functionality of Sydney Opera house. Thus, it seems like the solution of these questions of image communication are found in six places:

1-The building program: are often developed by professional programmers or architects. As I understood, in this program are involved the room shapes and sizes; who uses the space and for how long; equipment and environmental controls. These facts can be basis for the list of hierarchy.

2-building type: buildings can be grouped into categories such as schools, houses, hospitals, banks and churches. Each type is symbolic of its function in the society and has a traditional place in the context of that society.

3-Site: according to information in the text, site potential (where soil bearing capacity, surface water drainage, access to utilities etc. are included) should be carefully analyzed, since it affects the form of the building that is being designed and must be analyzed in terms of its potential for image generation. Traditional building forms with strong images have evolved in response to particular site and situation constraints.

4-Architect’s style: Also by not reading this text, I was able to understand that the architect’s style is a unique property that every architect has. Each one of us has a different perception and way of thinking that’s why a style can’t be adopted, but it evolves from one’s expressing new concepts of space, use or building technology. More formally, style is defined as the distinctive qualities of form given a project that allow us to group projects as representatives of an individual’s ( or a group’s) efforts. It usually creates the first impression of a building and its meaning.

5-Environmental and Behavioral Studies: it has to do with the human behavior, a very useful source for architects because we can predict behavior in a space as it is designed. If information is not integrated into a building program, the architect is responsible to find and use the appropriate research materials.

6-Building technology: we live in the 21st century where technology is booming. All these advances in technology couldn’t be not applied to architectural design and according to me , this is a very good feature since applying technological developments to the building design will make them more effective referring to usability, but also more economical. Technology has changed the basic forms of office towers; great stadiums are moved to new configurations on cushions of air; and spaces are enclosed by air-supported fabric. The recognition of need, an understanding of the range of the technological alternatives, and the appropriate application of technology are clearly the responsibilities of the architect. Also, another important point that caught my eye was the importance of the visual expression of the selected technology, which must be considered together with the elements of the building and program and type, the site and the architect’s style. All these must feet into an hierarchy of importance.

                         Visual-ordering techniques

So, as the text states, after the decision of the expression or communication, architect should then select and manipulate the building forms so that the correct message is conveyed. The most suitable way, which I agree with, is to make a list of spaces in the building, their interrelationships, their form and significance. These techniques include:

Proximity Diagramming: is an analysis technique that is useful in generating a preliminary sense of the building’s potential form. As I understood, the proximity technique gives us the chance to draw diagrams and selects the diagram that most closely matches the desired building expression. Proximity diagrams usually have two hierarchies:

-scale of the different spaces of the diagram, with the larger elements having more importance. (High school and Gymnasium)

-the location of elements within a sequence of spaces. (traditional house, entry, living, dining and sleeping).

Also, some elements are more dominant than others (foreground over background, higher locations over lower ones.)

Sign and symbols

Are very direct methods of expression. I find it interesting the way they are used in architectural design to focus the attention of building or spaces within the building. There exists a variety of sign and symbols from simplest ones to objects of representation for complex ideas and things. Symbolism is used because it brings all parts together to reinforce a meaning and give a wholeness to the total composition. I realized that every architect, based on his style, has its own way of using the signs, which is unique and is the main thing that is taken into consideration when chosen by a client.

Gestalts

This is one of the most important elements of architectural design and one of the most interesting ones according to me, mostly because it is closely related to human brain. Human mind is structured to perceive the environment in a way that organizes our visual field into distinct and related parts. These different pattern organizations we perceive are called “gestalts”. Each of them has some characteristics that can be manipulated by the designer to strengthen or weaken the visual relationship between parts of the composition.

Designer has 2 opportunities to configure forms:

-selecting parts of the composition the designer wants to be perceived as related, and then in applying the characteristics of various gestalt patterns to the forms to ensure that they will be perceived as a group.

-the designer may analyze a developing design to see what gestalt organizations are forming and whether they detract from or enhance the design concepts.

Some of the more usual forms:

1-Figure-Ground: I understood that figure is organization in our visual field that look like things, while the ground is unbounded and diffuse. It does not look like a thing. Figures are seen as being on grounds and are what we organize our view and understanding of the physical environment around.

2-Center of Gravity: Our understanding of other parts of a form of composition develops from their relationship with the center, which I should mention (as I understood), that it isn’t the geometrical center but we are discussing about the center of our attention.

3-Configuration: is a concept that we have also used in one of our assignments in studio. Its concept holds that the mind will simplify the visual environment in order to understand it and the most easily form to understand is the part of environment which is more regular (requires the least simplification).

4-Similarity: similar objects tend to group together. The characteristics of similarity can be the objects’ form, color, texture, sense of mass, or cultural significance. Based on the text and the example of house, I found out that the similarities make us see the relationship between the parts while the contrasts bring out the important differences.

5-Proximity: Objects in close proximity are seen as being related. It is interesting the fact (which I like a lot) that this concept allows the designer to relate two dissimilar objects by placing them near each other so they are seen as a whole.

6-Symmetry: symmetrically placed objects also seem to be related. Adds interest usually in a repetitive composition. Three types: rotational, translational, mirror. Importance to the axis that generates.

7-Closure and good continuation: As I have also understood by the studio lesson, closure has to do with the visual completion of incomplete objects because there is a logical extension and our eye perceives it as completed. Meanwhile, continuation, a very well-known fact from the studio lessons too, has to do with the alignment, because when things are aligned they seem to be related.

8-Form reproduction: It is a gestalt concept that deals with the way we remember spaces. So, if we see the complete form and then we only see part of it, we reproduce the rest of the image from our memory. This is useful for spatial orientation even if only part of the composition is visible.

8-Vignettes: images of spaces that have emotional connotations, but aren’t very exact in the way they are produced. The most important thing and also very interesting that I found out reading vignettes was that the architect should carefully examine the vignette in order to create the same impression as the user of it. Only in this way it can be called successful design.

9-Archetypes: every object has its specific pattern called archetype.

10-Pattern: some constant patterns that are in each specific building.

                In conclusion, I can state that there are good architects who have high level skills on applying the visual techniques that I have mentioned, but this isn’t enough to make a good building. We, as architects, need to maintain the hierarchy between the parts of the building, need to maintain clarity of expression in the design; we should develop interest and enjoyment since we are designing all this stuff for people (including ourselves) and people aren’t machines. They have their own emotions, feelings that give life to the buildings we have designed. And finally, we (architects) need to mesh the concerns of hierarchy, clarity and interest with the requirements of physical enclosure. The task is difficult and challenging, but meeting this challenge is the enjoyment derived from architecture and makes architecture the most exciting profession in the world.

Scale and proportions- week 5

               "Architecture  is like frozen music". What a lovely comparison that reminds me of that beautiful opera's scenes feeling, with the musical notes that in their harmonic organization give you pleasure and communicate you a whole story. Also architecture, as Zaha Hadid has said:"...is able to excite you, to calm you, to make you think." But where did this definition come from? This definition came from different researches that are made according to relationship between architecture and music. By the examples and the information in the text, I understood that in music, like in architecture there exists a kind of proportion between musical notes, which create a harmony within the music. Proportion is the comparative harmonious relationship between two or more elements in a composition with respect to size, color, quantity, degree, setting and principles of art. Scale, in the other hand, is a proportional relationship between two sets of dimensions. However, the mistakes in proportions in music can be easily recognized by the human eye, whereas the little mistakes in proportions in architecture aren’t visible without the special measurements. So, it seems like the comparison of architectural proportions with musical consonances remains a metaphor, although a beautiful metaphor. 

              However, there is one proportion that has attracted a lot of attention since antiquity. This is the so-called golden section. Pythagoras and his disciples were interested in it, theorists of the Renaissance took it up again, and in our day Le Corbusier has based his principle of proportion, “Le Modulor” on it. But what is the golden section? A line segment is said to be divided according to the golden section when it is composed of two unequal parts of which the first is to the second as the second is to the whole. One interesting example of that was the ordinary Danish match box measured 36x58 mm, where the mutual relation of the sides was the golden section.

               Another symbol where the golden section is used , which according to me is very beautiful and mystical, is the pentagram, a five pointed star which is formed by lengthening the sides of a pentagon both ways to their points of intersection. By the rule of golden section, you can get an infinite series of line segments.

            In the text there were shown some attempts to get away from romantic tendencies in 1920 from architecture, and to formulate clear aesthetic principles. As was also mentioned in the examples ( Frederick Macody Lund in Norway, Ivar Bentsen in Denmark), people have tried to get away of these tendencies by using the golden section, but they couldn't exactly achieve the golden ratio as in natural phenomena(the whorls of the snail).It looks like mother nature is much more successful in creating beautiful forms than us. Then, from the comparison of American author (Colin Rowe) of Palladio's Villa and Le Corbuiser's house I have found out some interesting aspects. First of all, as was also mentioned in the text, they have similarity in their way of arranging the spaces within the house using the golden section. Palladio was affected from antiquity when projecting the Villa, that's why the composition is so sublime and simple in proportions. Also, an interesting fact was that Palladio placed great emphasis on these simple ratios 3:4; 4:4; 4:6; which were found in the musical harmony. That's why you feel this kind of discipline and harmony when you enter the Palladio's Villa, because everything is related, all is great and whole. Meanwhile, in Le Corbusier’s house I found out that you don't have this feeling because he has hidden very well the supporting elements and has given priority to horizontal planes separating the floor and the ratio 5:8. While Palladio has accidentally used the golden section (even not being aware of it), Le Corbusier has organized everything according to this golden ratio. Le Corbusier has gone further in cultivating this ratio by using the figure of a French man with the raising hand whose scales and proportions has been used while constructing the Marseille's block.                     

                Also, since he discovered some problems in the functioning of this figure, he developed a new English man with bigger proportions and used these two modules (which according to me is a very creative and effective way) to measure different parts and spaces. I agree with Le Corbusier’s opinion that “Le Modular” is a universal instrument, easy to employ, which can be used to obtain beauty and rationality in the proportions of everything created by the man because it satisfies both the demands of beauty (derived from golden section) and functional demands.

              Le Marseille’s block has real greatness because it is not proportional to the human measurements that is in relation to the small apartments, but on a gigantic scale; a fitting structure for a mammoth box. Here I found out a similar thing with Palladio’s Villa, which was derived from the classical columns (from antiquity) but in “large orders” comprising several stories , and from then on there was no limit to how large they could be made or how monumental the buildings. Everything was in harmony but adapted to ultralarge columns. From this comparison, I found out an important difference between proportioning of monumental architecture and that of domestic buildings: The monumental building became more effective when it was placed in a row of ordinary structures, while the domestic one was less elastic, based on human dimensions , determined in a purely practical manner.

              So, I understood that when measuring we should be based on standard units and a lot of them (effective ones) include parts of the body: foot, inches etc. From the example of Frederik’s Hospital in Copenhagen and the findings of Kaare Klint, I understood and I agree that it is absolutely necessary to work out standards based on human proportions. In other words, architecture has its own, natural methods of proportioning and it is a mistake to believe that proportions in the visual world can be experienced in the same way as the harmonic proportions of music. There are no certain proportions which are the on right ones for architecture. No matter the proportions, if they are connected in the right way they give an impression of the regularity which is called rhythm.

                   From the finding of the Fechner’s psychological research, I found out that human eye is more affected by those objects having the golden section proportions. Golden section preferences are not limited to human eye aesthetics but are also a part of the remarkable relationships between the proportions of patterns of growth in living things such as plants and animals (spirals, shells, fish, pentagon pattern, sunflower). Also human body is separated in proportions, where, according to Vitruvius the length of out-stretched arms is equal to the height of a well-proportioned man. The legs and arms touch a circle with the center at the naval according to golden section.

               Vitruvius stated that the architecture of buildings should be made referring to human body proportions and stated the importance of the module as the head or the foot of the human body. Examples of usage of golden section were found out in Parthenon, the cathedral of Notre Dame where the main part in the construction was the golden ratio rectangle.

By the examples showed in the text, I agree with Le Corbusier’s opinion that guiding lines are an integral part of architectural creation; a means to create order and beauty in architecture. Even the earliest architects have used a regulating unit of measure such as a hand, or foot, or forearm in order to systemize and bring order to the task. Fibonacci Sequence is very similar to the golden section rule. Also, we have two types of rectangles: static and dynamic, but dynamic ones golden section ones) produce an endless amount of visually pleasing harmonic subdivisions and surface ratios when subdivided, because their ratios consist of irrational numbers.

               To sum up, all we architects have a special world inside us that makes everything created by us unique. There is no right and wrong when creating something. All we need to do when designing a building, is to take into consideration regulating lines in order to create order and beauty and one of the most important ones is the golden section, a ratio found out everywhere in our life, beginning from human body to plants and animals, and to the man-made objects and buildings. Because it is the mother nature which has created us and it will always lead us through our journey of life. As a famous quote says,architecture is the mirror of life. In order to move on, we need to create and construct according to rules that she has defined to us.  

Daylight in Architecture-week 6

               Light... what a capricious factor that messes up all architect's minds. So beautiful and mind-blowing, still uncontrolled and rebellious. The only factor that can't be controlled because it is always chaniging: from morning to evening, from day to day. So, what can we do to balance this factor's effect and to use it properly?           Sometimes people confuse the "good light" with much light, which is wrong. Is there any change in how we see the objects under sunlight (which is more intense) and under moonlight? No. It is obvious that is not the quantity of light which matters, but is its quality and falling direction. When you change the position of a window, it will completely change the character of the room. So, for me it's very amazing the fact that the same room can be made to give very different spatial impressions by the simple expedient of changing the size and location of its openings. And it is even more amazing the wonderful work of architects, that by using the light properties have defined three main openings in which light may enter the room: the bright open hall, the room with a skylight and, most typical of all, the room with light entering from the side.       Warm climate countries, high temperatures in summer... it seems like the perfect place for the bright open hall buildings to be developed. It consists simply of a roof supported on columns for protection from the burning sun. We can mention here a lot of examples as the covered market in the town of Cardillac, near Bordeaux, in southern France; the house of Philip C. Johnson in New Canaan, Connectitut. It consists of one large cell, a rectangular room about twice as long as it is broad, with glass walls on all four sides and a solid roof. So many unusual details...make us think if it is possible for this building to be percepted as a house? Yeah, it is. When you see the house from inside you can feel it is an indoor room, a feeling which is strongly supported by the floor, ceiling and the textile. Meanwhile, when you see it from outside, you feel, as in Palladio's Villa, the building has a firm base, a carefully conceived plan. 

               As we previously mentioned, the quality of light is much more important than its quantity. From examples ion the text, I understood that a “front light” is a poor light because when light falls on a relief at almost a right angle, there will be a minimum of shadow and therefore of plastic effect. The textural effect will be also poor, simply because perception of texture depends on minute differences in relief. If the object is moved from front light to a place where light falls on it from the side, it will be a spot which gives a particularly good impression both of relief and texture.

                Degas, Touloue-Lautrec… what do these names remind to us? Their paintings take us to the old days, when the light in the theatres came from below, creating a world of enchantment and unreality, which is the magnificent world of stage. Shadows were produced so that the audience was not cheated from the textural effects.

               Flat and shoddy materials, faces as blobs of lights…all these features of modern theatre, where light falls from above, remind us again about the importance of quality of light.                 

               But what if we experiment the inverse of such a room? Then the room with a skylight becomes a part of this discussion. The interesting and important fact about the room with a skylight is that, unlikely the bright open hall which offers a variety of lighting effects in different parts of the room, it can be planned so that the light is equally good in all parts of the room.

                Pantheon in Rome represents perfectly the magnificence of this kind of rooms. With only one opening in the top, which is the only connection with the noisy, outdoor life; you can feel yourself at peace and harmony, close to the celestial sky.  The opening is very high and the light, falling in one direction, is reflected by the floor of marble to the all parts of the room, so there are no really black shadows anywhere.

From the example of the Copenhagen City Hall, I understood the difference in the character of the room when the position from where light fell was changed. I also understood that in the rooms where the entire ceiling is one large skylight, the free influx of natural light gives a shadowless interior; forms are not quite plastic and textural effects are generally poor.

                 “Curiosity keeps leading the mankind down new paths.” As curious creatures, of course we made some attempts to make this plastic and textural effects richer in the examples of Stockholm city hall and the lightning method employed in the Gothenburg city (the saw-tooth roof, including a series of high side lights which produce an excellent light in all the parts of the room), but they were only a short step to the room lighted by the light alone.

                 Difficult physical conditions, no land, deep, tall and narrow houses…what do all these features remind us? The beautiful country: Holland, whose houses, maybe unconsciously, are one of the great examples of the rooms with the light falling from the side. So, the Dutch houses were some deep, tall, narrow gabled buildings which had lower floors for dwelling purposes. Light had to come from the windows in the front and the front consisted of a thin brick wall above and wood and glass below. Sometimes the upper part was also equipped with shutters. This produced a 4-framed window with a shutter to each frame that could be opened and closed independently as the light could be regulated at will. They continued regulating the falling of light by adding some curtains and hangings. It looks like Dutch people were more interested in regulation of daylight than the other countries’ people, maybe because in Holland was very cold and they had to spend most of their time inside the house.

All these effective and beautiful architectonic details… a casual person maybe wouldn’t be aware of them, but they couldn’t be neglected by the eye of true artists, such as Rembrandt, Vermeer and Pieter de Hooch. In their paintings are shown perfectly the details and effect of light entering from these windows in Dutch houses.

                   In an experiment done by the school of Architecture in Copenhagen for the illumination control in old Dutch houses by shutting the lower shutters a more even light over the entire room was produced and by darkening the upper halves and leaving the lower shutters the light was concentrated near the windows. In this way the best plastic qualities and textural characteristics were experimented in the best light conditions. So, it resulted in the taught about the effect the architect can produce by skilful utilization of daylight.

Functionalism in the beginning was a matter of slogans more than a definite solution to problems of design and structure. Too often was the quantity of light rather than quality which was sought. But Le Corbusier never made this mistake, designing rooms in which the light comes from one side through windows covering an entire wall.

                   Oh, what a capricious factor. A very difficult problem to deal with when it comes to obtain good, even lightning for different parts of the room. Skylighting is not so good because the light from it is too much diffused. Neither is side light alone satisfactory for, though much better, it does not penetrate deeply enough. The solution then???...logically it is the combination of both. I understood that a more or less concentrated light- that is, light from one or more sources falling in the same direction- is the best in which to see form and texture. What is more interesting (and also a cute fact 😊) is that at the same time it emphasizes the closed character of the room.  In the example of campfire was obvious the fact that people who were within the circle of light have the secure feeling of being together in the same room.

                  Wait a moment! what was then the discovery of Franc Lloyd Wright? Nothing more than the logical interpretation of the inverse of the fact we stated above: If you wish to create an effect of openness you cannot employ concentrated light. His designs best describe this point of view.

Furthermore, examples include the church in Ronchamps of Le Corbusier, a very worthy contribution to architecture, but also a wonderful means of expression the artist possesses in dayliht and its distribution, as Le Corbusier says: “Architecture is the learned, correct, and magnificent play of the forms under the daylight…”

                                                                                           Color in Architecture

                   Red, green, blue, black yellow, grey. What is the common name for all these? Colour. Color influences our mood, affects how we view certain things. Colour gives life to paintings, makes them breathe, but what is the role of colour in architecture? When a painting loses its color it no longer exists as a work of art but this is not true of architecture, for the art of building is first and foremost concerned with form; with dividing and articulating space. In architecture, color is used for 3 main reasons: to emphasize the character of the building, to accentuate its form and material and to elucidate its divisions.

                 As everything else, the basic colors were the natural ones, then man started to discover how to make the materials more durable then they were from nature’s hand, and new colors began to appear: red, yellow bricks; deep black wood.

                 From the text I understood that there is a deep connection between the material and color, because we do not experience color independently, but only as one of the several characteristics of a certain material.

                The control of color in building materials is a new step in architectural design, but since our imagination seems to be very slow to grasp new possibilities, on the whole we use the colors that we are accustomed to see around us. This was pretty obvious in the example of Norway and Sweden’s log-houses, which were painted red as an imitation of manor houses.

                 Another interesting fact I found out in the text was the usage of color as a symbol (In Pekin, bright colors were reserved for palaces, temples and other ritual buildings while the ordinary dwellings were made colorless artificially.)

                 Except the main roles, color is used for many purposes like to hide the blemishes  and defects; when you use a single color, orf definite color scheme, you can suggest the chief function of the building etc. I found it very interesting the theory of German Theorist about the different proper tones of color in different types of the room, which made me stare at every detail of my bedroom (where I was working)  and made me feel very excited that I understood how color deeply affects our lives.

                Color is also connected to the surface because it often happens that when an attractive color seen on the walls of a particular room is copied in another room, it loses its attraction in the new surroundings.

However, as all other architectural elements, color cannot be strictly defined. No directives which is followed closely can guarantee a good architecture.

       Some examples:

-Copenhagen City Hall: technological details, color is used to enhance the materials and underline the building technique

-Faaborg Museum: instead of emphasizing material and structure, color is used to characterize the rooms instead.

 

              “Color! What a deep and mysterious language, the language of dreams.” As Paul Gauguin states, color, but not only, is a powerful means of expression for an architect who has something to say, because a true artistic spirit uses every tool he can use to make his wonderful, magical world become real.

From the past to the present-week 7

                Architecture…sometimes categorized as art, sometimes categorized as building “correctly”, by strictly obeying the rules. What is the truth? Including architecture in only one of these categories is not only superficial, but also very wrong. With only a little thought it is understandable that architecture is neither of them- it is a wonderful and excellent combination of both. It is somehow like us, humans, who have our objective and subjective aspect. As we have also mentioned before, architecture doesn’t consist on beautifying buildings, but in building beautifully. It is very sad to see not only in the past, but also in the present that architectural criticism describes the architectural works only from aesthetic and formalistic point of view, with no evaluation or appreciation for the technical aspects of them. You can see plenty of beautiful and extraordinary projects which are impossible to be built. Of what value is an architectural idea that cannot become a reality? This, in fact, is very damaging in the developing of the new architects, who are shown some wrong aspects of the meaning of being an architect.

                Years, decades, centuries... many of them has passed since the beginning of architecture, so there are plenty wonderful, marvellous buildings produced by architects, starting from the Seven Wonders of the World etc. What is something that catches our eye in all these beautiful giant buildings? As was also mentioned in the text, there exist structures which are technically perfect and are aesthetically inexpressive, but there doesn’t exist any building which is aesthetically excellent and is not also excellent from a technical point of view. From this I understood that good technology is a necessary though not sufficient condition for good architecture. Let us examine more this fact.

                Making use of solid materials, creating space for a specific function, protecting it from the external elements… all these components define the magical process of building. But what should we do to achieve the so-called building “correctly”? Obviously, there are some conditions which we need to fulfil: stability, durability, function and economic efficiency (maximum results with minimum means). Although they seem very objective, each of this condition has a subjective and psychological component which relates it to the aesthetic and expressive appearance of the completed work. How come? Let us discover it.

                Stable resistance to loads and external forces can be achieved by either by means of structures that the beholder can immediately or easily perceive or by means of technical artifices and unseen structures. It is evident that each approach causes a different psychological reaction which influences the expression of a building. What does this mean? A building, although may be perfectly structurally safe, won’t give you that sense if the walls or the roof don’t provide this feeling. Similarly, an unstable building can sometimes create a feeling of particular aesthetic-though anti-architectural expression.

                A stone wall obviously has a different character from a brick one. Where does this sentence lead us to? Proper usage of materials. We all have a tactile sense and subconscious appreciation of the physical qualities of the materials most commonly used, so that seeing them correctly used, according to their natures, influences the general impression produced by a work of architecture. So what should we do? As architects, we should always consider the proper choice and use of materials, which constitutes the first condition for achieving durability and lasting quality.

                Also, the proper portioning of the sizes, the richness of ornamentation, and the preciousness of the materials with respect to the purpose for which the building will be used are in my opinion the main conditions that lead to economic efficiency. Excess of any of them can cause vulgarity and disbalance, which are the basis of good architecture. Ethics is also very important.

                Evolution. A powerful word that reminds us the enormous progress of mankind, technology and nature. What do we notice in architecture throughout this process? As technology becomes more advanced, the closer becomes the relationship between the building process and architecture. The fundamental structural elements have evolved and become richer in ornaments, but their origin and the cause of their evolution has always been a knowledge or intuition of the building process. From the examples in the text (cornices, pediments of windows used to protect the façade; architraves, arches used to reconstruct the continuity of the wall above an opening; bosses etc.) I understood that all the characteristic details of the architecture of the past were born from a technical necessity but quickly acquired such a precise aesthetic expression as to seem to be an end in themselves. This process is found throughout the history of architecture.

                What are Romans famous for? Roman baths. The Roman invention of thrusting roofs and the consequent introduction of powerful horizontal forces in the static interplay of structures radically modified the planimetric distribution and at the same time made possible internal spaces of shapes and dimensions unimaginable in the preceding structures based on the architrave-column system. Because of construction necessities the linear and elementary Greek plan gave way to an internal compartmentalization of walls which when placed perpendicular to the central nave can absorb the horizontal thrust of the vaulted roof of the nave itself. In this manner a new construction system was created- “termale” (of the baths), a system which gave origin to internal spaces of powerful architectural expression. What was the important fact then? That the technical solution of the termale scheme permitted the creation of spaces of an architectural expression completely different from that obtained with the older techniques even when they were carried out on a grandiose scale. This scheme was taken up again throughout Europe during the Renaissance and remained substantially unchanged until the end of the last century. However, this structure was economically inefficient.

                The flying buttress, the clear visualization of the principal lines of forces along the diagonals of the groined vaults, and the extension of these lines down to the foundation…what does all these components have in common? Gothic architecture. The golden period, when the tie between aesthetics and technology was so evident, the building science so refined and the architectural expression so powerful. Also here is difficult to determine whether the technical inventions preceded their architectural use, or whether they were the direct result of research in building construction in order to solve an already mature aesthetic and formal concept. Entering in Gothic cathedrals you experience a miraculous feeling rarely felt in other architectural works. Being there, we can’t determine whether it is building technology or aesthetic beauty that gives this feeling. How can one perfection be separated from one another? They interconnected together make us experience this beautiful feeling. Even here the evolution is visible at Chapel at King’s College, Cambridge.

                Time flies. Eras change. So did the technical intuition era. It was replaced by the scientific technology. The establishment of “structural mechanics”, the mass production of steel and concrete; social development and the consequent demand for buildings of progressively greater dimensions… all of these transformations in the process of building were brought by a combination of scientific, technical, industrial, economic and social developments. The designer of the past was unable to verify his intuitions with calculations, he was forced to follow simple static schemes, adapting them to his needs and proportioning them according to his own feelings. But in this period things changed as scientific technology replaced the technical intuition.

                The same conditions needed for building correctly in the past are also needed nowadays. In the structural field, whose importance is expanding daily with the continual increase in the dimensions of the buildings, I think that, generally speaking, technical correctness coincides with the naturalness and comprehensibility of the static scheme. The aim of this scheme must be to solve a specific problem in the most efficient manner and with a clear expression of the materials with which it was built.

                Personal or impersonal? many architects and critics have tried to find an answer to this question if the building itself is much more aesthetically or technically oriented. By the examples in the text (the Eiffel Tower, the bridges of Truyere, the famous bridge of the Firth of Forth) I understood that we cannot determine whether the designer in these cases considered only the technical and objective data when planning the static scheme or, on the other hand, was more or less consciously influenced by the various aesthetic expressions to be derived from the application of the different solutions.

                In conclusion, we can surely state that the relationship between Building Technology and Aesthetic Appearance are present in buildings from the past to the present. What should we do as architects then? We should make a dual investigation:

As a builder: who is able to understand, evaluate, and appreciate the problems of various methods of construction.

As a non-technician: who considers only the aesthetic aspect and wants to enjoy its beauty, like observing a work of art.

                Architecture is a wonderful field of study for the fact that has an artistic element, which following the proper techniques becomes a functional and important part of our daily lives. We, architects, have the possibility to develop and make our dreamy world come true and spread its joy and beauty with all the other people in the form of magnificent buildings, being technically and aesthetically perfect, mo matter what period of time is as also Frank Gehry says:"Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness."

 

Additional information

The color contrasts

  1. The contrast of hue (the triad yellow/red/blue represents the strongest contrast of hue)

  2. Light-Dark Contrast (day-night, white-black)

  3. Cold Warm Contrast (red-orange versus blue-green)

  4. Complementary Contrast (two color’s pigments mixed together yield a neutral gray-black)

  5. Simultaneous Contrast (when given a color, the eye requires simultaneously the complementary color even without being present.)

  6. Contrast of Saturation (degree of purity of a color)

Solids and cavities-week 8

               “We see with our brains, not our eyes.” A quote that reminds us again that the visual process isn’t just an image that is stored in our retina, but it is the way how our mind perceives different things.

We recreate things by making it similar to something we are familiar to and disregard the rest.

Mentality, susceptibility, education, environment and most spontaneous and dynamic one-mood…all these elements have an enormous effect in the way we experience the object seen. There are no definite rules; there is no objectively correct idea of a thing’s appearance, only an infinite number of subjective impressions of it. There is only one thing that never changes, the thing that makes architecture a very beautiful and charming field of study, as well as a bit confusing and mind-blowing: “THERE DOESN’T EXIST AN UNIVERSAL TRUTH IN ARCHITECTURE, ONLY INFINITELY UNIQUE TRUTHS.” The emotions we experience when we see a building are unique and we are somehow like actors, who deeply experience something they perceive. For example, if we see a picture laughing we feel well too. Sometimes, like primitive people, also civilized people treat lifeless things as though they were imbued with life. For example, in classical architecture, many people receive the impression of a heavy burden weighing down the column, just as it would to a human being. We see this similarity of objects to people in Greek columns and in chairs. Also, there exist many “organic” forms which neither resemble nor represent anything found in nature. This fact is demonstrated in the example of the “Jaguar” car which recalls the speed and brute force of its nickname.

               The Opera House in Sydney. What is special about it? The way its parts are connected as a big harbor of boats make us easier to perceive architecture as a whole , rather than as the addition of many technological details. But what makes these details appear as a hole? Geometrical rules. Behind every space there exists a rule and behind every rule exists a reason, an idea. Nothing indeed creates a more vivid illusion of space than the constant repetition of dimensions familiar to the eye and seen in different depths of the architectural perspective.

                Seeing a picture of a place and visiting it is completely different. By the example of Brinckmann, where in the moment we enter in the medieval city we just perceive as a city with equal houses, without worrying in a part of it how it will look from that point. You sense the atmosphere and you are no longer dependent on the angle from which the picture was made. You breathe the air of the place, hear its sounds, notice how they are re-echoed by the unseen houses behind you. But what happens sometimes? Some streets and plazas are deliberately laid out to be seen from a particular spot, which is the best position to give the best impression of depth, of an interesting vista. This is seen in Baroque layouts, in the sights of Rome, Mount Aventine etc.

                But this is a rare exception because normally we receive only a general impression rather than details. But what happens? As curious creatures, we tent to come closer and analyze our first impression making it more specific and finding out more details. We start to use our imagination and to complete the shapes in order to perceive a whole shape or space. It’s a bit funny the fact that the mental process that goes in mind of a person who observes a building in this way is very much like that which goes on in the mind of an architect when planning a building. After having roughly decided on the main forms he continues by adding details and then using materials he creates a structurally stable but also pleasurable building. An interesting example was the cathedral of Beauvais, where purely structural features were treated aesthetically, each one given almost sculptural form.

Working hard in perfecting our structures, we, architects, forget that construction is, after all, only a means and not an end in itself. We need to give form to the materials we work with because building material is the medium in architecture, so the form and space of the building differentiate according to it.

                  Structure, solids… are these the only ways we use during the process of design? Of course not. Architecture is the art of playing with solids (forms) and cavities (spaces). Imagination provides infinitely ways of work and one of them is that instead of working with structural forms, with the solids of a building, the architect can work with the empty space-the cavity- between the solids, and consider the forming of that space as the real meaning of architecture. Some elements that create cavities in architecture are:

  • Horizontal elements (base plane, elevated base plane, depressed base plane, overhead base plane)

  • Vertical elements (vertical linear elements, single vertical plane, L-shaped plane, parallel planes, U-shaped planes, four planes closure)

  • Openings (openings within planes, opening at corners, openings between planes)

  • Spaces ( spaces within a space, interlocking spaces, adjacent spaces, spaces linked by a common space.

Also, organizations of formal and spatial elements are: centralized, linear, clustered, grid, radial.

                   Architectural space is born from the relationship between objects or boundaries and from planes which define limits. These limits may be more or less explicit, constitute continuous surfaces forming an uninterrupted boundary, or on the contrary, constitute only a few cues that the observant will use to perceive the space.

Spaces can be explicit or implicit, and all the possibilities in between.

                   Examples include the two-dimensional waves, where once you see the vase and then you see two faces in profile; the weavings etc. We can mention the Beauvais Cathedral, where in the first instance it is the stone mass of the cathedral which is the reality; in the second the cavities within the mass. Also another example was the cave temples in Karli, India, which were created by eliminating material-that is by forming cavities

                   According to that, architects are structure-minded, others cavity-minded. But even we start thinking only about the cavities, or only about the structure, in the end we end up constructing a building containing both of these elements, because they are very closely connected to each other and we can’t imagine a building without perceiving the powerful connection between these two elements, a connection similar to the figure-ground relation in two dimensional designs. Consequently, different architectural periods work preferably either with solids or cavities:

  • Gothic Architecture (12th to 14th centuries)

  • Renaissance architecture (14th to 17th century)

                   Structural, vertical where, sharp pointed structures… all these elements lead us to Gothic architecture where the love of forms was extremely dominating.

                    Renaissance… Listening this word reminds me one thing-that golden era where a drastic architectural transformations were seen: from dominating vertical elements to dominating horizontal ones, but above all from an architecture of sharp and pointed structures to an architecture of well-shaped cavities, the same sort of change as that from seeing the vase as figure to seeing the two profiles. A favorite Renaissance form is the circular, domed cavity. The Renaissance cavity was enlarged by the addition of niches.  

                    The contrast between solids and voids has been effectively used after Renaissance, in the period of mannerism, where architects experimented with the forms, to create combinations that were rich-in contrasts of form and color.

                     Form or cavity; structure or space? Which is going to win? Neither of them will be winner, nor will be loser. This “fight” seems to continue but each of them wins only a battle, not the whole war. It seems to continue the tendency toward the love of forms (in Copenhagen City Hall), but also toward the love of cavities (in Police Headquarters). This continuing contrast is what creates that special grand visual effect in architecture, as in the house of Frank Lloyd Wright. This contrast makes possible the development of scenario, of that visual drama, that makes us feel us feel so excited with its great magnificence. Nothing can be compared to that extraordinary feeling you get once you are inside a building with perfect mixture of solids and cavities.

ARCHITECT AT WORK-WEEK 9

                Artists, designers, doctors, engineers… so many different fields of study. Each of them is special and requiring a lot of effort in their own manner. But what is one common thing, which is fundamental for all professionals? Decision making.  Architects also, need to make some decisions according to specific problems, which makes them so special and different from all the other designers and planners. Firstly, they have to deal with locational analysis, but so do town planners and geographers. They have to deal with structure, servicing and environmental control and so do the specialists of building design team. Another thing they have to consider is the judgment over matters of cost and they are called quantity surveyor. And last but not the least, architects need to take into consideration matters of interior design, which require the skills of an artist. Till here someone may think that an architect is not that special since they have a work similar to other fields of study. So what is that thing which makes an architect and architectural thinking so special and unique?

                 Space concept. Architects, in contrast with other planners and designers, are concerned with spatial ability and, in particular ability, with their capacity for visualizing, generating the three dimensional forms of buildings, interior spaces and the spaces about buildings. This is a very special, fundamental and important ability, according to me, and we(me and my fellows) also, are dealing with this issue in our studio final project. It has all to do with the quality of spaces and their way of connection. So what have architects done to generate and emphasize more this ability? They have used four distinct ways of generating three dimensional forms which are described as pragmatic, iconic, analogic and canonic. Let’s see what which of them mean.

                 Let’s go back to ancient times where people lived in wild nature, more specifically in Palaeolithic settlements. They started to understand that the site offered by nature was not sufficient and conventional for their daily needs, so they needed to build relying to their desires and needs. These were the first trials for designing buildings. Not being faced before with this process they kept trying different forms, making errors and learning from them. So pragmatic design was born, a type of design which is also applied in our studio course. All buildings, finally, do this effect of reconciliation between man’s needs and the climate as offered by a particular piece of ground. That is still the fundamental reason for building: the site as offered fails to provide a suitable climate over an adequate part of the year, for the things we want to do. But is the physical climate the only factor which affects the way of construction of a building? Of course not. There are a group of factors which affect the way a building will be modified such as cultural climate-social, political, economic, moral, aesthetic etc. However, in broader concept of climate, building’s purpose is still climatic modification. From the examples of Eskimo’s igloo, mammoth hunter’s tent, Indian’s tepee I understood the importance of materials, climate which change the building’s construction and appearance (with ice in igloos, with mammoth skin and bones in mammoth tents etc.) I also understood the importance of pragmatic design, which is also used nowadays, especially when proving new ways in which materials may be used. The mechanism by which a form is repeated in great distance, in space and time is open to discussions by social contacts and by re-inventions.

                 Okay then. The climate is controlled and after many trials it seems that a functional form of house is achieved. What happens next? Where does this discussion lead us to? After thinking of shape, what we need to do is to think about physiological part of the site; more clearly we need to think about site’s cultural properties. The houses built by Indians aren’t the same as them built by Egyptians. What does this mean? Each culture seems to have a fixed image of what an object should be like and that subsequent generations of that culture keep on building that object in the same way and with the same shapes. This is called Iconic design. By “iconic” it is meant that an artifact reminds us of its object by some kind of resemblance.  Iconic design attempts to match between the controlled climate and the available resources of the culture itself. The form of an object becomes so bound up with the way of life of a society that the pressures against changes become very rigid. In my opinion, this type of design has some positive and negative aspects: this way of designing is positive for the fact that different cultures are saved throughout years, but is negative for the fact that there is no evolution, no dynamics it is just a static form which is repeated and lacks of creativity, but it is also inconvenient with other buildings. Because years pass, eras change and so do architecture and the types of buildings.

                   Egypt… that beautiful country which reminds us the pyramids consisting of an extraordinary architecture, which seems so impossible to be realized in that area. Of course that behind these magnificent structures something bigger is hidden. Analogic design, a method of generating new forms, is found. The use of new forms aroused by analogical processes are firstly seen in the funerary complex designed for King Djoser at Saqqara. Mastabas, the only kind of buildings in that time near Nile had an analogy with the heap of stones which burial shafts had come to be covered with- a pragmatic device to prevent the sand flow away. Imhotep used the analogy extended from the forms of the buildings themselves to applied decorations, such as capitals carved in the forms of flowers etc. What was a great thing behind these structures? First architectural drawings. It drawings started to be used in the translation of known visual forms to new usages and, even more important, that the drawing itself begins to impose conventions on the designer, to suggest order and regularity of a kind which otherwise he might have not envisaged, and to mislead him in many other ways. Whatever design analogues we use, be they drawings, three-dimensional models, computer programmers even, the analogue itself will almost certainly impose its own conventions on our designing and thus distort what we have intended to do. From the examples of Unitarian meeting house of Wright, Khan’s performing arts centers, Ronchamp of Le Corbuiser, Calatrava’s gallery, Sydney Opera house, I understood that Analogical design is a structure which includes visual analogies with other structures or natural features.

                   “Follow the grid lines.” A sentence which we have heard a lot from our professors during the studio lectures. Why so? Because everyone of us, as architects, should have a clear image in their mind of the structure being built and should try to express it through a functional system. A proportional system will provide the designer with authority for a great many decisions about the shape of the figure, the size and the shape of the façade, a window a doorway which otherwise would depend on personal judgments. But what happens? Some architects are indecisive and lack confidence in their own ability to make judgments of this kind so they look for authority of geometric system, mostly Greek mathematicians. Fire, water, earth and air… all these elements of Plato’s universe structure are formed from equilateral or isosceles triangles. In the example of Unity Temple, we see a combination of pragmatic, canonic and analogic design and all seems to have been a mater of geometry in a highly complex and subtle form. In my opinion, canonic design is very useful and why not fundamental to architecture because it makes our work much more easier since we have this regulating grid system that helps us continue our design. I have noticed this property especially in my 3d planar studio project, where I decided to divide the big cube in 8 smaller cubes and each of them was rotated according to my rule. It was much more easier to complete the whole project successfully.

                     Because in order to build well, and distribute our efforts, in order to obtain solidity and unity in the work, units of measure are the first condition of all. When we design or whether we build, we take a module, a unit of measure, the human scale for example in architecture or the pace, the elbow while building. When combining these modules then new diverse forms are generated. One attempt of this: so to let the materials generate the form, is seen in the Brick House plan.

                     Pragmatic, iconic, analogic, canonic…not only these types of design, but all the other types of design are needed to generate three dimensional forms. Each one of them is unique, each one of them gives us special clues that lead us in designing and maintaining such beautiful, marvelous and functional buildings. 

bottom of page