What is Architecture?
Ever since the Enlightenment, questioning has become the status-quo. The push forward of philosophy and rationale thought coupled with the separation of engineering and architecture, has had architecture searching for a purpose. “Architecture as the embodiment of the architect’s emotions has no justification. Architecture as a continuous building tradition mean being carried on the tide of building’s history”. Is this to say that no matter what changes occur Architecture will always be based on the historical model? What alternatives have been argued? What is architecture?
Up until 1747 Architecture was a process as a means to and end. Historically, this defined architecture as function. In 1851 consumption was the model and in 1918 mass production took the fore. Adolf Loos’ Ornament and Crime, saw architecture as a total environment, one with no past and no future. The 20th Century brought on the Modernist thinkers who thought architecture was to house and used the self-referential statement of “architecture about architecture”. The Bauhaus stated, “We aim to create a clear, organic architecture whose inner logic will be radiant and naked, unencumbered by lying facings and trickery; we want architecture adapted to our world of machines, radios and fast cars….”. Structuralists sought after the universal meaning, where “A” means “A” because everything is interconnected. Poststructuralists also believed architecture was to house, but took the stance that architecture was always moving and creating its boundaries. Semiotics showed us that architecture was about “Truth” and felt that it is what it is; a complex simplicity. Bernard Tschumi believed that architecture was a catalyst for events to occur. Architecture in that sense is neutral, it creates spaces that can increase or decrease actions. The Normative view on architecture is mass culture; the architecture of everyday. Finally, we see Phenomenonlogists who believed that Architecture is reality and is based on human perception and experience.
What does all this mean? We have several definitions to the question of what is Architecture. Architecture in classification is known as a formation or construction as or as if as the result of conscious act. The engineer may make the building stand up, but the architect is the conceptual basis for the design; the conscious act. The mind of the conceptual thinker has to be taken into account, because without these thinkers than we would be living and working in a bunch of Eiffel Towers. They are nice to look at and may form a sense of identity, but what is the function? Conversely, we see that function is not the only reason architecture is conceived in contemporary society. In the past one needed shelter and that is what the function was. Depending on the location and the materials available, these were the only other factors in play. As we see today, architecture must take the face of a multitude of motivation for conception. Architecture extracts feelings, creates spaces and becomes a total experience for use. One does not have to be a theorist to understand how a building makes them feel. Any person can walk into a spectacular piece of architecture and know that it is good as well as feel its power. This stance would in turn accept the ideals of Phenomenology and the humanist approach to the answer.
As Mies Van Der Rohe believed, drawings are not an exact image of a building. You can not convey the feeling for materials through a drawing. As it is, a drawing is only an image of what the mind has seen. Architecture is the attempt to convey what the mind of the Architect has perceived. Conversely, as the International Style conveyed a utopian idea of the ideal city, I believe that this type of imagery is impossible to achieve in a world dominated by capitalism. Unfortunately, for the Architect of today, money drives everything and land is not in abundance, we must work within the boundaries of the past and try to correct those past indiscretions to put some pieces back into the puzzle. This would in turn deny the Modernist stance of Architecture.
Starting from zero is impossible and the fabric of society can not be escaped. So does this mean we must repeat what the past has produced or can we learn from those mistakes and create a superior Architecture? The Architecture of today is not the architecture of ancient Greece. Technology has forced us to use it; from the elevator to the computer. Architecture is now produced in less time and is almost becoming a cookie cutter drive-thru business. Everyone wants it now and wants it under budget. Is Architecture a program a lay person can buy at the store to design a home without the knowledge of architectural history and theory? If so, what is Architecture then? Has architecture become the strip mall and the corner drug store, the Architecture of everyday? I do not think Normative Architecture is the answer to the question. Mass culture as a whole is uneducated and unskilled in the mannerisms of which Architecture requires.
Architecture is an ever changing ideal that goes with the ideas of the present and with respect to the past. Architecture can not escape tradition, it can not copy the past and it will always be in the process of moving towards the next great Architecture. The beauty of the question “What is Architecture” is that there is no distinct answer and it has been the question Architects, philosophers and theorists have debated over the last century and most likely will continue to do for the next century
Copyright © 2007 Adam A. Dailide www.studio-render.com
Posted in Architectural Theory and tagged architecture, definition, Editorial by Studio Render with 15 comments.
