It's all in the Details
"Far more significant is the fact
that visual representation of the building,
rather than its actual presence in the field, has come to define what
architecture is – and what it is not.The number of signature buildings
and places we know intimately through published or
projected images far exceeds the number we have experienced in real
space."
This excerpt in John Habraken's article Palladio's Children made me think about how architecture has been portrayed up until this point. From any publication or article, we immediately develop an opinion about the building, whether its a critique of the buildings form or how the program fits on the inside. What is removed from these images is the understanding we have of the portrayed buildings context and how the building naturally fits in its surroundings. Only when we see buildings in space do we understand how a building fits in its context, and how its details are informed by the surrounding environment. Even in school, we search for buildings based on what architectural styles we want to emulate without understanding the places they were designed for.
Understanding where a building is to be located, what material palette is best suited for that area, and how the building interacts with the environment are all critical factors that get lost when we appropriate other designs. Architecture is bad at lying. A building may seem good at first but over time it shows its true character. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to design buildings that don't try to be something that they are not.
Whoever you consider to be architectural masters, whether it is Paladio, Frank Lloyd Wright, Mies, Le Corbusier, Antoni Gaudi, all of them are architects of their time. They were all very interested in how their buildings worked with the site, how they fit in the surrounding context, and always considered the materials they were working with. With that being said, i think we can always learn from our past because no matter what architects do, the buildings that are designed will always be of their time and place. Its all in the details.
The quote you pulled from the text is interesting and unfortunately holds too much truth. We are so focused on the building centered on the cover of magazines, but fail to acknowledge that the blurred buildings around it and in the distance, are actually what give relevance to that architectural wonder. Perhaps we need a revolution, by posting buildings that work as opposed to buildings that look good. This may be able to help shift our focus to relevant design as opposed to eye-candy design.
ReplyDeleteYes, perhaps we should have some sort of iconoclastic revolution and shift the focus on buildings that serve their purpose in their context. It is hard to gauge what is working with the context though. Would we have to develop a system of grading for buildings in order to categorize which ones work vs merely being eye-candy?
ReplyDeleteI like the picture of Frank Loyd Wright's falling water that you attached. I have a book of his drawings at my desk that show his renderings of his buildings. He always portrays them as growing out of a natural setting making them feel like they are part of nature vs the Palladio's buildings that somehow feel disconnected (or at least how Palladio portrays them).
I believe Wright was a great architect for this reason, despite his terrible details.