2 legged stool
"A projective architecture does not shy away from
reinstating architectural definition, but that definition stems from design and
its effects rather than a language of means and materials".
-Notes around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of
Modernism, 2002
This quote is problematic for me. I understand the implied separation
of ‘built’ and ‘pure’ architectural form that is implicit in Somel and Whiting’s
writing as well as remarks in Peter Eisenman’s, Post-Functionalism. However, as a student of architecture I cannot
stomach the idea of compromising a buildings ability to function for a profound
understanding of spacial sequencing. If a building doesn’t function, it doesn’t
work. With a total disregard to this basic architectural thematic Le-Corbusier
and Eisenman are kicking a leg out of the Vitruvian triad; removing it from form
and deducing the principle into a line.
I completely agree. My main goal in architecture is to create spaces that will make the lives of the people who enter and use the space better. If we completely turn our back on function (although the space could provide a unique experience or provoke an emotional response), we are essentially making the lives of the users more difficult, complicated, and stressful.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. If a building does nothing to improve the lives of its user, or does nothing to contribute to its surrounding context it becomes clutter. Seeming out of place, not contributing and distracts from the surrounding context without giving anything in return.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. You put it very well when you describe the triad being reduced to two. The building's importance and success is of course connected to the whole: firmness, commodity, delight triangle but really if you take away the commodity, what was the point of it in the first place?
ReplyDelete