Architecture, Patterns, and Mathematics

The traditionally intimate relationship between architecture and mathematics has changed in the twentieth century. Traditional architecture obeys rules that are intrinsically mathematical. Contemporary, twentieth century architecture has achieved a break with the past by eliminating those qualities. Mathematics is a science of patterns, and our mind perceives connections between concepts and ideas and links them together. Patterns are ordered and logical and in the mind mimic those seen in nature as well as man-made. Patterns repeat, can be scaled, have proportions, and achieve some sort of function. Patterns extends to solution space meaning that patterns inherited architectural solutions.

 

In Classical and Traditional architecture, there was a strong sense and grasp of mathematics and that reflected in the design of the pre-modern era. It seems modernist took the rectangular geometry of classical and eliminated subdivisions and subsymmetries (columns, cornices, etc.). There are no fractal properties, and one reason contemporary architecture appears unnatural, where classical is explicitly fractal. This can be seen in Peter Eisenman’s Wexner Center for the Arts. He uses geometries to break the traditional rules and orders of classical architecture and mathematics to elevate its expression and relevancy, while losing its function. How can we keep architecture relevant while maintaining function? As mentioned by another, how can we reunite the body of architecture with its soul? This is something I feel architecture has lost.