The Reality of Theory
I believe that a lot of the architecture we looked at in the last couple of classes are excellent examples of the disconnect that often occurs between theory and reality. For example, house VI by Eisman is quite interesting in models and drawings and it’s impressive that he was able to theorize in writing so well even though his conclusions do not seem to hold the weight they once did. The same could be said for the Edificio Mirador by MVRDV is an amazing building from an architectural perspective with very impressive drawings and model. However, I wonder how the people within the public respond to it.
Do we design for architects, or do we design for the people? There are so many buildings that architects drool over. We are enamored with them for the architectural inventiveness but, when showing pictures like this to people who are not in architecture, they often give you a funny look with an expression that says, this is good architecture?
How do we find the balance between theory and beauty?
Scurry, you make a good point. How can architecture find a balance between theory and beauty? I always found that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and is also subjective. Theory, on the other, is a set of abstract ideas that make up a new way of thinking. This is hard to conclude because a small group of researchers influences architecture. I believe there should be a balance between beauty and theory but also needs and wants. We need a building to function properly and perform to its highest quality, but we also want the buildings to tailor towards a specific user or community. I’m not saying we should not think about beauty or theory, but we should use both as a tool to help strengthen our ideas. Architecture is weird in a way that we must think about science and art together.
ReplyDeleteScurry,
ReplyDeleteYou make a lot of good points. I often think theory loses sight of why we design buildings. For theory to have a positive effect on architecture, the theory cant lose sight of the user. Architecture like Eisenman focuses on abstract ideas like geometry rather than the user groups that are impacted by the structures they create. To create great architecture the user must be the driving force.
Hey Scurry! A few of the points you made in your post were interesting. You asked do we design for architects or people, and I think it depends, but I don't want to say it is either. Even if the design wasn't created with the fullest intentions of designing for the users, people adapt the design to serve them anyways. I don't believe good architecture relies on a design's physical properties (aesthetic quality, functionality, etc.). Instead, good architecture has to have an excellent physical design that positively impacts people mentally.
ReplyDelete