Theory in Early Arch. Education
The content of this week prompted me to think about my architectural education and how parallel it has been in the ideas and theories of Peter Eisenman and Colin Rowe vs. - and after class today between “Doppler Effect” and Libeskind. I would give credit to Palladio’s, Colin Rowe’s/Eisenman’s theories for projects that forced us to study precedents and their use of axis/tartan grids/proportion, while the ideas behind Libeskind and other architects we looked at today I’d relate to projects that we had to study boundaries and form.. Very different project prompts and now it make sense as to why they would structure the curriculum like that - 2 opposing views on the theories behind design.
I think it's interesting how theory influences our education differently over time. It seems we all begin architecture school being taught the logical form-follows-function, analyzing precedent works by modern architects who used that design process in their work. And then suddenly we're doing just the opposite in our projects, using golden ratio, existing geometries, etc. to define our forms in a more indexical approach, which we then assign a function. I agree that Eisenman's way of thinking has made its way into our education.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience I evolved from a very geometry based way of thinking to a more form follows function. Why is this? I think its because in my early years of school I was taught to analysis patterns within buildings. Look for proportions or ways in which shapes played a role in design. It wasn't till much later I was taught about how form plays a huge role into design. Why was I taught this way? When making decisions with design you have to start somewhere and set perimeters based upon something. Whether that be patterns and rhythm or form contributes to a rich and layered visual experience. I think as early designers we don't initially think about form so possibly that is why we are taught? Is it easier to think in geometry than form?
ReplyDelete