Composure and Composition in Architecture
As I always do in architectural theory, especially after Thursday's class, I was inspired to look at architecture from history and how it approaches ideas of interior and exterior architecture.
I often scroll through Instagram and of course, my algorithm knows me well, and shows British colonial, minimalist, New England-ese architecture, and almost always am attracted by these building's elevations/faces. In many ways, I think an elevation is one of the strongest drawings in architecture because they are a personality - and many buildings of history aren't very honest - yet I think both honesty and dishonesty can be equally a good or bad thing. (The Pyramids of Giza for example, although extreme, are so dishonest to their elevation, while the Greek Parthenon is extremely honest - by seeing the building, you can guess its interior,..)
The building's face can be composed and have rhythm and proportional order that isn't always expressed inside. This is what gives a building personality, intrigue?, and becomes more of an experience of "getting to know" the building.
Of course, when an English Palladian palace comes across my feed, the symmetry and bays of the elevation are often expressed in its plan, there is an expectation of order and rules in plan that the facade professes.
In many of the buildings from class, I saw both of these aspects - honesty and dishonesty - and I think much of the debate between interior and exterior motivations in architecture can be compared further with this dichotomy - apart from technology of enclosures that we are so honed in on today. All this said, I don't see it as a question between interior architecture and exterior, but how the building expresses itself to users - is it honest to its users or dishonest?
Lastly, I really like this quote from Bobby McAlpine, as I think it applies to this conversation: "I trust a house you can see through - it harbors no secrets.”
Also honest?
I really like this distinction you address - between honest and dishonest architecture. That is a great way to decide the success of a project, although we tend to focus on what looks nice on the surface, even if it is dishonest on the interior. Projects with conflicting facades like in your first image are interesting at first glance, but also make me uncomfortable... like, which one came first? And did the newer envelope get designed without any regard to its original history? Is this a dishonest move or a personal preference of altering a building's vernacular?
ReplyDelete