Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
On-Line Course w/ MA Torres-MacDonald TA, Layne Scott
course material
readings, tips, & references
class page archives
-
▼
2010
(17)
- ► 05/02 - 05/09 (1)
- ► 04/25 - 05/02 (2)
- ► 04/11 - 04/18 (2)
- ► 04/04 - 04/11 (1)
- ► 03/21 - 03/28 (3)
- ► 02/21 - 02/28 (2)
- ► 02/07 - 02/14 (2)
- ► 01/31 - 02/07 (1)
- ► 01/24 - 01/31 (1)
Posts
As architecture has passed through different stages in history, there seems to have always been a great attraction to unconventional works that take sometimes unnecessary risks. It might be this that has kept the practice of architecture strong for so long, as that seems to be what society seems to be attracted to the most. While these buildings may be very appealing and beautiful, being based on an interesting aesthetic of the architect, they do not always follow through with the purpose of design. This topic goes back to the idea of architecture fulfilling the necessities of commodity, firmness and delight. While these buildings may easily follow through in delight, Tom Spector states that some of these “experiments” have made for “uncomfortable living, never worked as promised, or weathered poorly.” In these cases, the designer neglects some of the most important parts of a building’s design: the use and purpose. According to Spector, I would consider myself to be a pluralist when it comes to design, while probably leaning more toward the strict moralist side of the spectrum. I consider the building’s purpose and use to be a bit more important than the aesthetic that pushes the design, simply because a building can still be utilized comfortably while having a weak aesthetic. Accordingly, it is my opinion that this should be the first goal of design. Now while this does not mean I condone the neglect of aesthetical design, it is near impossible for any architect to consider all of these things equally, much less create a completely successful design out of it. But the key to design through the mind of a strict moralist can be specified; a successful building can be attained when a particular aesthetic can be developed out of the purpose and use of a building. However, while this idea may be a stakeholder in an architect’s ethic, it naturally must vary based on the building type. Therefore, in Frank Lloyd Wright’s defense with regard to the Guggenheim in New York, the main purpose of a museum design is inspiration and awe. While some refer to the building as “unworkable,” it does fulfill this idea based behind the specific building type. These kinds of topics make an answer to the question about morality vs. aesthetic very relative and possibly unattainable, as the ethic of an architect in this case is based entirely on personal preference.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Phil as well as Spector, first I would like to say that the argument between function and beauty is an interesting dilemma. To start, are we as designers trained to make beautiful works of “art” that users are able to occupy? Or in fact are we functionalists, serving our clients to create something that can completely fulfill their needs, allowing for all desired actions to take place easily? I like Spector’s seemingly frank answer, “architecture is something that architects do” though he still avoids any sort of answer as to what this means. So, do we as human beings not enjoy the pleasantries of beauty? Like Spector points out, there is free beauty, which is something that nature creates, and for whatever reason, be it the element’s simplicity or hidden complexities, we become fascinated and attracted to its form. However, we as architects, or even humans, are only capable in creating ideal beauty, which above aesthetic pleasure, it holds an “intellectual component.” So then are we as architects required to create an element of contemplation or maybe keep some elements from being figured out and realized until a later time, basically holding a sort of time-release effect? This time-release element is an interesting concept and even Spector argues that some memorable buildings “were immediate successes; while others, it took some time before the challenges they posed to interpretation were met “ and “a building’s aesthetic value is generally long-term, while use-value can be startlingly mercurial.” Finally then, if a building can withstand the “tests of time” and adapt or serve its original purpose the building should be regarded highly as a reputable creation?
ReplyDeleteIn response to a few questions I have already seen, I think that as designers we are meant to both create these works of "art" as well as be functionalists. Architecture by definition as we all know is the melding of the arts and sciences. So I believe that both of these elements have to be fulfilled. Now going as far as to say "creating something that can completely fulfill a client's needs" is a tough task. Ultimately as human beings I think though it may look as if the client is fully satisfied with the designers work, eventually I think the client will find something they eventually don't like. But as designers it is important for us to always strive as hard as we can to create a harmony between function and aesthetic of a building while simultaneously working endlessly to keep the client happy.
ReplyDeleteLooking at Spectors three strategies on observing the moral values and aesthetic of architectural work, like Phil, I too lean towards the pluralist and this because I am on neither extreme end on the ideas of functionality and aesthetics; I feel that both are absolutely necessary in the hands of an architect. If one cannot both successfully meet the needs of the clients program while also creating an aesthetically pleasing structure then for that project they have not done their job. The difficulty in the last statement though is deciphering what is considered to be “aesthetically pleasing”, because if it is pleasing to the client and you meet their programmatic needs to them you have fulfilled your duties. However, most of the time they have not been educated in a design heavy background so is their idea of beauty relevant to a worldly view of beauty? To me it requires a truthful agreement between both the client and architect that the aesthetic and utility needs have been achieved.
ReplyDeleteI am going to agree with Michael and Phil on the side of being a Pluralist. This is because I too believe that the function can be just as important as the aesthetic beauty. However, I like to look at the two or three if you are using the Vitruvian triad, not as separate elements but as combined theories each feeding off one another. It was Luis Sullivan that said form fallows function. He didn't say that form is less important than function or function should be considered and thought through more so and earlier than form. He combines the two i believe saying that they are just as important as each other and that with truly good functionality comes truly beautiful form. Because while it is very important for a building a to perform well, it is just as important for it to look good and speak to the people entering and exiting.
ReplyDeleteMarshall, you make a good point about form following function. I too believe they are very important and that true beauty can come from a well functioning building. I like to walk into a space that just works. There may not be extra ornamentation or anything special but to just walk into a room and see that is serving its purpose is a great feeling. From there you can start to analyze the building and see how the columns are expressed and where they meet the beams and when subtle lines in the floor match up with the ends of the walls and etc. The true beauty is the building working as a whole to accomplish its goal.
ReplyDeleteI do have one question for everyone though. If you bought a brand new TV and it was the most beautiful thing in the store. You have been saving up for this TV, have a special spot inside your home, have the surround sound speakers already set up, and are waiting to just plug it in and watch some HD movies while eating some popcorn and drinking a beer. You get home, and it just looks wonderful on your wall and you are the happiest guy/girl. It comes time to turn it on and you notice that the TV turns on and it plays a few basic channels, but you go to press the input button to switch over to your movie you just rented and it doesn’t work. You check all the cables and everything is connected and plugged in right and it still doesn’t work. After you calm down and stop cursing you are probably loading the TV up into your car and speeding back to wherever you bought it demanding a return.
Now think of how people feel when they hire a world class architect and they go through the same process. They find a piece of land, get everything set up, market the place have investors putting their hard earned money into the project to get it built. Finally after the construction you see this amazingly beautiful building and all the architecture magazines are taking photos and writing stories and it is history in the making. The problem is on the second day it rains and half the building leaks. How can this building which essentially performs to the same quality of this TV we bought, still be perceived as good even though it isn’t meeting basic functions?
I personally believe that you can’t clearly decide which side to take when beginning a design for a building. Many things should be considered including, but not limited to, who will be using the building, what the purpose of the design is and the buildings ultimate long term purpose. For example if a design is mostly for a competition without any direct client interaction than a higher consideration for the aesthetics is acceptable. On the other hand, if a client approaches you for a project with the main purpose of designing a useful building for a business or school than designing for the usefulness would take precedent. However, neither should be completely ignored while the other is set above all others on an architects one-track mind. A healthy balance for both is what makes for the best designs not only at the beginning but over time.
ReplyDeleteI have read the posting above mine and although I think they all make good points and I completely respect them, I lean more towards the function follows form. Like Marshall mentioned, form is not less important than function or vice versa, but I feel that sometimes we can get a little restricted on the form when we have a fully developed floor plan, but this can go both ways. Nobody wants a beautiful but unworkable building; on the other hand, even when you have a completely functional building but the client is not satisfied with its aesthetics, as architects we still have not done our job. As post-modernist challenged the importance functionality had for modernist, we must not allow form to become the importance of our architecture as it has with starchitects.
ReplyDeleteThe author finally strays from absolutes, sort of. Spector still labels the extremes, The Aesthete and the Strict Moralist. He also includes the Pluralist, a middle man who designs with aesthetics and function in mind. Finally, some grey area. There are grey areas in everything, even the Guggenheim. To some, it may not function as well as the MOMA and looks like a crab shell. Spector refers to the museum’s complete lack of functionality with its spiraled exhibition space, saying art works look crooked or out of place. If that is the case, take it up with the curator, Spector. Find artists that have works that will fit, or artists that are willing to create for the space. Create for the space, create functionality; don’t throw a building under the functionality bus when there are so many others that would benefit more from a lesson in first year design. I do appreciate the grey area (The Pluralist) because that is what most good designers try to, and should do today. Using common sense and good design judgment (Synthesis) is what makes good design good design. Im going to go with Marshall on this. I agree that there should always be a combination of form and function, following some ratio agreed upon by the architect and the client.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Tom makes a very good point in the distinction between the use and aesthetic values of a building, and we as architects have a responsibility to deal with both and not only to design a building for today but to also make sure it will respond well to tomorrow’s environment. Therefore as professionals we cannot let ourselves “succumb to fascination” within a project but must weight the imaginative with the practical. And how one weighs these issues, or disregards them, reflects directly on their values and ethics. The “aesthete” is an interesting stance on design as they play little concern with the utility of the building, and Spector brings up a good point about the aesthetic value being solidified for the life of the building, which is contrasted in many cases to the utility of the building being altered regularly. As such we can look at the aesthete as more of an artist than an architect, where the form may be connected too knowledge and virtue it disregards being an aid to society within a functional aspect. By adhering to this outlook as a professional one must make moral justifications to defend their decisions. The strict moralist define their moral values and that of societies as the main driving force within a design process. This view is beneficial within the functional spectrum of creation, however I do agree that in some instances it would dilute the aesthetic decision making when regarding the designed environment as a whole. As architects we must not be tentative in our approach to a project, while I believe that one should address all of the issues from a societal point of view, you can’t allow minor restrictions and inconveniences to push the majority of a design. Depending on a certain persons values and experiences that they have, which every one of us are different, each person will see and in essence judge the building differently. I do believe that a pluralist view with the field a necessary and would in fact be the best stance to take while going through a project, but like wise each project is different and as such the aesthetic and functional aspects have to be prioritized within each project. I also agree with the pluralistic view of the definition of architecture being what the majority of people with the profession say it is. However, this still leaves the theory of relativism out there when comparing “good” and “bad” architecture. The “synthesis” view of merging two different entities to make something new is what I believe must be done on every piece of work. This not only evaluates both form and function but also by looking closely into each aspect one also projects a moral standing within a project. Kant’s solution then focuses on “ideal beauty” as not only form but it is also intertwined with an intellectual component that transcends the face of a structure. Intern this relates directly to architecture while we strive to create a perfect solution to all projects. Within this idea it drives a connection between what we perceive and what we understand about a building, which in my opinion would envelope both the exterior and interior. In this argument a building must represent a harmony throughout the design and such read as the architect intended. I also agree with the thought about the thick and thin conceptions of over analyzing the importance of consistency of moral judgments in which cloud an architect’s vision in work. And as we have moved into the 21st century I do believe that as a society out morality has “thinned,” which makes it even more important within our profession to implement a “thicker” stance on issues and from there present options that would adhere to societies benefit.
ReplyDeleteOn the above postings I would have to agree that as an architect one must consider numerous issues for each project, however I would also ask where do you decide the "cut-off line" for consideration would be considering their are infinitely different ways to approach a design and what delineates the hierarchy in which you are to tackle these problems.
I believe these are all good points. Many things should be considered when designing. It is easy to make the simple distinction between form and function, but there is a point where they overlap. It is there that good design resides. I think a structured synthesis is mandatory in finding usable, aesthetically pleasing form and space. As designers most of us are predisposed for this way of thinking and that is refined through study. We then carry it with us in the way of our style when solving a problem or creating with purpose. I think with this synthesis form function and everything in between are or should be looked at in a singular response. In the example of the Guggenheim, the function was sacrificed for the form. The move to create a gallery for works of art was done without giving any regard as to how the works would be viewed. It was an expression by Wright that was only that. With the ramped walk and the poor lighting he gave the paintings a skewed and awkward appearance. This says to me, in giving up on the function and lack of synthesis he in turn took away from his main focus which was the form or aesthetic.
ReplyDeleteSpector riffled through several types of theories within this genre and effectively compared them to one another. However, the terminus within each particular classification spurred from where they derived their definition of success. For some, it was inherent within the design and self-justifying (aesthete). However, the pluralist found meaning through the usual, external modus operandi: balance. As I’ve said with regard to previous chapters, I cannot concede to an all-encompassing premise stating that through equality or diversity alone, good design can be produced. I believe a hierarchy of variables, a competition of sorts between these variables is the equation for good. A building’s function can be art and vice versa. Just as seemingly antithetical programmatic elements can facilitate one another in proper setting, so can art and utility. However, I feel that one must often serve as the foundation for design, from which other elements may flourish.
ReplyDeleteI think I can most relate to Kant’s solution when it comes to this discussion. Beauty is in the result. If the ‘finality’ of a building is shown with simple function in response to a complex problem or set of restraints there is inherent beauty there. Although it would be considered ideal beauty, it is beauty nonetheless. In the case of the Guggenheim, free and ideal beauty are in direct conflict. There is an initial thought of free beauty, but with further investigation and knowledge of the steps involved ideal beauty is not realized and free beauty is lost.
ReplyDelete-Lexie Lowers
I also agree with the Pluralist. I think it is impossible to base your judgment of whether a building is both aesthetically pleasing and meets all requirements for function with one way of thinking. These two matters are different and should be judged in to different ways. I understand that on certain buildings such as the Guggenheim since its design was a risk, despite its minor function problems one can overlook these things and admire its beauty. When it comes to buildings that do not necessarily have any function, but are innovative in design it is pointless to base your judgment on function. On most buildings I do agree that both function and aesthetic must be considered, but less of one does not make the other any less. Although I beleive to have a completely successful building one must consider both.
ReplyDeleteChapter 4 reading
ReplyDelete“Venustas”
The reading this week focuses on Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim building. The asks the question of function versus beauty. Aesthetically the Guggenheim is a very pleasing building, but on the other hand it does not function well as an art gallery. Which do you choose? Does the fact that the building doesn’t function well make it a bad building, even if it is beautiful. The author takes to approaches, Aesthet and the Functionalist. He then argues several different theories on how to decide which is better.
While reading the first several pages of the reading, I had already determined my stance on how I choose to perceive the merit of architecture. I thought of my position to be not only objective, but original as well. Then the book introduces the idea of institutional theory, which happened to be my thoughts exactly. I feel that architecture should consist of sound functionality as well as successful aesthetics. And while I do recognize that these are both subjective items, I feel that it should be open to the interpretation of professionals what is considered architecture, art, engineering, etc. Will this be cause for debate? Of course-- but I feel that providing an open dialogue for educated ‘experts’ to discuss such matters does much more for architecture than does placing such rigid guidelines going either way.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 4, Venustas, the author once again brings up an important dilemma in architecture, form vs. function. Like many other people in our class I have taken a standpoint most similar to that of the pluralist. I believe that both aesthetic and function are important in the creation of successful architecture. Trying to reconcile a judgment based in functionality and aesthetic can be extremely difficult. In my opinion, each of the two categories being broken down are complex and in many ways subjective which is what makes giving a final judgment so difficult.
ReplyDeleteRegarding chapter 4, Venustas, I would (like most of us) fall under the category or pluralist, but on the side further away from being an aesthete. I believe that issues of function and aesthetic should be factored into a building design, but I believe that function should be weighed much heavier in the formula than aesthetics (although it depends on the intended use of the building). I believe that in most cases, function should be a more influential design-driving factor than only the aesthetic properties of the building. I think a responsible architect would focus more on creating a design that is heavier based on function and building longevity/life-cycle rather than just building aesthetic alone.
ReplyDeleteThere are those in architecture who design for function, there are also those that design for a look or an aesthetic. Though a building, such as the Guggenheim, is an amazing spectacle, it does not necessarily function in the most appealing of ways. One could assume that this is not ethical because the architects job is to create buildings that are not only aesthetically pleasing, but that function in a way that people may use the space to the fullest. Personally I believe that there are two ideas behind architect and the client is free to choose either. There is an architect that designs on a composition, or art basis or there are those that design based on function and then apply an artistic ability to the exterior of the building.
ReplyDeleteAs stated by previous posts, the task of an architect to balance form and function is a daunting one. I agree with Peter that beauty and form can come from function and that there in an inherent beauty in something that functions flawlessly. Throughout history, aesthetics and forms were developed following the needs of buildings at that time. Ornamentation itself can be a function for a building. The introduction of stained glass ornamentation in gothic cathedrals, for example, is part of the function of the spirituality of the building. As a place representing religion, the building needs to aid in producing those feelings of religious appeal in the occupants. If either form or function is the basis of a design and then the other follows as an afterthought, both results in incomplete and "ugly" projects. A sculpted building that does not function is not successful as is a functional building that has no form or has merely had aesthetic "stickers" applied to it.
ReplyDelete