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)
- ► 04/04 - 04/11 (1)
- ► 03/21 - 03/28 (3)
- ► 03/07 - 03/14 (2)
- ► 02/21 - 02/28 (2)
- ► 02/07 - 02/14 (2)
- ► 01/31 - 02/07 (1)
- ► 01/24 - 01/31 (1)
Posts
Personally, I tend to look at myself and my work as being more towards the functionalist point of view because at some point a design will be used functionally for something. That being said though, just as Spector explains in the chapter, I don't feel that a building loses it's meaning or value just because it isn't functional. The example of a hypothetical situation with the Salk Institute is a good reference. If the Salk Institute someday eventually stopped having people working in it and using it for every day uses, I don't believe it would lose it's value at all. I think every design and designer has to touch on aesthetics in some regard. It may not be a great deal or as much in comparison to say functionality but it most definitely should be evident in some aspect.
ReplyDeleteChapter 6 reading
ReplyDelete“Context”
The author begins this chapter by defining what the general theories on context are. The author states that there are six widely accepted theories; these are Modernism, post-modernism, traditionalism, historicism, environmental, and social activism. Of course the latter being critiques of Modernism. The author makes that argument that the implications on the urban environment cause by modernist universalism have had a dramatic effect on the cities of the world. For the author, modernism and the push for modernist skyscrapers, hotels, and office buildings, especially in the developing countries of the far-east, has created many social problems that are directly contrary to the modernist idea of architectural morality and social justice through design and function. However for the author the reactions to modernism, such as traditionalism and historicism, are only stepping around the issue. The author argues that each of these reactions has measurable points and justifications, but that none of them creates an overwhelming response to modernist ideals. The author uses the example of the Louis Kahn SALE Institute addition of a administration building. The author argues that the choice of trying to adhere to Kahn’s original designs and sketches could become disadvantageous. The author makes the point that the original project underwent several design alterations through out construction and that the most relevant space within the project, the courtyard, was not even added till the very end and only after consulting with the Mexican architect Barragan.
Technology is advancing more and more and the ability to modify a building to fit into any environment. As for Louis Kahn’s Salk Institute, I would have to agree with the aesthetic point of view on acknowledgement of value pluralism. It makes sense that in order for this building to be socially successful that is also has to be aesthetically pleasing. No one would want to hang around a plaza if it was completely unpleasant even if it had a starbucks. To try to discredit one point of view is not the best way to go about it but to acknowledge each point of view.
ReplyDeleteI, like Joel lean mostly towards the functionalist point of view. I think that in the end and the beginning for that matter all buildings are designed to fulfill a purpose and we are called to be more than just sculptural artists but also to respond to a need. To me it doesn't matter how beautiful the building is, if it is not functional than it is not good architecture. For example if the Salk Institute did one day stop being used than it might still be beautiful but it would not be a functional building and therefore in my opinion would not be architecture anymore. I am not saying it is losing any value I am merely saying that if it ceased to be functional than it would cease to be architecture but would still have value as art because of the beauty. But the Salk Institute is both functional and aesthetic so we don't have to worry about that.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I see value in the functionalist, the historicist and the aesthetic points of view and believe that a collaboration between them is necessary, I believe that my value about context measures most closely in relation to the functionalist point of view (especially in relation to the example of Louis Kahn’s Salk Institute). If a space does not function well it will not be used. Spector illustrates the importance of function in context perfectly through the statement: “Architecture gains meaning and value through use.”
ReplyDeleteIn typical fashion, Spector weaves his way in and around the concept of Context in chapter six, offending no one and everyone at the same time. Context, when surrounded by its Vitruvian peers comes across as feeble and unsound. Presently, it seems that subjective, non-absolute feelings rule whether or not a building’s context enjoys successful implementation. Spector even says this is “evident by the esteem with which the building is held.”
ReplyDeleteThis untimely interpretation lends itself to moral debates between timely sects. The war, which Spector eloquently titles: Modernists vs. not Modernists (“its critics”). I do appreciate Spector's example in which he details Louis Kahn’s Salk Institute and the eternal debate between those embracing history, function, or aesthetics. In the end, however, they all approach “success” with regard to a timely and modern (and consensual) foundation. For me, this comparison merely exacerbated my doubt with regard to Context’s comparative value to other elements of function.
While all buildings have a context of the setting in which they sit, Spector claims that particularly in the United States, this has been contributing to ethical issues in architecture. For example, the “Santa Fake” adobe that is used in New Mexico has been criticized as poor architecture due to the fact that it is not the same material as the adobe historically used in the area. But while there might be a problem with the falsification of building materials, there still might be an underlying reason why it was done, especially if an effort was made to make it appear as real. But this is only one way that Spector claims is a context issue in architecture. Another deals with building designs that are placed in a setting that is not pertinent to the ideal that the building conveys. A modern building that does not factor in the climate or topography of the area that surrounds it initially becomes an issue of the ethic of the architect. It is the duty of the architect to find a way to deal with ALL the aspects that affect the design of a building. If the building type needs to be compromised in order to successfully execute a building design that fits into the context of the surrounding area, then it needs to be done. While “Santa Fake” may be a conflict of false building material, it at least takes into account both the functionality of the architecture while making an attempt to stick to the important historical context of the area. However, it is the job of the architect to find a way to limit the falsification of materiality while maintaining the building standards that are important to all types of architecture.
ReplyDeleteI believe that I would tend to view myself, when measuring context, as more of an aesthetic thinker. This being said I believe that all three are pretty closely related when incorporating context into a project. Most of the vernacular pieces within a composition would lean towards the historical, but through generations of mastering techniques with a certain region these historic parts of a building become very functional. The same being said with function, when these “historically functional” aspects of a project are developed they lend to a reoccurring aesthetic theme which ties the entirety of a context together.
ReplyDeleteI, like so many already that have already written, see my ideals face strongly towards the functionalist point of view because every project an architect is given has a specific function set behind that building that the architect’s design capabilities need to satisfy. No one has something built just because they feel like a structure needs to be there with no functionality what so ever, that’s what sculpture and art is for, and even then they still have aesthetics as their function. I do feel that if a building ceases to have a function then it no longer becomes necessary and therefore loses its value, and examples of this being common is whenever any structure no longer has a tenant to pay for it there is a good chance it will get torn down. Now this doesn’t mean a building cannot have a change in function, from let’s say a school to an office building, but a building with no function is unnecessary, even if it has unbelievable aesthetic appeal. These same ideas apply in reference to Spectors’ hypothetical Salk Institute situation, it simply couldn’t just remain uninhabited.
ReplyDeleteI believe if that my ideas as a soon to be architect are of the functionalist point of view. I believe that design is truly for a function. Whether or not one is able to make the function have an appealing aesthetic or a unique apparent concept is secondary. The primary objective, in my mind, is the functionality of the building then one can begin to consider the "prettier" side of architecture.
ReplyDeletePhillip,
ReplyDeleteI appreciated your synopsis, but perhaps you could post your reaction to it? See some of your classmates posts.
I'm reading a lot of interesting view points here. One of the best things about the blog is that we can see a representative variation in attitudes towards design. It takes me back to those first few lectures on ethics and the consideration we take in design. What is a good building? For me, a question must always be underlying the work. You have to come from a place of query.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of what Allison said, I also feel that there is room for collaboration among some of the different ideologies. Although I have considered myself to share the same opinions as the functionalists throughout the semester, I definitely acknowledge the merit in considering context in non-objective terms. However, I would not go as far as agreeing with the notion of “Santa Fake”. I feel that there is a much better and more responsible way of paying homage to the old methods of construction (adobe), while simultaneously addressing aspects of the environment (climate, topography, etc.). As others have mentioned, I feel the Salk Institute addresses ideas of context very successfully without compromising aesthetics.
ReplyDeleteNelson Chen states “context will be appreciated only after is has been lost.” Therefore, I will take a historicist point of view to which I interpret to mean that even when we try so hard to plan for the future use of projects, it ultimately is in the hands of the users. Ultimately, the user must find value usually exhibited in a certain functionality of the design, otherwise the project will become vacant and unused, both failures in my mind. If a place can withstand and last thought sufficient periods of time, then personally I would call the project successful. This is not to write off newer projects that also serve their constituents early on, but I would say the more successful a project is ultimately, is measured by how long it can function in a way that is desirable to its users. Finally, I will add that I do not believe that for a project to be deemed withstanding it must continue to serve only its original function. As this chapter deals specifically with context, we are all aware of continual growth and the notion that context will change as time passes. Thus, as this takes place, inevitably places will change as generations of users are replaced by newer ones.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone type can be left out but i definitely agree with many of the above that without functionality a building loses it's purpose and while it may be nice to look at for those walking buy if there is no functionality a building can not serve it's need. However, on the opposing side functionality can't be the only consideration. Even users may not feel their need is fulfilled if a building only functions well but is not aesthetically pleasing.
ReplyDeletePhil and Eddie bring up Santa Fe and the abundance of the fake adobe throughout the city. Since I am from New Mexico, I am quite familiar with the area. Santa Fe has many regulations on the building types and even the colors of the buildings. More or less you get to choose from varying shades of brown, and that is about it. In terms of context to the layman, it looks real and makes sense. It relates to the past and reinforces the local culture. While every single building may not actually be constructed with true adobe brick, is that really necessary? How often do you walk into a building and immediately inspect the construction materials? Just driving down the street you may or may not be able to pick out which buildings are true adobe and which are false, but what you do notice is a theme that is consistent throughout the city. This theme that is seen throughout the city gives the area a context that is unique in its own right.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading chapter 6, I find that like many others I lean towards the functionalist point of view. To me, there is beauty in cleanly functioning buildings or items. Aesthetics can come in with the ideas of materials and in keeping with context, but having a building that functions and meets the clients needs should always come first. Unfortunately, in cases like the Salk Institute, the function of a building might change. I agree with Marshall that the removal of a buildings desgnated function degrades the value of the architecture. Therefore, in order to prevent this as well as looking at the total building life-cycle, we must look at the bigger picture of functionality and make sure that a building designed for a particular function might also be easily remodeled to take on a different function at a later time. This of course isn't to be expected, but as we move toward a more sustainable future hopefully producing flexible and functional buildings will begin to occur more often.
ReplyDelete