Sunday, April 25, 2010
Reading Chapter 7 - Style
Our final reading chapter addresses Style. Please take the time to post your comments about this chapter. You may also respond to a comment made by another student. Do not post a synopsis of the chapter, rather, your opinion/views or a query in response to the reading. It is about what YOU think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Throughout the time frame of architectural history, building style has been a driving factor in design with regard to time period, culture and functionalism. While each style has factors that make it the ‘most ideal form of architecture’ to be used, there is no clear definition of what style can be used to encompass all architecture due strictly to function. I believe that over the past centuries, there has always been some sort of building style like modernism, deconstructionism, etc. that has be identified as the style of that time period. But it seems that as of late, we no longer have a strong identifiable building style that we can call the style of our generation. To my understanding, this is for a reason; as a society it appears that we have finally realized that there is not one specific type of architecture that can suit us as a whole. Accordingly, it is a combination of all parts that made the previous types great where we can find it. Now this does not create a whole new building style unbeknownst to man; it simply means that success in firmness, commodity and delight comes from the choices made by the architect in that specific project and the style that they derive it from, not by the style itself. A building style may work conceptually in style, but if it does not suit the client, it is ultimately a failure. So while it is style that should assist design, style should not drive design. If style drives design, the architect can easily miss out on the many factors that can make the building better, which is always a constant goal of the ethical architect.
ReplyDeletePhil - I really appreciate this comment and it is certainly insightful. Your sentence, "Now this does not create a whole new building style unbeknownst to man; it simply means that success in firmness, commodity and delight comes from the choices made by the architect in that specific project and the style that they derive it from, not by the style itself." sums it up well. Suiting the client, responding to context, understanding form and function - makes for a great challenge for the architect.
ReplyDeleteStyle, in the words of James Ackerman, is how “our perceptual mechanisms cause us to interpret what we see in terms of what we know and expect,” we as individuals create certain results so that “my best efforts [are] likely to differ from yours.” Then Spector explains, “the word ‘style’ acquired and retains the taint of the provincial…” for architects who hope that their work is “more than ‘mere style’…[believing that] the subject of style is unworthy and of no abiding value.” I can sympathize with those who feel the need to reject the notion that they are followers of any particular style, yet I feel as though it is impossible to say that any of us are able to design without the influence of style. Put simply, style is the way in which we ourselves decide to carry out the task at hand. Spector asks, “Can this self-consciousness be overcome?” meaning, are we able to work without being aware or influenced by others? My answer is no. In no way are we able to design without personal style. Still, this does not mean that we are expected to “initiate a new style” like the mentioned Picasso, Wright or Gropius, but that we only have the ability to draw from our inherent strengths and weaknesses unique to ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Adrianna that everyone uses a style but i would like to further what she said with my own thought that everyone has their own particular style. I'm not saying that people choose which style they like best like modernism or post modernism but that everyone actually has their own personal style that they put forward in most if not all of their projects. This is usually most pronounced in the great architects of the day who were able to place their own personal stamp on their projects at an early point and became so well known that people would come to them not technically to make them a building the way they wanted it as a client but to make a building that emulates the "style" of the architect because they are known for their personal touches that make the buildings they design great. An architect could, if they wanted, make a building from any of the main styles such as modernism while still maintain their personal style. sometimes you can see a building you know nothing about but can usually guess what architect made it, if they are an architect known to actually use their personal styles in a major way. Besides style never really affects the present it is only what future generations choose to classify the current trends as. We cant know that their is no particular style being used right now due to this fact.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMarshall's last two sentences, to me, sum up what was going through my head as I read. Style is hard for us to definitively define until after the style has become history. I think of it like art, there are a lot of amazing artists in the world, but it seems all to common for their work not to be recognized until they have passed. I do believe that as we design we have a style in mind, or that we have been, in some ways, molded to design using the ideas that are embedded in different styles. The question to me becomes what style will be popular as I develop? Another question is how can I as an architect manipulate my design in order not to mimic, duplicate, or represent a style, but instead create a style of my own?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the author is arguing a the wrong point, or that he is just to late to see it. This is the fact that even though these movements do not refer to themselves as having "a style", they still by all definitions have a style. It is like an anarchist professing that he does not follow any movement. This is just simply not true. He may not follow any destinct principles, but he can still be catagorized under this ideal. This is the same as the modernist, post-modernist, and so on; they claim to be above "style" but history will still catagorize them as a style.
ReplyDeleteI think in order for a particular personal style of an Architect to become a certain style of Architecture it has to be sufficiently appealing, and meet new demands that satisfy the community and others. And to be considered a style at all it has to encourage others to want to work within that or their particular style. I think choosing or creating a certain style to work in comes from the needs of the client or the functionality of the building. So stlye does help in designing but the design comes from meeting requirement for the building,community etc..
ReplyDeleteI thought that this chapter was very conceptual and I found myself thinking about many of the thoughts and examples that Tom displayed. Working within the limitations of humanity; that's to say we only have a short time to leave an impact on the world and transcend our own existence with that of a style towards something more. We as professionals live to serve not only clients but also society in order to better the environment in which we live in. The problem with almost all of the theories that are presented within this book are that they focus on a certain issue and leave the remaining, not necessarily unresolved, but in the background. I believe that it is the dream of every architect to leave a style, and in essence a legacy, to the world. And through this style leaving a gift and a new way of thinking about things, which directly reflects the individual. However, I do not believe that an individuals style is fixed to a certain "type" because as it is a reflection of the architect as he/she grows along with that of society (technology, building conventions, ect.) I believe that the individuals "style" will undoubtedly evolve with it.
ReplyDeleteThe part of the chapter that really stood out to me was the statement near the end of the reading as follows:
ReplyDelete"To have created a new style of architecture does nothing less than provide new ways of seeing, means of expression, new ways of coping with the world, and not least importantly new ways of reinventing community by creating new dialogues. TO work within a style is to enjoy the community of one's peers and to capitalize on the work of one's precursors. To have created a style is to have given a gift to the world, an ethical achievement of high order."
I think that this differentiation between working within a style and the creation of new style is extremely important and contrasts the statements of "everyone has their own style". I believe that everyone has a composite style, that is unique to themselves and incorporates variations and elements of other defined styles, but to say that each person has their own style is a drastic overstatement. The text talks about how Frank Lloyd Wright created the Prairie style, and his imitators were testament to the extends of the achievement of creating his own style. To me, in order for someone to have their "own style" they must be a successful, tried designer who has designed with this particular style on many occasions. I believe that as an architect, one of the greatest and most admirable career achievements is the universal recognition of your personal creation of a style, and then the repeated use of other architects designing within your style.
As Brendon and Marshall both stated, I have the same ideas and beliefs towards how we deal with style. Each person has the ability to create their own style and most do it whether they realize it or not. I do not think there is any way someone can not have their own style in design, unless they simply and blatantly copy anything and everything they've ever seen. That being said, we use precedents in everything we do in order to influence the development of our styles. Some of us may stick to a more modernist approach and some may lean towards a deconstruction approach, but everyone in some way is shaping those styles into what they believe works for them. What has worked and what does work for someone creates the basis for their style.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many above when they stated that style is something that can only be clearly defined when looking back on history. Furthermore i think it can be potentially impossible for an architect to have one single style they use since style, especially when referring to historical styles, come out of time and location, not just what architect was designing a building. I think it is best to not conform to working within a certain style or create a new style but to see style as possibly a late thought when designing and instead focus more on location and desires and let a style find itself into the design.
ReplyDeleteThe Ethical Architect – Chapter 7– Jared Rooker
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tony that anyone claiming to design outside any stylistic realm is a logical fallacy. It is like claiming that there is NO truth in the world. In essence, one is claiming that it is true that there is no truth. Is “lack of style” a style in itself? However, I think Spector is arguing that the word “style” has become tainted and misunderstood. The chapter is devoted to redefining style and its history through a moralistic thought process.
For me, the following quote sums the chapter up quite well: “Regarding the world from one’s set of excellences and weaknesses becomes, in effect, one’s style.” Essentially, the outer limits/differentials in any movement is inherently defined as/by “style”. I agree that style is not a word to run from, but I do think it is important to understand the role of “style” in the design process, just as Phil, Marshall, and others have noted.
I would agree with the previous comments that it is impossible to say that any of us are able to design without the influence of style, and my answer would also be “no” when asked if we are able to work without being aware or influenced by others, because everything around us influences. We shouldn’t try to reinvent the wheel with each project, because I believe almost everything is already invented we just have to see in it a different way, and like Phil said it simply means that success in firmness, commodity and delight comes from the choices made by the architect in that specific project and the style that they derive it from, not by the style itself.
ReplyDeleteIn the analysis of style in chapter 8 several points stood out to me. I agree with some of the previous posts in that everyone has their own particular style or style preference. We utilize our strengths and weaknesses along with influences from our background and existing styles to develop a design that meets the needs of the client. I believe that firmness, commodity, and delight must be addressed before style can be integrated. I also agree that the definition and creation of style is only something that can be judged over time. We are constantly being influenced by our surroundings and as new solutions are needed we develop designs/styles to accommodate them. I don’t believe that you can simply create a new successful style because you want to. It is something that has to be generated over time.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above comment in regards to style being inherent in anything we do. There is, in mind, little you can do to get away from that. There really shouldn't be any need or want to stray from that either. Most of our ideas and thoughts are built on our personal associations with the world around us and their priorities as we see it. Aside from anything directly copied or duplicated style is something that will show itself in anything we do. It can be argued that most of our style is just that; our interpretation or aggregate of a copies and duplications.
ReplyDeleteLexie Lowers says:
ReplyDeletePersonally, I like stylized architecture. I like that when something is made, it is based on precedents. Something was done before, it worked, it is a style, and people like it. For example, take the Tudor style. It is one of my favorites for residential architecture. I don't see a problem creating new architecture in this style like in the new neighborhood south of town. As long as it is "true" to that particular styles architectural elements it is great.
Lexie Lowers says:
ReplyDeletePersonally, I like stylized architecture. I like that when something is made, it is based on precedents. Something was done before, it worked, it is a style, and people like it. For example, take the Tudor style. It is one of my favorites for residential architecture. I don't see a problem creating new architecture in this style like in the new neighborhood south of town. As long as it is "true" to that particular styles architectural elements it is great.
As Jared pointed out, I also feel that there cannot be a “lack of style”. Many people (perhaps most often outside the architectural world) consider minimalism or modernism as a “lack of style”. However, these two movements, most notably modernism, were simply reactions to the time and context in which they were conceived. I think this is the essence of style. It is also one of the reasons why most of us cringe at the sight of the English/Philosophy complex here at Texas Tech. We are bothered by it because not only because it is a blatant throwback to a time in which Texas Tech was not even in existence, but also because it is a careless application of one.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Eddie’s post, he brings up a common topic of discussion within the architecture building, the English/Philosophy building. He says that the building is, “a blatant throwback to a time in which Texas Tech was not even in existence, but also because it is a careless application of one.” While his first statement is true, Texas Tech was not around the time period that building is referencing. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Would you also categorize the Whitehouse the same way? The Whitehouse was designed much later than the Greek architecture that it is referencing, but it was built that way to establish the city’s style. I am not saying the English/Philosophy is a perfect building, but I do not cringe at the sight of it. I actually enjoy the building and think that it was a bold attempt that had a little bit too much influence from some alumni with deep pockets. For example, the bell tower was not part of the original design but was added because an alumnus wanted it.
ReplyDeleteThe style of that Texas Tech has established is Spanish Renaissance, and while I am no expert on that style of architecture, I feel it meets the style. In chapter seven Tom says, “A style must be sufficiently appealing and capacious for others to want to join in its conventions.” Obviously the style that is being portrayed is sufficiently appealing and many people enjoy it enough to invest millions into it.
I also agree with many others that style is as individual as each and every person is. I also agree that we cannot define ourselves now until we look back in the future. If anything is dominating the current style trends, it is the sustainable movement we are all so familiar with. General styles for periods of architecture are defined by 3 things: money, technology, and context. Of these things, context should determine style above all else. Materials, techniques, size etc. (money and technology) will follow to build for what is appropriate for the site. We look at what is appropraite by studying architectural precedence, climate and materials of the area. Hopefully with the sustainable movement, contextual style will be what our generation is most known for.
ReplyDelete