Tendenza

This week's readings were about Italian-based architecture and theories from the Italian architects. The readings this week are things that I've never been able to grasp or wrap my mind around so I took this as an opportunity to go outside of my boundaries of understanding and try to capture the main elements in the readings.

I want to start out by posting a quote from "The New Architecture and the Avant-Garde" written by Scolari.  "..there is no architecture, only buildings and architects. Architecture, except in rare cases, is a plaything of the imagination, a clever combination of forms, a game of pencils, compasses, lines and squares." The quote was one from Camillo Boito.

Next I wish to define that architecture is: the profession of designing buildings, open areas,communities, and other artificial constructions and environments, usually with some regard to aesthetic effect.  


Now once I look at the quote from Boito and the definition of architecture, it makes me wonder:  who has the authority to claim good or bad architecture?  What makes one work of architecture bad from another work?  And who has the right to define the good or the bad?  I've said before that architecture is one field that is very complex and impossible to understand in entirety.  What I may feel like is a bad work of architecture may be an outstanding work to another, and vice versa.

Take the building below, for example.  This is an example of Italian architecture, but is good, or is it bad?  My personal take on this building from just this picture (without any other knowledge of uses) is that I see a building that is not merely a square/rectangular form.  The different angles of the exterior walls catches my eye, and the the upper portion of the building isn't the same shape as below, so it begins to mix horizontal and vertical shape.  I would have to say that I wouldn't consider this architecture "bad" from this view, but I'm sure many people would disagree.  But who's right?  Is this bad architecture?  Can we put a pure description on what good architecture is?




I want to finish today's blog by sharing my thoughts on the method of design.  I believe that there are definitely right and wrong methods of design that could determine the success one may have.  I also believe that each individual architect/designer will naturally develop a method that works best for him and her.  I think a method could begin to form from the perspective one takes on his work.  Whether you view architecture as a living space that begins to take one with the earth, or maybe even architecture as a realm of spaces, or as we have read this week, the urban artifact as a work of art.  I think that this could be a deciding factor that forms a preferred method of design.

Louis I. Kahn

It is the beginning of the Winter Quarter and I am now in Architecture 361, Architecture Theory: Special Topics.  We started the quarter off with several readings from Louis I. Kahn and his works.  What we begin to look at here is: Form is what. Design is how."

     As nearly all students have, I have heard of and seen projects by Louis Kahn, but never knew how big of an impact he has made on architecture of today.  I was extremely impressed with what Kahn had to say about his approach to architecture and the things that have influenced his projects over the years.
     I would like to start with a quote that I came across in Jan C. Rowan's "Wanting To Be: The Philadelphia School":  "I believe the architect's first act is to take the program that comes to him and change it.  Not to satisfy it, but to put it into the realm of architecture, which is to put into the realm of spaces."  Looking back onto the projects that I've done over my short 2 years of studio, I realize that one key facet of design I was leaving out was this transformation of the program into the realm of architecture.  By doing this, you begin to view your design as the arrangement of spaces that solve the problem you are given.  When you allow the program to become a system of spaces, you are allowing yourself to understand your project and how the solution begins to take nature and form itself.  I feel like what a designer does when he doesn't allow this change to happen is prohibiting himself/herself to a more pleasing design.
     Allowing your project to form itself by nature is something else that Kahn talks about.  When Kahn tells his story about the brick who wanted to be an arch, Kahn is saying that you have to allow architecture to begin to form the way it naturally wishes to flow.  As a designer we cannot force designs to happen and yield a project that is monumental of any sort.  It is easy, however, to force a design for a project when the project is really screaming back at you that it not what it needs to be.
     After reading this week's literature about Louis Kahn I am inspired and have an additional perspective of  architecture.  There are innumerable quotes from Louis Kahn that could inspire and drive architects to become better designers of architecture.