Theory In Architecture Essay, Research Paper

When civilizations throughout the world no longer had to worry about competeing in order to survive, in its literal sense, the desire for the ‘good life’ was established among cultures. Architecture, by definition, is the art and science of design and construction; the study and representation of statics. To the ignorant, architecture may seem to be the “thoughtless design of buildings”, but it can actually be seen as a microcosm of society. Architecture Aldo van Eyck would hate to be characterized. He is the blend of practical usage; taking from both the past and the present without disregard for anything, keeping history in tension. This theory is known as Twinphenomena. He wants to reject Functionalism and the lack of originality in Modernism and return to Humanism- still searching for original solutions that lead to a subtle, innovative and appropriate architecture that effectively meets the users’ needs. Van Eyck himself, has been mistakenly thought to oppose Modernism, and has even been placed as a first ‘Post Modernist’. But he has simply reacted against the immediate reductionist architectural tendencies within modernism which held sway internationally for decades. Van Eyck is the self-proclaimed weaver of old and new, the interiorizer of the exterior. He is very aware of history and the benefits we all receive from it. Man has not changed in the last few thousand years as dramatically as some may perceive, “His natural genius”, as van Eyck states, “has neither increased nor decreased during that time.” We cannot reduce for the present without reflecting to the past. We cannot breath in without breathing out. He says that, “man still breaths both in and out. When is Modern Architecture going to do the same? We simply cannot breathe one way. We can hold our breath, but only for a short time. Modern architecture has been trying to breathe without breathing in.” He does not want to be limited to the past nor the present alone. However, he wants to take from both and begin to create for a reason and for merit, not for a template, and not just to change. “Architecture must extend those narrow border lines; persuade them to loop into realms- articulated in between realms”. He was concerned on what his space should be not what it should look like. He believed that “whenever the eye is the only gauge of architecture, it is never for the best”. Carlo Scarpa is an individual to say the least. Scarpa’s work is fiercely loyal to the language of modern architecture, but it is against the progressive weakening of the aesthetic in the modern idiom and achieves his personal style with its denial of style in itself. His insatiable desire for progress led him to work painstakingly all his life excavating architectural traditions, piecing together, absorbing and redefining forms that had previously been incompatible- separating opposites and eliminating simple solutions. He used, or rather juxtaposed, different styles without fear of criticism, passing through varied “figurative styles of modern and ancient architecture”. This combining, or the ability to not disregard anything, was part of his search for form in an impossibility of completing the search for those unattainable shapes that could “reconcile man with his environment and transport him beyond the uncertain and the temporary”. He wanted to create an experience more than he wanted to send out and make obvious his communistic beliefs. He wanted to combine not only different styles, but different experiences as well, in order to greater feel the space and less to define it. His work was meant for one to observed and experience- the complexity all without changing the intended functionality. If Scarpa had been an artist, a painter for example, “he would have completely painted the walls, floors, and ceilings of the interiors he was called to transform depriving the plane surfaces of their two-dimensionality and compactness revolutionized, without affecting the concrete functionality of the space”. Greg Lynn believes that architecture is perhaps the last discipline which not only uses Cartesianism for its expedient simplicity, but, more reprehensibly, hold on to a reactionary belief in the ethics of stasis. Architecture, by definition, is the study and representation of statics. Greg Lynn wants to change this. Over the past three years, Greg Lynn has produced projects that challenge traditional ideas about architectural design methods. His work has integrated the computer in its design process in an increasingly innovative manner. Used as a tool to investigate design decisions dramatically through animations and moving sections, and to represent the project in 2D and 3D. The computer then plays a part in the generation of forms in response to programmatic existences, and also model forces on the site- inflecting design. To him, throughout the entire history of architecture, virtually no attention has ever been paid to the development of motion-based techniques, due to a collective agreement between architects and society that their discipline is inert, that it is the study of statics. But he argues that, “Architecture does not have to be static to persist. The key difference is one of time; static architecture is conceived timelessly, stable architecture must be conceived in a time-based manner.” For the entire history of Architecture, interests in movement have involved forces as static forms through mapping. Through Greg Lynn’s methods, sites become not so much forms and contours, but forces and gradated motions. He doesn’t necessarily want architecture to literally move, but it must be “conceptualized and modeled within an urban field that is understood as dynamic” and characterized by forces rather than forms. In Laman’s terms, Greg Lynn believes that architects must harness the new technology and begin to use it as a tool for designing; a tool to open up the horizons and break the traditional threshold in order to see things in a different perspective. That perspective is flow and movement. There are forces which govern every site and every space, and Greg Lynn believes that with the help of technology and newly developed computer software, we can begin to make those flows do the designing and instill the constraints at which we abide.

As a second year architecture student, I feel as if I have not been exposed wholly to all forms of design techniques and theories, nor have I limited myself and decided my own theories. However, in just these three semesters. I have begun to think about my own values and approaches in my work which has led me to utilize other approaches, form biases, and become critical to some theories circulating in the architecture world. In the last three studio projects, The Approach in Troy, Central Park, and Boston, I have concentrated on using flow determine the design, as well as being careful not to destroy any language set forth originally. I believe in architecture that serves a function, creates an original experience, and also blends in with the surroundings. Contemporary architecture in ways, frustrates me. I do not think that architecture should be arbitrary shapes governing spaces which serve more as art than they do as function. Some architects today disregard the past and continue to concentrate on changing the profession. I admit, that forces rather than forms should be used in designing, but Greg Lynn has become a prisoner of change and disassociated himself from any of the genius of past architecture. Why must “Architects be mandated to operate with progressively increasing levels of abstraction”? An architect “cannot be a prisoner of tradition in a time of change. Rather he cannot be a prisoner of any kind- and at no time a prisoner of change”. True architecture, as we have learned in the past, has been a combination of merits already evident, as well as new discoveries and idea brought forth. For example, Roman architecture was purely Greek ideals which was manipulated to serve as function. The Romans then began to use technology and discoveries to improve and make better the existing architecture. They did not leave out or look over any form or technique, and Carlo Scarpa and Aldo van Eyck, for me, are easier to agree with. They have their merits, but like everything else, they also have downfalls. Unlike Greg Lynn, Scarpa and van Eyck consider their work as a combination of old and new in order to produce the greatest possible work to serve as a specific function. Scarpa, on one hand, leads his approach in order to form new discoveries once thought not possible. He admits that he is a communist; not designing for the capitalist machine or convenience. I can’t quite, at this point in my education, fathom the benefits or necessity to incorporate politics into design techniques. Can politics really serve as function, or does this too, lead to arbitrary ‘forms’? We can understand the connection between opposites by using a holistic way of thinking that blends the rational and non-rational, reason and intuition. On the surface paradox poses an either-or situation that is unsolvable. We are aware of the conflicting dichotomy and often choose one side or the other. By understanding how opposites are linked together, we can move to a higher level of awareness where paradoxes are not stone walls but rather are elegant forms of expression.If I attempt to forge any definite position, it is that of a traditionalist. This differs from such labels as conservative or progressive. It may even be slightly radical. The word “tradition” means the act of passing on or carrying on. What we have is the idea of process, of selecting from the past those things which we can use for our present purposes. The image of a river comes to mind. Sitting on the river bank, we watch as various objects float by. If any attracts our interest, we reach out and take it. The other objects continue their journey until someone further down stream retrieves them. Yet traps lie in wait for the unwary, even for the traditionalist. Often we pass on many things unknowingly without careful inspection, and popular fashions can carry us in directions that we are unaware of. Perhaps, we like an idea which was selected from the past, and we feel honored to preserve it, but the changing environment will make refinements necessary. “Fine-tuning” is a popular phrase today, yet the basic concept has been heard since ancient times. Both continuity and change occur at all levels on planet earth. If we decide to continue or change some idea, technique or purpose, can we be certain that the decision is a wise one?