3.2.1 “Firmitatis, Utilitatis & Venustatis.”
“The end is to build well. Well building hath three conditions: firmness, commodity, and delight.’’ - Vitruvius.
The ‘Ten Books of Architecture’ are the core source for architects and designers to create good building. The author of this book is no other than the father of architecture, Marcus Vitruvius (born c. 80–70 BC, died after c. 15 BC). As the father of architecture mentioned above, a true and successful buildings should have the basic three conditions: “Firmitatis, Utilitatis & Venustatis” or it is also known as durability, utility and beauty. He explained that architecture is a focus where these three conditions converged together yet accomplished their particular task with their own nature. These are the fundamental standard of architects, designers and builders. Now, let us referred to each of these conditions in turn.
Firstly, durability refers to an architecture that stands up robustly and remains in good condition, creating a firm structural forces and material properties building. For example, the most basic requirement is that a building should be able to bare the forces of nature, rot, decay and corrosion free for a long duration. This is to reduce wastage and the needs to substitute the building materials frequently. Next, the second condition is utility. Utility here is judged via how successful the designers managed to supply the practical end to the general needs and purposes (size, mass, characteristics) of mankind efficiently. In other words, it should have the selection of the right building materials apply for the right purpose, depending on location, orientation, availability and durability. As for the third condition, beauty, it is rather personal yet has to be directed together with the previous two conditions: durability and utility. In this context, beauty depends on: “ordinatio, dispositio, eurythmia, decor and distributio” (refer Appendix A). However, beauty has to be guided by the other two conditions: durability and utility, with its own standard and own authority.
Therefore, these fundamental principles should accentuate the architects, designers and builders philosophy of practice because these same old principles are as relevant today as they are during the ancient times. These principles are as a guideline to us not merely for individual building design, but also for the wider scope of communities and cities design. In addition, the Vitruvius law is also applicable in any situation. This means that this law is not only mend for large and mega scale projects, but also the smaller and individual scale projects. At this point, perhaps most of the builders have not paid as much heed of how relevant and beneficial this Vitruvius law to us and this is the exact time where it deserved our re-evaluation.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
3.0 LEARNING FROM THE PAST
3.1 The Incomparable and Exceptional Architecture
3.1.1 Designing through Identities and Cultures
Ancient architecture created architectures that have high value in the design and form which we hardly possessed now. Why is there such a statement? This is because the design of the ancient architecture relates and conveying a very strong message of the identities and believes of the communities itself. For instance, the function of the architecture like the temples in Greek are first being classify before building it. For the exterior (Figure 13, 14 & 15), the buildings are comprehensive with ornaments whilst the interior (Figure 16, 17, Diagram 2 & Diagram 3) are rather plain.
Figure 13: Palace de la Madeleine
Figure 14 & 15: Ornaments of the Exterior
Figure 16: Inside the Greek Temple
Diagram 2: Worship Area
Figure 17: Interior of the Parthenon
Diagram 3: The Exterior and Interior of Parthenon
This is due to the function of the temples as an object of art to honor their God. On the other hand, the Roman architectures have varied method when compared to the Greek in designing their architectures, adapting to the needs and believes of its communities. For example, the public spaces such as the bathhouses, amphitheaters and public housing have ornate both externally and internally. It is to reflect the culture of the communities in the Roman Empire that emphasizes in the pursuit of pleasure living.
However, the design of architecture through the identities and cultures changed in this contemporary era. Religious architecture formally are built to honor the God is no longer applicable anymore. People today want religious architecture to please them and to ‘honor’ their wealth status. The Ray of Light Mosque (Figure 18 & 19) in Dubai is an example of the contemporary mosque that has turned away from the characters of what a mosque used to have (minarets, domes etc). It is design using extravagant forms that do not really shows the gist of the Islamic characters. These drastic changes of the Islamic religious architecture have to be considered seriously because Arab is an Islam dominated country where it plays as the role model for others Islamic countries (mostly in the third world countries). When the characters of the Islam religious architecture that have been inherited for thousands of years changed, there will be a conflict either to follow the trend of the contemporary Islamic religious architecture of the Middle East or continuing to preserve the authentic Islamic religious architecture.
Figure 18: The Ray of Light Mosque in Dubai
Figure 19: Night View of the Mosque
3.1.2 Values in Forms and Constructions
Next, let’s observe the construction details and the form of the architectures. Greek architecture used more rectilinear and ‘post and beam’ construction. Usually the Greek just built simple yet functional architecture because they are the first civilized group of people to start introducing proper architectures to the world. In contrast, the Romans have the possibilities to construct in a more complex form partly because they learnt from the Greek and also partly because they are the master of concrete, arch and domes. Then, the styles of the columns are evaluated.
Obviously, the Greeks are being identifiable through looking at the columns capitals. Greek architecture prefers the Doric and Ionic columns (Diagram 4 & 5) which have unadulterated and cleaner lines. It is assured that the way the Greeks choose the design and the form of their architectures are basically based on their identities and cultures approach. The builders are very conscious and detailed in every aspect, including how the architecture elements link to the communities itself. This is further enhanced by how the elements of the columns chosen by the Greeks (pure and clean lines) relate to the types of drapery (simple and clean) that the communities wore during that period. In contrast, the Romans preferred the Corinthian style (Diagram 6) columns because it accommodates more ornaments. These Corinthian columns are suggesting that the cultures of the Romans which are more pleasure living people.
Diagram 4& 5: Greece Columns: Doric and Ionic Diagram 6: Roman Column: Corinthian
However, this essence of values in forms and constructions changed in this Information Age. Unlike the ancient architecture, the architecture today is constructed in various (including unimaginable) forms when the 3D software and computational algorithms are generated. These contemporary forms are created mostly to show the advancement of these technologies. For instance, the Cagliari Contemporary Arts Centre (CCAC) (Figure 20 & 21) by Zaha Hadid in Italy is an example showing the architecture itself is constructed using the 3D software. As most of us realized, the Italians are rich in their cultures (craftsmanship in architecture) where most of their architecture is still preserved in their ancient forms to convey their cultures to the foreigners. It is quite a shame and disappointment that the forms of the CCAC seem to incline to portray the architect (Zaha Hadid) style (Figure 22 & 23) rather than to show the identity and culture of the Italians. This changed of perceptions of architecture as a symbol of the architects rather than for the particular community differs from how the Greek and Roman architectures have once undoubtedly carried its own culture. Inevitably, the inappropriate application and the superficial form obsessions of today’s computational architects have ‘killed’ the spirit of the architecture (ethical, social and aesthetic component), creating more and more soulless fractal architectures which will eventually lead us to the end of architecture.
Figure 20: The Cagliari Contemporary Arts Centre in Italy
Figure 21: Bird’s Eye View of the Arts Centre
Figure 22 & 23: Interior of the Arts Centre Which Shows the Iconic Zaha Hadid Style
3.1.3 Connectivity to Architecture through Materials
Ancient builders chose the materials through a series of process, to name a few: touching, smelling, listening and knocking. In most of the time, these materials are being produced and assembled through hand. One of the examples is the Periclean Parthenon in Greece, which has been in high respect primarily due to its well preservation and it’s remarkably comprehensive cultural and historical context, whilst providing a physical and spiritual religious sanctuary for the Greek communities. This Greek architecture is in the heart of everyone in Greece and thus it has to last long to continue spreading its functionality to the future generations, century to century. Therefore, the selection of materials to build the Parthenon is vital.
Stones (Figure 24) are one of the chosen materials whereby they had went through a process of being feel, listen and knock by the builders to test for its durability. The stones are a great material because it had a solid surface where it can last from the weather. Stones will not have to be painted and need less care and repair compare to other materials like concrete, saving the maintenances whilst having a longer lifespan. The Greek builders came out with an interesting method to hold the stones together without using mortar. Edges of the stones are accurately refined, holes with iron clamps and enclosed the blocks of stones with melted lead in order to secure tightly and make the stones even more durable.
Figure 24: Stones as the Main Material for the Parthenon
Although these process seems to be redundant to us, but believe it or not, it is tremendously important and should be practice by us today because through this process, the materials chosen will mean more to us (carry our cultures and identity) and also make the architecture to be durable, functional and aesthetic in a way. As a result, humankind will links to their own architecture even more than ever. These ancient builders are more patience and attentive in selecting materials that will be able to carry their own cultural identities. This is because they have grasped the point that the easiest and most straight forward way for others to understand the architecture’s characteristics and the cultures of its communities are through the materials used. These materials play an important role in suggesting the communities’ favors, restriction and their living method. By selecting the right materials, it not only allowed the communities to feel much more connected, but they also do feel attached and oneness to the architectures.
From the triumph till the fall of the above ancient architectures, architectures are constructed according to the precise principles and also acknowledging the user’s cultures, identities and needs. The father of architecture, Roman architect, Marcus Vitruvius, who lived in the first century, believed that all buildings should be constructed not only according to symmetry and proportion, but also the functionality, durability and beauty. “For without the precise principles no architecture can have a regular plan," Vitruvius quoted in his famous treatise De Architectura, or Ten Books on Architecture. This Vitruvius’s principles will be analyzed in the following chapter.
3.1.1 Designing through Identities and Cultures
Ancient architecture created architectures that have high value in the design and form which we hardly possessed now. Why is there such a statement? This is because the design of the ancient architecture relates and conveying a very strong message of the identities and believes of the communities itself. For instance, the function of the architecture like the temples in Greek are first being classify before building it. For the exterior (Figure 13, 14 & 15), the buildings are comprehensive with ornaments whilst the interior (Figure 16, 17, Diagram 2 & Diagram 3) are rather plain.
Figure 13: Palace de la Madeleine
Figure 14 & 15: Ornaments of the Exterior
Figure 16: Inside the Greek Temple
Diagram 2: Worship Area
Figure 17: Interior of the Parthenon
Diagram 3: The Exterior and Interior of Parthenon
This is due to the function of the temples as an object of art to honor their God. On the other hand, the Roman architectures have varied method when compared to the Greek in designing their architectures, adapting to the needs and believes of its communities. For example, the public spaces such as the bathhouses, amphitheaters and public housing have ornate both externally and internally. It is to reflect the culture of the communities in the Roman Empire that emphasizes in the pursuit of pleasure living.
However, the design of architecture through the identities and cultures changed in this contemporary era. Religious architecture formally are built to honor the God is no longer applicable anymore. People today want religious architecture to please them and to ‘honor’ their wealth status. The Ray of Light Mosque (Figure 18 & 19) in Dubai is an example of the contemporary mosque that has turned away from the characters of what a mosque used to have (minarets, domes etc). It is design using extravagant forms that do not really shows the gist of the Islamic characters. These drastic changes of the Islamic religious architecture have to be considered seriously because Arab is an Islam dominated country where it plays as the role model for others Islamic countries (mostly in the third world countries). When the characters of the Islam religious architecture that have been inherited for thousands of years changed, there will be a conflict either to follow the trend of the contemporary Islamic religious architecture of the Middle East or continuing to preserve the authentic Islamic religious architecture.
Figure 18: The Ray of Light Mosque in Dubai
Figure 19: Night View of the Mosque
3.1.2 Values in Forms and Constructions
Next, let’s observe the construction details and the form of the architectures. Greek architecture used more rectilinear and ‘post and beam’ construction. Usually the Greek just built simple yet functional architecture because they are the first civilized group of people to start introducing proper architectures to the world. In contrast, the Romans have the possibilities to construct in a more complex form partly because they learnt from the Greek and also partly because they are the master of concrete, arch and domes. Then, the styles of the columns are evaluated.
Obviously, the Greeks are being identifiable through looking at the columns capitals. Greek architecture prefers the Doric and Ionic columns (Diagram 4 & 5) which have unadulterated and cleaner lines. It is assured that the way the Greeks choose the design and the form of their architectures are basically based on their identities and cultures approach. The builders are very conscious and detailed in every aspect, including how the architecture elements link to the communities itself. This is further enhanced by how the elements of the columns chosen by the Greeks (pure and clean lines) relate to the types of drapery (simple and clean) that the communities wore during that period. In contrast, the Romans preferred the Corinthian style (Diagram 6) columns because it accommodates more ornaments. These Corinthian columns are suggesting that the cultures of the Romans which are more pleasure living people.
Diagram 4& 5: Greece Columns: Doric and Ionic Diagram 6: Roman Column: Corinthian
However, this essence of values in forms and constructions changed in this Information Age. Unlike the ancient architecture, the architecture today is constructed in various (including unimaginable) forms when the 3D software and computational algorithms are generated. These contemporary forms are created mostly to show the advancement of these technologies. For instance, the Cagliari Contemporary Arts Centre (CCAC) (Figure 20 & 21) by Zaha Hadid in Italy is an example showing the architecture itself is constructed using the 3D software. As most of us realized, the Italians are rich in their cultures (craftsmanship in architecture) where most of their architecture is still preserved in their ancient forms to convey their cultures to the foreigners. It is quite a shame and disappointment that the forms of the CCAC seem to incline to portray the architect (Zaha Hadid) style (Figure 22 & 23) rather than to show the identity and culture of the Italians. This changed of perceptions of architecture as a symbol of the architects rather than for the particular community differs from how the Greek and Roman architectures have once undoubtedly carried its own culture. Inevitably, the inappropriate application and the superficial form obsessions of today’s computational architects have ‘killed’ the spirit of the architecture (ethical, social and aesthetic component), creating more and more soulless fractal architectures which will eventually lead us to the end of architecture.
Figure 20: The Cagliari Contemporary Arts Centre in Italy
Figure 21: Bird’s Eye View of the Arts Centre
Figure 22 & 23: Interior of the Arts Centre Which Shows the Iconic Zaha Hadid Style
3.1.3 Connectivity to Architecture through Materials
Ancient builders chose the materials through a series of process, to name a few: touching, smelling, listening and knocking. In most of the time, these materials are being produced and assembled through hand. One of the examples is the Periclean Parthenon in Greece, which has been in high respect primarily due to its well preservation and it’s remarkably comprehensive cultural and historical context, whilst providing a physical and spiritual religious sanctuary for the Greek communities. This Greek architecture is in the heart of everyone in Greece and thus it has to last long to continue spreading its functionality to the future generations, century to century. Therefore, the selection of materials to build the Parthenon is vital.
Stones (Figure 24) are one of the chosen materials whereby they had went through a process of being feel, listen and knock by the builders to test for its durability. The stones are a great material because it had a solid surface where it can last from the weather. Stones will not have to be painted and need less care and repair compare to other materials like concrete, saving the maintenances whilst having a longer lifespan. The Greek builders came out with an interesting method to hold the stones together without using mortar. Edges of the stones are accurately refined, holes with iron clamps and enclosed the blocks of stones with melted lead in order to secure tightly and make the stones even more durable.
Figure 24: Stones as the Main Material for the Parthenon
Although these process seems to be redundant to us, but believe it or not, it is tremendously important and should be practice by us today because through this process, the materials chosen will mean more to us (carry our cultures and identity) and also make the architecture to be durable, functional and aesthetic in a way. As a result, humankind will links to their own architecture even more than ever. These ancient builders are more patience and attentive in selecting materials that will be able to carry their own cultural identities. This is because they have grasped the point that the easiest and most straight forward way for others to understand the architecture’s characteristics and the cultures of its communities are through the materials used. These materials play an important role in suggesting the communities’ favors, restriction and their living method. By selecting the right materials, it not only allowed the communities to feel much more connected, but they also do feel attached and oneness to the architectures.
From the triumph till the fall of the above ancient architectures, architectures are constructed according to the precise principles and also acknowledging the user’s cultures, identities and needs. The father of architecture, Roman architect, Marcus Vitruvius, who lived in the first century, believed that all buildings should be constructed not only according to symmetry and proportion, but also the functionality, durability and beauty. “For without the precise principles no architecture can have a regular plan," Vitruvius quoted in his famous treatise De Architectura, or Ten Books on Architecture. This Vitruvius’s principles will be analyzed in the following chapter.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
1.0 INTRO
Back in the early years, those who construct the great civilizations architectures are mostly referred to their predecessors. Their architectures are so original and unique due to their intention of incorporating the superlative of their past into their future, by using their own visions. In this way, they have managed to inculcate architectures as nothing less than a great symbol of the human betterment. From the beginning, we all know that architecture affects everyone. It touches our hearts, partly due to its scale and also partly on how it has managed to reveal to what kind of society we live. Primarily, architecture deliberates our feelings, behaviors, leisure, neighbors and public preferences in order to define the types of space which we live. However, the Information Age that we are living in has disparaged these essences of architectures, thus making the architectures now to be impotence, lack of the familiarity and traditional charm. Today, everything is about speed. Everything changes swiftly without us realizing that we are leaving behind all traditional ideas of shape, boundary and identity. Does this matter? Of course it does. As it is seen, architectures usually attract hostility first. Therefore, if these traditional ideas are being neglected, it is believed that the occupants would not be able to enjoy the space. If the purpose of architecture is not mend for people to enjoy and feel attached to the space, then there will be no advantage and point to voice up this following issue.
The death of architecture refers to the end of extravagant designs and big experiments. The ‘experiments’ here means those exotic projects that we see in the media. The media now serves as a platform for experiments. When these magazines and medias serves as the core of the experiments, these experiments stop to consider whether the architecture works in real life, where there is no longer a real objective. In short, when these architectural experiments mushrooms, as a result, the real architectural experiment will disappear. Besides, the introduction of science and technology has also lead to the death of architecture. People has gone too far and lost the essence (function, symbiotic between humankind with their identity and culture) of architecture in the process of praising to the god of technology. With these issues causing to the death of architecture, the effect of the future architecture is an unnecessary topic of debate.
A good architecture is determined and rated by how suitable a building is to fit into its specific activities. Besides, it should also suggest a well communication of ideas, feelings, and experience that will be able to raise the passion of users through its form. Good architecture will be able to bring us joy, excitement or despair, depends to the influences, values and skills that it brought. In addition, it is also serves as a memory to us, reminding us about our own collective past. Therefore, this idea of good architecture will be the solutions towards the death of architecture.
The objective of this dissertation is to make people aware of how critical our architecture today that is being monopoly not only by the technology, but also others causes such as the attitudes of the architects, designers and also the societies. These issues will be discussed in the later part of this dissertation. The architecture today is mostly soulless, exploring the aesthetic solely. Where has the architecture that can truly make use of our daily life gone? Therefore, the next part of this dissertation will be going back to the basic – ancient architectures, where architecture then is built not only for mere aesthetic yet functional, durable and be able to carry its own identity at the same time. These basic principles are created by the father of architecture – Vitruvius. From here, after being fully understood the importance of these principles and how it can help to improve and amend current architectures according to the pace of the technologies for the betterment of all humankind. The remaining part of the dissertation will be analyzing about the introspection of how vital are these values to us and how there are connecting and affecting us. This is also another important part of this dissertation because it need to convinced people to agree with the statement that architecture are dying if we do not put an effort in ‘listening’, understanding and putting our best foot forward in the action of acknowledging, saving and improving these architectural crisis. We all have to understand that this is not an individual task but a task that needs us, all together to vow to ourselves and our future generation in a mission of saving and achieving the resurrection of the death of architecture around the world.
The death of architecture refers to the end of extravagant designs and big experiments. The ‘experiments’ here means those exotic projects that we see in the media. The media now serves as a platform for experiments. When these magazines and medias serves as the core of the experiments, these experiments stop to consider whether the architecture works in real life, where there is no longer a real objective. In short, when these architectural experiments mushrooms, as a result, the real architectural experiment will disappear. Besides, the introduction of science and technology has also lead to the death of architecture. People has gone too far and lost the essence (function, symbiotic between humankind with their identity and culture) of architecture in the process of praising to the god of technology. With these issues causing to the death of architecture, the effect of the future architecture is an unnecessary topic of debate.
A good architecture is determined and rated by how suitable a building is to fit into its specific activities. Besides, it should also suggest a well communication of ideas, feelings, and experience that will be able to raise the passion of users through its form. Good architecture will be able to bring us joy, excitement or despair, depends to the influences, values and skills that it brought. In addition, it is also serves as a memory to us, reminding us about our own collective past. Therefore, this idea of good architecture will be the solutions towards the death of architecture.
The objective of this dissertation is to make people aware of how critical our architecture today that is being monopoly not only by the technology, but also others causes such as the attitudes of the architects, designers and also the societies. These issues will be discussed in the later part of this dissertation. The architecture today is mostly soulless, exploring the aesthetic solely. Where has the architecture that can truly make use of our daily life gone? Therefore, the next part of this dissertation will be going back to the basic – ancient architectures, where architecture then is built not only for mere aesthetic yet functional, durable and be able to carry its own identity at the same time. These basic principles are created by the father of architecture – Vitruvius. From here, after being fully understood the importance of these principles and how it can help to improve and amend current architectures according to the pace of the technologies for the betterment of all humankind. The remaining part of the dissertation will be analyzing about the introspection of how vital are these values to us and how there are connecting and affecting us. This is also another important part of this dissertation because it need to convinced people to agree with the statement that architecture are dying if we do not put an effort in ‘listening’, understanding and putting our best foot forward in the action of acknowledging, saving and improving these architectural crisis. We all have to understand that this is not an individual task but a task that needs us, all together to vow to ourselves and our future generation in a mission of saving and achieving the resurrection of the death of architecture around the world.
2.0 ATTITUDES TO ARCHITECTURE & ARCHITECTS
2.1 What is the purpose of architecture?
Architecture is considered to comprise both process (planning and designing space, form and ambience which reflects to its particular function, social and aesthetic considerations) and product (outcome, structure of building). Architecture will be more vital if it can carry meanings that teach us to assimilate the architecture to its content. For instance, we will be able to feel the function and characteristics of a railway station rather than seeing it as a collection of bricks and stones.
Significantly, architecture serves the public in general. It is a reflection on the things we do. Besides, architecture also evolves in a new and reinterpreted method of inventing and refining the identity of a place. Perhaps most crucially, when we think of architecture as an identification and culture of a place, we will then adapt the idea of architecture is actually relating to more than one individual. Therefore, architecture is operated by and for people who have various needs and desires, beliefs and objectives; who do things with activities that have practical needs; who have aesthetic sensitivity that are influenced by touch, warmth, sound, colour and visual encouragement; and people who view the world in a meaningful and significant way.
In addition, architecture is supposing to be able to affect everyone. This means that the design allows us to feel familiarize and touches our heart; scale that is appropriate with the human proportion and the most vital aspect is that it holds up a very revealing mirror to the type of society that we live in; and how we feel and behave. In short, architecture is to correspond well with the occupant’s expectations and perceptions, even if it is time consuming to fulfill all these requirements.
Besides, architecture also implies a permanent building which serves as a place to allow specific human activities to a specific group of people, allowing them to socialize and get connected with each other. For example, we make places to do certain things – places to eat, to sleep, to shop, to worships, to learn etc. These places are being shaped according to our (users) beliefs and aspirations, our world view. As this world view of ours varies, so does architecture: at individual stage; the social and cultural stage; and also between various sub-cultures within our society. Such is nothing than a reminder of the most fundamental condition under which we live and how a true architecture must operate.
2.2 Main purpose of architects
Since ancient time, architects have the power to open up new perspectives yet within a certain limit (considering individual values and to build within a social system). They wished to incorporate architecture as the prime symbol of the advancement of human progress. As the genuine practice becomes ever more restrain by standards and codes, architecture education - a platform for experiment, has becomes unrestrained in its self-indulgent desires. These have lead to the change of new role of the architects in the Information Age.
Architects now are to comply what the public wants with their own strong desire in a affirm way, fulfilling the standards of competence in work. Besides, they need to increase the corporate identity of the commercial clients and satisfying their ongoing alternate changes of tastes. This profession is thus divided into two categories: either the architects are being classified as engineers or they are known as advertisement tool to acquaint their products. It is the increase of the latter that boost up the growth of “experimentalism” in architecture. With the increase of these “experimentalism” in architecture, many architects start to explore the idea of so call fractal architecture, basically based on sophisticated variation like fern and crack of an ice.
It is at this exact point that architects start to forget the root of their noble profession. They are going to rapid and far with the technologies - killing the authentic spirit of architecture, whilst being distilled by politics, economics, ego and greed. This makes them begin to orient themselves with certain dream catcher’s trend and ambivalence, trying to forecast and chase the characteristics of the future. It is also at this same point that the death of architecture has start to occur.
2.3 Architecture Now and Then
The way people in the olden days treat architecture is vary with the way we treat architecture now. With the living conditions and economic growth of the people have improved, their needs to their lifestyles changed. Indisputably, question changed when the value changed, influencing on how the architects and designers think nowadays. In the past, architects place the priority of the users first, thinking of how to fully utilized and make the space more functional and beneficial to the user’s needs and desires. Every space has its purpose and not being wasted. On the other hand, architects now always think of how to make their buildings more famous and how to make it the most extravagant, tallest and mega amongst those existed architecture in the world. This issue gets even severe with the introducing of technologies and computer production where curve and wave, twist and warps, splines and fibers are easily reached and produced in a very economical price compared to before.
Designers in the olden time emphasize on creating the characteristics and needs of the space. For example, carvings and paintings (ornaments) in the pantheon relate with the traditions and needs of the people back then. In contrary, designers nowadays design the space mostly based on the aesthetic value and trend, sometimes these elements seems to serve no function at all. Moreover, the architects and designers are subtle with their work. Most of the time, they are easily being persuade to change the right values. For instance, based on my own survey (Pie Chart 1) that has been carried out, seventies percent of public now prefer to have an architecture that can bring out their social status and pride rather than emphasizing to their cultures and identities. Thus, when there’s a demand, the architects will supply these public with what they want rather than making an effort to affirm them about the right value of what architecture should be. Another significant difference is that architects and designer in the olden days are more patience and having more humanity thoughts of serving the best and most beneficial way to the people in a long run whilst the architects and designers now seems to have less patience and care less for their people. These are just a few issues which mark the differences between the architecture back then and now.
2.4 Changes in Perspectives of Today’s Architects, Designers and Society
There is a mutual global issue that the architecture industry in this world face, that is the fame and wealth versus the user’s needs and functionality as the subject matter of building. In this part, it will be categorizing and showing how these fame and wealth have influenced architects, designers and society to turn away from the authentic architecture.
2.4.1 Architects and designers
Architects and designers now show a little concern with social buildings such as schools, public buildings, universities and hospitals. Most of them are more into getting hired to work on small, private, commercials and rewarding projects. These architects and designers have been benefited from the extraordinary growth in wealth of the world which allows them to design and build almost anything imaginable. Besides, architects and designer now have lost faith in what they are doing. They often feel that in order to gain publicity and make more money, they need to stand out from others. They wanted to do something different and extravagant to catch people’s, especially the wealthy and rich tycoons attention without fully understand the usage of what they built. [WEALTH]
The 170 meters tall ‘cloud city’ (Figure1 & 2) located in the Zaabeel Park in Dubai an example to show the above statement. This standing ‘sculpture’ has the height but it does not really fully utilized the height because for this whole building, there are only three levels being used at the top where others are being left underutilized. It is obvious that the architect has not been practicing what a good architecture should be. He has turn away from the right attitude (user’s needs and character of the architecture) just to obey what money wants him to build. [WEALTH]
Figure 1: The ‘Cloud City’ Figure 2 : Angle View of the building
Tons of buildings built by architects and designers under the supervision of the politicians are mostly without the right attitude towards architecture values. They are usually being supported by a certain kind of paid press (media) which helps to make publicity to their architectures, making us - the public, to believe that that is the current trend of architecture. The architects and designers are now treating the architectural style as fashion, mostly due to the fact that information is now being exchanged at a fast pace due to the internet. Therefore, this technology has created a negligent of the rules and limitation of architecture, while emphasizing on creating and developing new and imaginable forms in order to gain fame in the fastest method. This fame obsessed mindset have makes us to neglects the basic of what architecture should be. Lacks of morality, sense of belonging and human touch in architecture are the mirror and effect of this restless chase of fame. [FAME]
One of the examples is the Experience Music Project (Figure 3 & 4) in Seattle, Washington by Frank Gehry. As most of us know, Frank Gehry earns his recognition with warped forms and titanium scale. In most of his design, there is always a large piece of his style in the architecture itself, regardless whether it is a necessary or not. The EMP is free form, painted with aluminum and clad in stainless steel. However, it lacks of the functionality and durability as a building for music lovers whilst it is being too emphasized on creating a noticeable image and iconic architecture of Frank Gehry to the people. This building shows Frank Gehry's unawareness to the user’s needs by producing a building that is rigor deficiency.Thus, Frank Gehry's non-stop fame chasing dream has made the EMP to be drastic, awkward and shocking. [FAME]
Figure 3: Overall view of Experience Music Project Figure 4: Front view of Experience Music Project in Seattle
Some architects adapt themselves very strongly to a particular style they finds desirable. For instance, Le Corbusier: pure, abstract form and a machined production style; Peter Eisenmen: explore the crucial of architecture principles and rules; Ken Yeang: ecological problems as main issues etc. It is fine if they make use of their signature styles in a minor way which suits the needs and desires of their clients to carry out the architect’s identity but it will be a problem if they try to fit everything they want into that building itself. The architects now attempt to gain the same popularity status as the Hollywood stars. This is due to the architect’s arrogance, which best illustrate the cool, whimsy, not functional, irrational and inhuman architecture of this period. [EGO AND SELF AGGRANDIZEMENT]
Architects, like most people in the world, have lost touch with what life is and for. Therefore, they don’t know that they can conduct and helps to improve the life of its people through maintaining and reproducing the architectures in a more optimal method. This is vital because it is the most fundamental idea, especially to architects because of all professions in the world, they serve as intervene between the modern individual and his world.
2.4.2 Society
Architecture is now being treated as a trade and icon to symbolize the status of wealth of a society. Superficial architecture is highly in demand as a result of the unprecedented growth of wealth. This easy and wealthy lifestyle has birthed new generation of architects, designers and societies: the Generation Y. This generation constantly quest for new information in the fastest pace where everything else (including architectural experience) does not really matters as long as they get the instant delight. Architecture too, like other things must be changing constantly in a new, avant-garde way and being able to exhilarate the people rapidly. Masses think that the greater and the extravagant the buildings are, the richer it tells others about them. Therefore, most society urged and request for fractal architectures in order to attract business to their countries and helps to boost up their economic. However, they do not realize that the image of architecture is developing in a pace that the architecture itself can bear. The societies are concerned only with the image (exterior package of an architecture), mostly because that is what they know. Once they have the image that shows their social status, they do not take the trouble to develop the rest of the architecture, as in functionality because they have sufficient money to invest in other new images which can fulfilled and increase their social pride.[WEALTH]
One of the examples is that the societies now are over obsessed with the latest Burj Khalifa (Figure 5 & 6) in Dubai by Adrian Smith. It is a fine example of what superficial architecture equal to wealth. This means that the higher and extravagant the architecture are, the higher social status and possibilities of being accepted and respect by others in the society. Therefore, architecture now is constructed for the sake of being cool and out stand the others in the world to show how wealthy a society is. Moreover, the cultures and values of the society changed when this is the time that everyone starts to compete and race amongst themselves in order to display their wealth through introducing superficial architectures. It is kind of ashamed that people starts to forget to instill their roots (identity) in their architectures, which they have grown up and live in most of the time. Architecture now is just mere building without the soul (characters) that can make the users feel attached and be proud of. [WEALTH]
Figure 5: Day view of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai Figure 6: Night view of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai
Most people keep suggesting that there are something missing and maybe the architecture can pronounce to the lost. Here, in the realm of social projects and planning, the innovative and fearless approach for a new dimension of architecture is inspired. Thus, the masses now have become the architecture’s new client, especially in the Soviet Union where new programs start to inspired new forms and designs. This idea of social advancement and of mankind’s ability to be able to construct the architectures to show their advancement seems disparage today. Grand designs (Figure7, 8, 9, 10 & 11) are referred as nothing but grand presentation, arrogance that leads to a deadly effect. [FAME]
Figure 7: Grand Lobby Design of Burj Khalifa Figure 8: Interior View that Hardly Shows the Identity of the Eastern Country (1) Figure 9: Interior View (2) Figure 10: Interior View (3) Figure 11: Viewing Tower
Societies have eagerly wanted to ‘build’ their fame amongst others. They have started to find different solutions to make themselves famous. Indisputably, media press is the best source that they can ever find. Therefore, in order to make it to the cover page, it is no doubt that they are necessary to make their architecture special and more outstanding than the other existed architectures. Comparison diagrams (Figure 12) for architecture around the world are created. This has even made the societies to be restlessly chasing to build even taller in order to gain the fame and attention from other countries. This is kind of despicable because there is no comparison diagram about the overall best architecture (in term of functionality, durability and beauty) which is useful in helping to raise the value of a greater architecture to serve the society now and in the future. If we are classifying architecture as a result of the economic conditions in this period where wealth and fame comes hand in hand, rather than to a particular purpose and style, then we have to question ourselves, what’s next? [FAME]
Figure 12: The Comparison Diagram
Architecture is considered to comprise both process (planning and designing space, form and ambience which reflects to its particular function, social and aesthetic considerations) and product (outcome, structure of building). Architecture will be more vital if it can carry meanings that teach us to assimilate the architecture to its content. For instance, we will be able to feel the function and characteristics of a railway station rather than seeing it as a collection of bricks and stones.
Significantly, architecture serves the public in general. It is a reflection on the things we do. Besides, architecture also evolves in a new and reinterpreted method of inventing and refining the identity of a place. Perhaps most crucially, when we think of architecture as an identification and culture of a place, we will then adapt the idea of architecture is actually relating to more than one individual. Therefore, architecture is operated by and for people who have various needs and desires, beliefs and objectives; who do things with activities that have practical needs; who have aesthetic sensitivity that are influenced by touch, warmth, sound, colour and visual encouragement; and people who view the world in a meaningful and significant way.
In addition, architecture is supposing to be able to affect everyone. This means that the design allows us to feel familiarize and touches our heart; scale that is appropriate with the human proportion and the most vital aspect is that it holds up a very revealing mirror to the type of society that we live in; and how we feel and behave. In short, architecture is to correspond well with the occupant’s expectations and perceptions, even if it is time consuming to fulfill all these requirements.
Besides, architecture also implies a permanent building which serves as a place to allow specific human activities to a specific group of people, allowing them to socialize and get connected with each other. For example, we make places to do certain things – places to eat, to sleep, to shop, to worships, to learn etc. These places are being shaped according to our (users) beliefs and aspirations, our world view. As this world view of ours varies, so does architecture: at individual stage; the social and cultural stage; and also between various sub-cultures within our society. Such is nothing than a reminder of the most fundamental condition under which we live and how a true architecture must operate.
2.2 Main purpose of architects
Since ancient time, architects have the power to open up new perspectives yet within a certain limit (considering individual values and to build within a social system). They wished to incorporate architecture as the prime symbol of the advancement of human progress. As the genuine practice becomes ever more restrain by standards and codes, architecture education - a platform for experiment, has becomes unrestrained in its self-indulgent desires. These have lead to the change of new role of the architects in the Information Age.
Architects now are to comply what the public wants with their own strong desire in a affirm way, fulfilling the standards of competence in work. Besides, they need to increase the corporate identity of the commercial clients and satisfying their ongoing alternate changes of tastes. This profession is thus divided into two categories: either the architects are being classified as engineers or they are known as advertisement tool to acquaint their products. It is the increase of the latter that boost up the growth of “experimentalism” in architecture. With the increase of these “experimentalism” in architecture, many architects start to explore the idea of so call fractal architecture, basically based on sophisticated variation like fern and crack of an ice.
It is at this exact point that architects start to forget the root of their noble profession. They are going to rapid and far with the technologies - killing the authentic spirit of architecture, whilst being distilled by politics, economics, ego and greed. This makes them begin to orient themselves with certain dream catcher’s trend and ambivalence, trying to forecast and chase the characteristics of the future. It is also at this same point that the death of architecture has start to occur.
2.3 Architecture Now and Then
The way people in the olden days treat architecture is vary with the way we treat architecture now. With the living conditions and economic growth of the people have improved, their needs to their lifestyles changed. Indisputably, question changed when the value changed, influencing on how the architects and designers think nowadays. In the past, architects place the priority of the users first, thinking of how to fully utilized and make the space more functional and beneficial to the user’s needs and desires. Every space has its purpose and not being wasted. On the other hand, architects now always think of how to make their buildings more famous and how to make it the most extravagant, tallest and mega amongst those existed architecture in the world. This issue gets even severe with the introducing of technologies and computer production where curve and wave, twist and warps, splines and fibers are easily reached and produced in a very economical price compared to before.
Designers in the olden time emphasize on creating the characteristics and needs of the space. For example, carvings and paintings (ornaments) in the pantheon relate with the traditions and needs of the people back then. In contrary, designers nowadays design the space mostly based on the aesthetic value and trend, sometimes these elements seems to serve no function at all. Moreover, the architects and designers are subtle with their work. Most of the time, they are easily being persuade to change the right values. For instance, based on my own survey (Pie Chart 1) that has been carried out, seventies percent of public now prefer to have an architecture that can bring out their social status and pride rather than emphasizing to their cultures and identities. Thus, when there’s a demand, the architects will supply these public with what they want rather than making an effort to affirm them about the right value of what architecture should be. Another significant difference is that architects and designer in the olden days are more patience and having more humanity thoughts of serving the best and most beneficial way to the people in a long run whilst the architects and designers now seems to have less patience and care less for their people. These are just a few issues which mark the differences between the architecture back then and now.
2.4 Changes in Perspectives of Today’s Architects, Designers and Society
There is a mutual global issue that the architecture industry in this world face, that is the fame and wealth versus the user’s needs and functionality as the subject matter of building. In this part, it will be categorizing and showing how these fame and wealth have influenced architects, designers and society to turn away from the authentic architecture.
2.4.1 Architects and designers
Architects and designers now show a little concern with social buildings such as schools, public buildings, universities and hospitals. Most of them are more into getting hired to work on small, private, commercials and rewarding projects. These architects and designers have been benefited from the extraordinary growth in wealth of the world which allows them to design and build almost anything imaginable. Besides, architects and designer now have lost faith in what they are doing. They often feel that in order to gain publicity and make more money, they need to stand out from others. They wanted to do something different and extravagant to catch people’s, especially the wealthy and rich tycoons attention without fully understand the usage of what they built. [WEALTH]
The 170 meters tall ‘cloud city’ (Figure1 & 2) located in the Zaabeel Park in Dubai an example to show the above statement. This standing ‘sculpture’ has the height but it does not really fully utilized the height because for this whole building, there are only three levels being used at the top where others are being left underutilized. It is obvious that the architect has not been practicing what a good architecture should be. He has turn away from the right attitude (user’s needs and character of the architecture) just to obey what money wants him to build. [WEALTH]
Figure 1: The ‘Cloud City’ Figure 2 : Angle View of the building
Tons of buildings built by architects and designers under the supervision of the politicians are mostly without the right attitude towards architecture values. They are usually being supported by a certain kind of paid press (media) which helps to make publicity to their architectures, making us - the public, to believe that that is the current trend of architecture. The architects and designers are now treating the architectural style as fashion, mostly due to the fact that information is now being exchanged at a fast pace due to the internet. Therefore, this technology has created a negligent of the rules and limitation of architecture, while emphasizing on creating and developing new and imaginable forms in order to gain fame in the fastest method. This fame obsessed mindset have makes us to neglects the basic of what architecture should be. Lacks of morality, sense of belonging and human touch in architecture are the mirror and effect of this restless chase of fame. [FAME]
One of the examples is the Experience Music Project (Figure 3 & 4) in Seattle, Washington by Frank Gehry. As most of us know, Frank Gehry earns his recognition with warped forms and titanium scale. In most of his design, there is always a large piece of his style in the architecture itself, regardless whether it is a necessary or not. The EMP is free form, painted with aluminum and clad in stainless steel. However, it lacks of the functionality and durability as a building for music lovers whilst it is being too emphasized on creating a noticeable image and iconic architecture of Frank Gehry to the people. This building shows Frank Gehry's unawareness to the user’s needs by producing a building that is rigor deficiency.Thus, Frank Gehry's non-stop fame chasing dream has made the EMP to be drastic, awkward and shocking. [FAME]
Figure 3: Overall view of Experience Music Project Figure 4: Front view of Experience Music Project in Seattle
Some architects adapt themselves very strongly to a particular style they finds desirable. For instance, Le Corbusier: pure, abstract form and a machined production style; Peter Eisenmen: explore the crucial of architecture principles and rules; Ken Yeang: ecological problems as main issues etc. It is fine if they make use of their signature styles in a minor way which suits the needs and desires of their clients to carry out the architect’s identity but it will be a problem if they try to fit everything they want into that building itself. The architects now attempt to gain the same popularity status as the Hollywood stars. This is due to the architect’s arrogance, which best illustrate the cool, whimsy, not functional, irrational and inhuman architecture of this period. [EGO AND SELF AGGRANDIZEMENT]
Architects, like most people in the world, have lost touch with what life is and for. Therefore, they don’t know that they can conduct and helps to improve the life of its people through maintaining and reproducing the architectures in a more optimal method. This is vital because it is the most fundamental idea, especially to architects because of all professions in the world, they serve as intervene between the modern individual and his world.
2.4.2 Society
Architecture is now being treated as a trade and icon to symbolize the status of wealth of a society. Superficial architecture is highly in demand as a result of the unprecedented growth of wealth. This easy and wealthy lifestyle has birthed new generation of architects, designers and societies: the Generation Y. This generation constantly quest for new information in the fastest pace where everything else (including architectural experience) does not really matters as long as they get the instant delight. Architecture too, like other things must be changing constantly in a new, avant-garde way and being able to exhilarate the people rapidly. Masses think that the greater and the extravagant the buildings are, the richer it tells others about them. Therefore, most society urged and request for fractal architectures in order to attract business to their countries and helps to boost up their economic. However, they do not realize that the image of architecture is developing in a pace that the architecture itself can bear. The societies are concerned only with the image (exterior package of an architecture), mostly because that is what they know. Once they have the image that shows their social status, they do not take the trouble to develop the rest of the architecture, as in functionality because they have sufficient money to invest in other new images which can fulfilled and increase their social pride.[WEALTH]
One of the examples is that the societies now are over obsessed with the latest Burj Khalifa (Figure 5 & 6) in Dubai by Adrian Smith. It is a fine example of what superficial architecture equal to wealth. This means that the higher and extravagant the architecture are, the higher social status and possibilities of being accepted and respect by others in the society. Therefore, architecture now is constructed for the sake of being cool and out stand the others in the world to show how wealthy a society is. Moreover, the cultures and values of the society changed when this is the time that everyone starts to compete and race amongst themselves in order to display their wealth through introducing superficial architectures. It is kind of ashamed that people starts to forget to instill their roots (identity) in their architectures, which they have grown up and live in most of the time. Architecture now is just mere building without the soul (characters) that can make the users feel attached and be proud of. [WEALTH]
Figure 5: Day view of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai Figure 6: Night view of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai
Most people keep suggesting that there are something missing and maybe the architecture can pronounce to the lost. Here, in the realm of social projects and planning, the innovative and fearless approach for a new dimension of architecture is inspired. Thus, the masses now have become the architecture’s new client, especially in the Soviet Union where new programs start to inspired new forms and designs. This idea of social advancement and of mankind’s ability to be able to construct the architectures to show their advancement seems disparage today. Grand designs (Figure7, 8, 9, 10 & 11) are referred as nothing but grand presentation, arrogance that leads to a deadly effect. [FAME]
Figure 7: Grand Lobby Design of Burj Khalifa Figure 8: Interior View that Hardly Shows the Identity of the Eastern Country (1) Figure 9: Interior View (2) Figure 10: Interior View (3) Figure 11: Viewing Tower
Societies have eagerly wanted to ‘build’ their fame amongst others. They have started to find different solutions to make themselves famous. Indisputably, media press is the best source that they can ever find. Therefore, in order to make it to the cover page, it is no doubt that they are necessary to make their architecture special and more outstanding than the other existed architectures. Comparison diagrams (Figure 12) for architecture around the world are created. This has even made the societies to be restlessly chasing to build even taller in order to gain the fame and attention from other countries. This is kind of despicable because there is no comparison diagram about the overall best architecture (in term of functionality, durability and beauty) which is useful in helping to raise the value of a greater architecture to serve the society now and in the future. If we are classifying architecture as a result of the economic conditions in this period where wealth and fame comes hand in hand, rather than to a particular purpose and style, then we have to question ourselves, what’s next? [FAME]
Figure 12: The Comparison Diagram
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Outline
1.0 INTRODUCTION
§ Define the death of architecture
§ What lead to the death of architecture? Identify in points only.
§ How can we determined and rate a good architecture? Famous architect who build it (extravagant without specific purpose) or the function of the building (quality of the space by prioritizing the needs of the occupants as the main subject of the overall design)?
§ List out what will be discussed later in this dissertation.
BODY
2.0 ATTITUDES TO ARCHITECTURE & ARCHITECTS
§ Main purpose of architecture.
- Meaning that allows us to liken the architecture to texts (e.g. railway station – we can sense the certain behavior and purpose of it rather than treating it as assemblage of stones and bricks).
- Serving public in general (needs & desire; beliefs & aspirations).
- Relates directly on our identity and culture.
- Architecture affects everyone (design, touches us all, scale, holds up a very revealing mirror of the kind of society that we live in, reflects how we feel and behave).
- Architecture also implies permanent building suitable for a variety of human activities.
§ Main purpose of architects.
- Has the power to open up new perspectives but bearing in mind to have a certain limit.
- Should not gone too far with technologies, distilled by economic, greed, ego, orient themselves with certain dream catcher’s trends and ambivalence.
§ Compare the architecture back then and today. List out the major differences.
- The way of olden days people look at architecture and the way people look at it now.
- Question changed when value changed. (how architects and designers think nowadays)
v Past: - how to make a building/ space more functional and beneficial to the occupants; how to fulfilled the public’s needs and desire?
v Current:- how to make my building more famous; how to make it most extravagant, tallest and mega amongst other existed buildings?
§ Public interest. Analytical number and pie chart showing what kind of architecture people prefer/looking forward through questionnaire.
§ List out how architects, designer and people now emphasize on wealth, fame rather than prioritizing human and function of space as the subject matter of the overall design.
- Shows no concern with social buildings(school, public buildings, hospital and university); only concern with commercial, private and rewarding projects.[ WEALTH]
- Tons of buildings build by politicians and architects without the right attitude which are supported by a certain kind of paid press(media) that makes us believed that this is the current trend of architecture – emphasize on fame forget the basic of what architecture should be – no morality/human touch – the end of architecture.
- Case study: Arab/UAE & China architecture [FAME]
3.0 LEARNING FROM THE PAST
- Ancient architecture has design, form and materials (ancient builders even touch, smell and knock the materials unlike architects now who emphasize on how good looking it is or whether it suits their concept) that relates and carrying a very strong message of the identity of the community itself-feel attached and connected between architecture and humankind.
- Case study from either the Greece or Rome architecture, most probably the Parthenon (most social able place back then). The ancient builders are proud to show importance of the beam and column as the main structure of the building and their identity (e.g. Doric, Ionic and Corinthian) whilst architects today try their best to hide away all these beam and column (assumed as poor workmanship/ unfinished work if show the beam and column). Some even build something without function, merely for aesthetic purpose only.
- What can we learn from the past? (form follows function, public as priority of all design, practicality, utility and aesthetic - Vitruvius law)
4.0 FATHER OF ARCHITECTURE
- Vitruvius’s belief (three basic laws in a successful architecture: durability, utility and aesthetic).
- Case study of building that has forgotten this laws & building that follows the laws (New York Railway Station).
- Find out why this law still plays a huge role in today’s world. How does it affect us? Why it is still relevant to us although they are created a long time ago.
- Scope of functionality (architecture is not consider successful if it is not following and incorporate the three laws together; the meaning won’t be the same if one of the law has been left out; we have to understand an architecture inside and out- embrace the law).
5.0 INTROSPECTION IN PROGRESS
§ What are the values that are dying? Why it is vital to us, the public?
- The lost of human touch in most buildings, especially high rise and the mega architectures that are starting to grow like mushrooms after the rain.
- Why is having this value important?
v Convince public that this value of human touch is being left by us too far away.
v Mirror image of society
-When living lifestyle improved - needs change (basic needs to needs for entertainment and luxurious living)- change of value (no human touch, too commercial)
v Effect: - people feel alone and homeless when architecture do not speak.
-if there’s no morality and emotional meaning, then we can neither be happy nor sad when the architecture comes about, because we cannot even be surprised. (Ironic because it opposed with what architecture is intended to do at the first place).
-dozens of sterile and self-conscious buildings that lack of familiarity and charm of identity and traditions.
-leave us with no ability to have joy, excitement or despair, values and skills because architecture now has failed to unite us – lack of social bonding with human, surrounding and buildings).
-architecture’s visceral relationship with mankind (low ability low passion about it).
6.0 MISSION OF SAVING THE DEATH OF ARCHITECTURE IN MALAYSIA
§ Changing the perspective of the public, especially those who are involve with architecture.(new perspectives, new programs)
- There’s a great conflict between the interest of architects and publics. Therefore, this interest coincides in some way. Architects should make publics understand their role; this is through education and the way they design in future. It may not happen within the next year but it will eventually.
- Architects should pursue the general and forward looking agenda. A serious draw back. This will lead to a new form without new programs and new ways of life (social).
§ Design an architecture that can meet the needs and function of Malaysians, not just adore the architecture from the Western country and try to copy and build the same architecture style in Malaysia because some style does not suits and belongs to us. It will make our country look awkward when every architecture that we build is being taken from each and every part of the world.
§ Architects and designers can work together to sought out the needs of the public and try to apply them in their buildings (e.g. why build more car parks when we can build a tunnel(due to the hot and humid tropical weather in Malaysia) for bicycle riders and pedestrians? These not only help to promote green, reduce number of accident, but also to keep us willing to exercise and stay healthy all year long).
§ Building something that is meaningful to the users and last long are much more important than building something that only can impress people for a short while and serve no function at all after a period of time.(e.g. stadium)
§ Case study : a proper case study will be added later.
7.0 CONCLUSION
- An overall view of what have been discussed earlier.
- Question the reader; allow them to think whether they contribute more into saving the death of architecture or encouraging more to the death of architecture.
Vitruvius law
· ‘Ten Books of Architecture’ are the core source for architects and designers to create good building.
· “The end is to build well. Well building hath three conditions: firmness, commodity, and delight.’’ -Vitruvius.
· “Firmitatis utilitatis venustatis.” - “Durability, utility and beauty”
· Durability – it should stand up robustly and remain in good condition
e.g. to survive the forces of nature; rot, decay and corrosion free), so that we don’t have to waste and replace the building materials frequently.
· Utility – a well designed building has to be laid out efficiently so that spaces for similar activities are adjacent.
e.g. selection of the right building materials apply for the right purpose- depending on location, availability and durability.
· Beauty - depends on:”ordinatio, dispositio, eurythmia, decor and distributio.” Beauty is guided by the other two conditions: Durability and Utility. It has its own standard and claims its own authority.
- ordinatio (order): consistency in design to create a sense of harmony. e.g. proportion and types of column used, their entablatures(construction of temple) and pedestals(base).
- dispositio (arrangement): design incorporate both the graphic and also the intellectual sense.
§ Graphic sense: reflection of all aspects of design (site analysis, building program, client’s need…)
§ Intellectual sense: ability to adapt the design laws & design solving
- eurythmia (proportion): arrangement of building elements: height - width - breadth( in order to look harmonize). e.g. ancient temple: proportions of the columns relates to the height and weight it can bear. The entablature/entire structure has managed to support the weight above.
- décor (ornament): appropriate elements to suits its specific intended purpose.
e.g. Doric-embodying masculine characteristics; Ionic-perceived to be feminine; Corinthian-delicate.
Doric: used for temples for virile deities – Hercules, Athena and Mars
Ionic: used for temples for feminine deities – Juno and Diana
Corinthian: used for temples for delicate deities – Venus and Nymphs
*example that Vitruvius gave during the classical time
e.g. consider and understand the meaning of forms according to factors like location, client and function.
Décor also refers to how a space is being oriented according to its site surrounding - advantages and disadvantages.
*contemporary example
-distributio (organizational): how the architects and designers manage/choose the building materials. e.g. usually the issues that the architects and builders face is by choosing materials that are easily available and aesthetic, without considering the climate, site and occupants. In brief, a building in the desert needs different things than the building in the four season country.
Why does the law still relevant until today?
· Laws to guide us in designing individual buildings, communities, cities and regions.
· As a boundary to stop/hold the people from going over obsessed with expressive forms.
· This over obsessed with fractal architecture brings to a nihilistic point of view where there’s a constant quest for the “new.”
· Remind and allow us (architects and designers) to re-examine our work, previously and in the future. We are the innovative people, not the blindly trend catcher.
How these pure greed, self aggrandizement …affect to the end of architecture?
· Created more and more superficial buildings, redundant to have architect and designer if their mindset is as superficial as the public.
· Leads to the endless human request for immortality, causing us to leave behind our own identity and culture (vernacular architecture) that we seldom see/ preserved nowadays.
· Contemporary built environment is disposable (no point cleaving into fractal architecture with extravagant forms in more open space when buildings are being torn down if it has lost its function to serve its occupants).
· These cul-de-sac developments are a waste of resources, time, man work and money.
· Resulted futility/useless buildings in a soulless wasteland – opposed with today’s trend sustainability architecture.
· Advancement in technologies and growing wealth has allowed us to undertake all the impossible into possible. Thus, our hubris is over taking our sense of morality and realization. W e have lost sight of the basic fact that architecture itself is not like fashion, changing its style every season and that can be build extravagantly as we like. If we do not stop this hubris of mankind, it is believed that we will all lost our own traditions and believed or not, we will soon be living without ‘nationality’, no sense of belonging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)