Architectural History and Theory Essay

Architecture has ever been a obscure signifier of art with its true significance of what architecture constitutes, fluctuating in favor of multiple point of views. This may be a end point of a displacement to accommodate socio-contemporary demands, context or simply the being of pre-existing or new engineering. Consequently, a rift has occurred making the argument on whether ‘true ‘ architecture lies more firmly with which tyrannizing feature ; aesthetics, functionality ; or religious or emotional conveyance. It is critical, besides, to non disregard that these facets do non be independently ; that there are eternal combinations and substitutions of how outstanding each feature may be to each other, therefore one facet may be to be every bit of import as another. This creates the possibility of one merely as they all may be every bit of import, every bit good as the possible impression that none may be of import at all. Within this essay, it will be argued that architecture is the latter ; that a balance of three is a requirement and that at the same time, all three do non find what is architecture, similar to how visible radiation is both an energy and affair. Additionally, it is necessary to oppugn under what standard does architecture hold for each of the above features, under what fortunes this standard may go on to alter throughout history and what enables another to judge how any signifier of architecture may fall under these classs.

As society becomes more advanced and engineering becomes an progressively outstanding facet of society, functionality of a edifice becomes a cardinal facet of architecture. Buildings go more accessible, simple to maneuver within and go more comfy to populate, work or merely brood within. Offices and houses become more easy built to go ‘user-friendly ‘ and go on to be with germinating engineering available to humanity. However, if a edifice is strictly created to move functionally, flinging all values of aesthetics, can it be considered architecture? The stating “ all architecture is constructing but non all edifice is architecture ” accompanies Melanie Dodd ‘s “ We are surrounded by edifices, yet few of these will happen their manner into architectural diaries, and in the instance of houses, few are even designed by designers, ” which begs the inquiry how does one distinguish whether architecture must function a intent. Consequently, this may oppugn the functional unity of ‘architecture ‘ such as the Parc de la Villette where the standards for functionality can be judged. Another edifice that can be questioned is House T by Nipponese architect Hiroyuki Shinozaki [ 1 ] , a edifice with no ceilings and no walls built from complete handiness for a twosome. A house designed for life in the little infinites of Japan, certainly this complete the requirements of functionality. If so, does this edifice demand to be examined from an aesthetic point of position? As a house with a basic outside, whether an immediate scrutiny of the exterior quality the house to be claimed as architecture is problematic, culturally and socially. This argument may happen as from a western point of position, architecture is more normally viewed by society through an immediate position of a edifice, in comparing, Japan is a far more smaller state where society is much more condensed into a specific location making smaller infinites for places therefore estranging the society to secure a more functional penchant making a rift between whether the edifice is architecture. Furthermore, it becomes questionable to inquire under what standard does the functionality allow the construction to clear every bit architecture as much of the edifice can be argued as strictly for aesthetics. Again, under what criterions does functionality afford the term ‘architecture ‘ and by whose criterions?

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

John Ruskin one time stated, “ If he is non a sculpturer or painter, he can merely be a builder. ” [ 2 ] Architectural historiographer Nikolaus Pevsner famously declared, “ a bike shed is a edifice ; Lincoln Cathedral is a piece of architecture, ” [ 3 ] therefore if the bike shed was to merely be painted ruddy, would the caducous be considered architecture? Aestheticss can be instantly assumed to be the Southern Cross of architecture. Again, with mention to the Parc de la Villette, it can be determined to be a signifier of architecture as it represents the modern cognitive psychological science aesthetics within modern-day society with a alone turn to provide to the public oculus. Again with mention to Pevsner, “ architecture applies merely to edifices designed with a position to aesthetic entreaty, ” [ 4 ] repeating the necessity for a edifice to be visually delighting to be consider architecture. However this impression of the bike shed non being architecture is flawed with the London ‘s Architecture Foundation 2011 competition [ 5 ] to plan a bike shed wholly subverting Pevsner ‘s statement coercing a reconsideration of whether architecture is classified as a conflict of aesthetics. Withal to this, it is indispensable to contrast the influences from civilization and society that determine a edifice ‘s ocular standards. Culturally, Westerb architecture such as the White House ( US ) or Sydney Opera House ( Australia ) would hold huge differences to expansive constructions such as the Taj Mahal ( India ) or the Himeji Castle ( Japan ) which greatly differs in aesthetics. Whilst both differ in ocular presentation, both can be considered architecture, but under whose determination? It can be argued that any divergent civilization or society may see a construction of another society as beauty merely because of its difference in aesthetic inclinations. However, whether difference or uniqueness blindly means beauty is problematic. Rather, it can be determined that the beauty of a construction exists within the capsulation of the history of the society and civilization of the context of which the construction was built therefore physical visual aspect, despite the claims of many including Pevsner, aesthetics does non move as a primary determiner to specify what architecture is.

As declared within the Seven Lamps of Architecture, “ architecture is the art which.. contributes to… mental wellness, power and pleasance, ” [ 6 ] in other words, architecture is judged by the emotional aggravation created by a edifice which can be supported with Johann Goethe ‘s “ Architecture is “ frozen music ” … the tone of head produced by architecture approaches the consequence of music. ” [ 7 ] While the sentimental value of edifices tend to fall as a lower precedence to much of society, it is however important within architecture. Buildings such as the Taj Mahal to encapsulate a religious ambiance that act as a testimony to the society which records the civilization of society at which the construction was built which can vibrate the societies spiritual standings even in current modern society informing a strong sense of importance to the edifice, similar to the pyramids built in Ancient Egypt. This alone can be argued to separate a edifice as architecture instead than a field edifice of worship. Notwithstanding to this ideal, it is much conspicuously evident that it is merely through apparent the emotional response of a edifice is a end point of both the physical aesthetic and map of a edifice. Both the alone design of the Taj Mahal and the designed allotment of the edifice work to animate a strong sentimental response meriting the claim “ gem of Muslim art in India “ [ 8 ] by reenforcing the sacredness of Shah Jahan ‘s and Mumtaz Mahal ‘s grave within the edifice. Thus emotional aggravation entirely does non do to sort a edifice as architecture without a response from the physical and functional feature of a construction.

Extreme poorness within BA?lA?eAYti, Prahova County has forced people to build their ain places, statistically reasoning that merely 2 % of civilians had consulted an designer for a piece of ‘architect’ [ 9 ] . Such luxuries can evidently be distinguished from the slums of the hapless, which proper reinforced and working homes- clearly apportioning them under the term ‘architecture ‘ . Albeit conversely, it can be argued under whose positions can these houses are pieces of ‘architecture ‘ and the slums are n’t. Here, the footing of what standards of which is ‘architecture can be explored chiefly through the positions received from these edifices. From both hapless and rich, the designed houses may look similar architecture as a consequence of their economic contextual influences. However from a first-world frame of mention, one may hold the places of the slums as architecture. Though the designer ‘s edifice may be aesthetically sound, both suffice with the map of lodging therefore the difference is the emotional aggravation derived from both edifices. Possibly from the point of view of inordinate experiences with edifices designed by designers, the emotional battle of the households can arouse a strong sense of melancholy doing the edifice to move as a record of discord, leting the edifice to be classified as a signifier of architecture. However, in hindsight, this would intend that there becomes a colored sentiment influenced from the ethnocentric divergent positions of different states which could be interpreted that ‘true ‘ architecture merely exists amongst 3rd universe states and the hapless. Thus the impression of emotional use being the most dominant substance to specifying architecture becomes flawed.

All in all, the most distinguishable and merely decision that can be drawn from the statement is that all three features of physical beauty, map and emotional substance are as every bit of import to specifying a edifice as constructions of architecture. Says so Vitruvius, “All these must be built with due mention to lastingness, convenience, and beauty, ” and Wotton, “ Well constructing hath three conditions: soundness, trade good, and delectation, ” work forces of different times yet sharing the same conceptual impression.

However, it is more merely to state that what ‘true ‘ architecture is none of these facets but instead, an earnest desire to scratch one ‘s or society ‘s being into history, with the three features of beauty, map and “ delectation ” as tools to help in the diversion of one ‘s context. It is now imperative to oppugn what aim do placing these characteristic service. A edifice may be delighting to the oculus, but what purpose or logic does a edifice service to be classified architecture service if it is visually pleasant? If a edifice can move functionally for a specific party, can it be sensible to be considered architecture when another may happen the functionality of the edifice troublesome therefore for what intent would a edifice with map as a primary nucleus component service if it is considered architecture? If a edifice can raise a strong emotional response, so what if it is considered architecture? Alas these facets entirely may non deduce the true definition of architecture, it of import to gain that to claim all three define architecture is merely naif, as they alone or even together merely make non function a intent to the society of today or the hereafter.

However it does may possible make justness if the definition of ‘true architecture ‘ is how strongly portrayed does a edifice relay one ‘s historical context, utilizing these three features of aesthetics, “ trade good ” and “ delectation ” as a vas to judge how great a edifice inscribes societal, historical, spiritual and even political context into the edifice. Through expansive memorials such as the Himeji Castle, the pyramids of Egypt and the Pantheon of Rome, all present a record of history of the civilization, society, lives, engineering, political relations and beliefs of the clip. Frank Lloyd Wright declared “ All all right architectural values are human values, else non valuable. ”2Henry Ladsworth Longfellow claimed, “ picture and sculpture are but images, are simply shadows dramatis personae by outward things on rock or canvas, holding in themselves no separate being. Architecture, bing in itself, and non in looking a something it is non, surpasses them as substance shadow, ”2once more work forces of immensely divergent epoch who portion a common ideal of architecture ; that architecture is a agency of scratching humanity ‘s being into history.

Himeji Castle records political hierarchy of the clip ; how there was one political front man during the Edo epoch of which it was built which can be seen by the advanced defense mechanism system of the edifice in order to protect the feudal Godhead. From its advanced defensive design, it records the political convulsion and menace of enemy invasion apparent within the socio-context of the clip at which the palace was built. From the degrees of the palace, it can be determined the figure of people populating under the regulation of the shogun, therefore the extent of power he had. Such combination of examples help unveil the historical value of the edifice and human values and context engraved at the clip, through the intertwinement of design, map and emotional spoils of the edifice. Again, the three features serve merely as a agency to capture historical value of the edifice. Thus this edifice, which is undeniably a solid example of architecture, AIDSs to reaffirm the construct that ‘true ‘ architecture is ; how instead than a simple opinion of aesthetics, functionality or emotional aggravation, it is the incubation of history context and values through the three determiners of aesthetics, functionality or emotional aggravation.

Therefore, it becomes basically clear that ‘true ‘ architecture does non intend a competition of aesthetics, functionality or sentimental aggravation. There is merely no footing for opinion as therefore is unequal to be the specifying point of architecture. However, it is more obvious to accept that architecture is a exposure of the yesteryear ; the historical context of which at the clip the edifice came to supplying agencies for an Inquisition on societal, political and spiritual context and values utilizing the facets of aesthetics, functionality and sentimental aggravation as a footing of opinion. Simply put, it is how closely a edifice can capture the Black Marias of a big audience and how such constructs and can vibrate and flux through the rivers of clip.


[ 1 ] HOUSE T, by Hiroyuki Shinozaki. | METALOCUS. 2014.HOUSE T, by Hiroyuki Shinozaki. | METALOCUS. [ ONLINE-BLOG ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: // [ Accessed 12 April 2014 ] .

[ 2 ] Architectural Quotations. 2014.Architectural Citations. [ ONLINE ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: // . [ Accessed 13 April 2014 ] .

[ 3 ] The American Institutes of Architects ( AIA ) , 2008.Architecture: Observing the Past, Planing the Future. 1st erectile dysfunction. 1735 New York, NW Washington, DC 20006: Ocular Reference Publications.

[ 4 ] An Outline of European Architecture ( Harmondsworth: Penguin, [ 1942 ] 1957 ) , p. 23.

[ 5 ] Dodd, M. Dodd, 2012. What is considered architecture? .Architecture Australia ( AA ) , vol. 101 issue 2, p67-72.

[ 6 ] RUSKIN, J. Ruskin, 1989.Philobiblon-Transylvanian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Humanities, Volume XVIII ( 2013 ) No. 2: Arhipera and the Ethical motives of Social Architecture. 1st erectile dysfunction. Mineola, New York, U.S.A. : Dover Publications. p12

[ 7 ] REES, N. Rees. ( 1809 ) , Friedrich von SCHELLING.In Brewer ‘s Celebrated Citations. 2006. London: Orion Publishing Group. P 394.

[ 8 ] Taj Mahal – UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2014.Taj Mahal – UNESCO World Heritage Centre. [ ONLINE ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: // [ Accessed 13 April 2014 ] .

[ 9 ] Niculae, L.NICULAE, 2013.Philobiblon-Transylvanian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Humanities, Volume XVIII ( 2013 ) No. 2: Arhipera and the Ethical motives of Social Architecture. 1st erectile dysfunction. Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Cluj University Press.