I made my own topic in the silly section?!? Ya well, don't get used to it. This is a paper for my Architectural Theory class. I just thought some of you might enjoy tearing it apart.
Cheers!
Architecture in its Simplest Terms
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
The urge to define our world, to determine and express absolute truths is not a new one. Philosophers have been trying to do it for centuries. Many have tried to define architecture but have found themselves faced with trying to balance centuries? worth of differing ideas about what architecture is, could be, and should be. The art of architecture is one so intricate that it is of course difficult to narrow it down to its essential parts. This however, has been needlessly complicated by the misapplication of most of the work that has been done in this area. So, it is our goal to wade through existing thought on the subject and discover what really is the basic essence of architecture.
THE DEFINITION PROBLEM
We must first address the problem of definition. It is a complex problem that we can only mention in brief here in order to ?set the stage? for the following discussion. When we seek to define, we are searching for a way to describe the essence of an entity in its most simple and explicit of terms with language, or, more specifically, written language. Because of the relative nature of such languages absolute definitions are impossible. One cannot define a word without using other words that in turn must also be defined. The cycle is endless.1 This is evidenced by the fact that we must come to an agreement on what we mean by definition! The task is made more difficult but also rectifiable by the realization that the meanings of words are dynamic and change with time and region. More difficult because it adds yet another layer of complexity onto an already complex problem. Rectifiable because it allows us to understand that what we must do is not find an all encompassing, time-spanning characterization, but rather we must simply put into words what is true for our time and place.
This brings us to the crux of our problem. How can we determine what is true about architecture for our time and place? The answer is deceivingly simple, but we will delay this observation for the time being. It has been suggested that one can only know what something is by knowing what that something is not, and that knowing what that thing is not is the path to discovering what it is.2 Along these lines, we will examine two of the more popular ideas about what architecture is, and why they are in error.
FORMALISM
Formalism is the school of thought that teaches that beauty is in geometry, that context is irrelevant, and that the formal arrangement of parts is all that matters3. While it must be noted that this is primarily a method of critique, one gets the feeling that formalists would argue the case that only subjects that were judged to be ?good? under formalist principles could be judged to be proper architecture. Therefore it will be worthwhile to show the theory?s shortcomings. Dzemidok, in Artistic Formalism states, ? . . .this body of thought is absolutely untenable as a universal theory of art and artistic values; It also fails when confronted with contemporary artistic practice and art history.? He makes the point that throughout most of history, art has been a direct reflection on life. It has helped to analyze, explain, challenge, and change social culture not through its aesthetic qualities, but through its purpose and meaning.4
As it pertains to architecture, we can see discrepancies between the theory and real world practices. If an example of architecture needed only to have a proper formal arrangement of parts then an architect would never need to visit a site. He would never need to take into account the specific needs of a client or of the people who would most experience the architecture. However, architects of today do take these things into account, thus negating the validity of the theory of formalism.
FUNCTIONALISM
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines function as ?Assigned duty or activity.? The functionalist doctrine, when speaking strictly, is concerned only with the utility of a design. Quoting Taut, ?the first and foremost point should be how to obtain the uttermost utility.? So, in essence, architecture is function and form is merely a byproduct of function.5 While this theory edges closer to the truth, it too is fundamentally flawed in its narrowness and can be disproved by practicality.
First, architecture can be acknowledged and even appreciated by people who have no use for it nor have any knowledge of its purpose for existing. Cities are full of such people. We drive around and experience office buildings, parks, and so on in a purely aesthetic sense. Second, architecture can be used or adapted successfully for a purpose other than that intended. One must doubt that the ?pit? of the Langford Architecture Building was designed for Halloween parties, yet it is utilized for just that every year. Finally, functionalism is erroneous because it makes no provision for architecture that does not successfully fulfill its intended purpose. Surely poorly conceived architecture can still be defined as such.
THE MAIN PROBLEM
The largest stumbling block to a proper definition of architecture is the authors? tendencies to first characterize architecture as a higher order and then to define the attributes of that order. Using a process such as this we will always, by necessity, end up excluding a large portion of the architectural experience. This is fitting when we realize that what are in fact created are not definitions of architecture, but rather systems of evaluation. These tell not what architecture is, but what ?good? architecture is, (in the opinion of the author). The above theories were presented not as an exhaustive study of the available views on the subject, of which there are many, but rather to illustrate a point central to this argument. All theories existing hereforeto fail in their explanations because they are too narrow and explicit.
THE SOLUTION
This is central because what I propose is a departure from the idea that architecture is necessarily a higher order of design. Alluded to earlier was the solution to the problem of defining truth for a certain time and place. The answer is that we must simply reduce the subject in question down to terms that agree with the common experience. For, this is the true nature of definitions. They are the commonly agreed upon meaning of words. That is, words only have meaning if a number of people understand the meaning to be so. Ergo, I submit the following definition: Architecture is any human attempt to define a space for the purpose of living, where ?living? is defined as the conduct or maintenance of life.6 This definition is composed in the simplest of terms in order to facilitate its applicability in the widest range of situations while still being specific to one term. It can be applied to the large and to the small, the absolute and the theoretical, the good and the bad. It is true for buildings, parks, gardens, roads, bridges, and even virtual environments. By utilizing such a definition as a starting point that can lead to more specific instances, we facilitate learning and growth instead of impeding them with needless complication.
CONCLUSION
In the beginning stages of what will surely be a life-long search for truth, there is one basic certainty that I have come to rely upon. We must always use what we understand to explain that which we do not understand. By applying this principle and tempering it with the ideas of others I have decided on a definition that describes the essence of architecture and will perfectly aid me in future learning. It may not always be true, but for now it stands.
NOTES
1. Conclusions drawn from Plato?s Meno
2. From Hegel?s preface to Phenomenology of Mind
3. Dzemidok, Bohdan. Artistic Formalism: Its Achievements and Weaknesses.
4. ? ?
5. Smith. Function and Functionalism.
6. Definition from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
It's pronounced "Spikes!"
posted 10-21-2003 15:09
clue, fact, clue, and ta dah! mystery solved! are you a fan of Sherlock Holmes?