Interesting that none of the readings really talk much about “SPACE”. Boulee discusses at length the transcendent quality of masterful use of geometry and the reliance on nature as the source of all inspiration (I’m not necessarily buying all of this), but he never really discusses any quality of space. Also there seems to be missing a criticality. Boulee simply accepts geometries, specifically the sphere, as a pure and perfect form. Does this mean, as architects, that if we simply erect spheres we are creating in the order of the “Divine Being”. Personally I see some controversy with spheres and question their use in an architectural context. Surely there is something more to architecture than “geometrical perfection”. Is this really how we perceive space and value buildings; simply by their “clarity, regularity and symmetry”??? Boy that building was….perfectly symmetrical…it really took my breath away. “Symmetry is pleasing because it is the image of clarity and because the mind, which is always seeking understanding, easily accepts and grasps all that is symmetrical”-Montesquieu. “Weary of the mute sterility of irregular volumes, I proceeded to study regular volumes” How banal and dismissive this sounds. Aren’t we, in fact, finding out new phenomena in neural science, self-organization and complexity? Our understanding of “the mind” is changing and so should our use of it. Boulee seems naive and outdated in his simplistic acceptance of geometrical forms as a model for meaning. Hasn’t science, technology and modernity moved us a little further than this?
Durand strikes a little closer to home for me. The ideal form in architecture does not seem to be based on the primitive hut and the human body was not the proportional system employed to design Greek columns. Good. “FITNESS” Good. This does not mean that architecture does not have meaning. It just indicates that its meaning might not be derived through imitation and use of symbols. Where Boulee tends to talk about Math as a way for our work to gain meaning, Durand talks of math in terms of metrics and dimensions not in terms of transcending meaning. Durand is looking beyond implied meaning into the nuts and bolts. He looks at (1)the objects that architecture uses (2) the combination of these elements and (3) the alliance of these combinations in a composition of a specific building. There is nothing here about implied legitimacy because of the choice of objects, Durand would not reel over the sphere the way Boulee has. For Durand the choice of elements is only 1 part of the equation.Opinion-We are searching for meaning in our work and in our use of geometry- I would like to think that our understanding of the world and ourselves has mutated and hopefully matured over the last several millennium. I would think, intuitively, that we have more to learn and it is only through critical use and study of math that we will develop more and deeper meaning. Or maybe we can just keep making cenotaphs and placing temple fronts on banks without question, confident in its antiquated and implied meaning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
paragraph breaks please, it burns the eyes..
ok, but don't hastily criticize boullee, i mean, i agree with you, but consider the wierdness of his argument about the irregular -- he's getting that from Condilla, the Picturesque, the Sublime, etc. and trying all the while to get it to link up with Vitruvius and the ancient tradition. We have to remember that the Gothic didn't really count for anything until the 19th century when critics realized what an intelligent system it was (as opposed to barbaric). Durand, as you point out, is really on a new agenda -- and so the comparison between all three in terms of 'symmetry' is what kind of model do they make it? how do they use the term? This is really good, thanks.
Post a Comment