of note on Vitruvius :: Quite obvious is his insistence on both symmetry and proportion. But he’s not talking about proportion as a truth in a purely mathematical way. He writes about columns perceived as proportional from the angle of the viewer. Which means his in an interpreted mathematics, not a universal reality inherent in the geometric proportion itself, but one which respects, and maybe even needs, a context.
for Boulee :: He’s the strongest voice for symmetry, with a nod to proportion but not as priority. And while I can’t claim to know how far the comparison would carry, Boulee’s talk of the impossibility of pure invention of form (the comments regarding Perault’s argument), did remind me of the way Plato treats the term equality in Phaedos. While Durand clearly is the grander champion of economy, Boulee does, if indirectly, borrow Durand’s soapbox for a moment to reinforce his own by arguing that symmetry is that which the eye easily understands. I don’t think it too far a stretch to see this as an example of what Durand calls the “love of comfort and dislike of all exertion.”
Durand :: Instead of starting his categories with the geometric associations Vitruvius and Boulee both marry to symmetry and proportion, Durand seems much more interested in topological relationships. His call for “fitness” defines the formal requirements of a building by their behaviors, their events, their program*, instead of the categories of columns by height and feet as proportional measuring sticks.
*I can’t help but think of Koolhaas, particularly the TED talk by Josh Prince-Ramus on their Lousiville project :: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/joshua_prince_ramus_on_seattle_s_library.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
excellent, yes absolutely there is platonism in Boullee. its exists throughout much of the history of architecture, even, surprisingly, during the revival of aristotle during the middle ages. very keen perception of the contradiction in vitruvius -- the ideal vs the instrumental. But then why do we idealize some things?
the koolhass reference is very important -- its is very Durand and very topological. im not sure durand is topological -- that's an interesting question. But certainly the question of the economy of program falls within a topological-like consideration. it is still much the same when we diagram programs and assert their economy of organizatin. but the diagrams, let's remember, are topological artifacts. they don't say how much space, but rather a certain set of relations and organizations, a certain set of conintuities. And Renee, Cole or whoever is right, to remind us, as you point out, we don't really ever just use one mathematical system. But often, we tend to privelege a model.
Post a Comment