|
11 Dec 2006 @ 20:00, by swanny
Dec 11, 2006
Canada
Noon
Monday
THE ARCHITECTURAL DIVIDE
I was asked to review a new book on architecture,
" A Theory of Architecture" by Nikos A. Salingaros
I felt it wasn't up to snuff but had potential.
I think I felt that because it seemed to lack a basic premise
or thought. A crutial architectural insight.
Reading the article on open sources cars ming found, brought back the architectural idiom and reference "Form follows Function" that was instilled in me in Arch school and then bingo the insight...
Thats possible but only in egotistical or fashion architecture not natural or sustainable architecture. In truth or maybe not truth but in practice "Function follows Form" Its the building that ultimately determines the function and not the function
that determines the building. It perhaps sematic somewhat but then it isn't. I think Form will alway "over ride" function because forms are more sustainable than functions as form is the noun and function the verb. There is a bit of synthesis between form and function in terms of the architect. The architect is like a form/function anaylist who must take both form and function as equals and create a formal expression or "form" of the conclusion. Different "forms" for different "functions". Effective architecture as it were.
So to the architect form is function and function is form but to the legacy, Function follows the built or expressed form.
I think the closest this has found expression is in the organic architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright and the Conscious architecture of Douglas Cardinal. Closest because neither seemed to have much luck with roofs but achieve a immortal form below the roofs.
alfred
|
|
Category: Thoughts
3 comments
11 Dec 2006 @ 20:16 by swanny : I mean...
Why build afterall?
To create forms? or
To create functions.
Forms are built I would argue to
"accomadate" funcions are they not
or what and then why do we build?
Was the first building built to
accomadate or provide a "shelter"?
And is a "shelter" a form or a function
or both or neither?
Okay good point...
Is a shelter a form or a function and
what about "natural" shelters then?
Weren't the initial shelters premised
or based on natural forms.
and are natural shelters forms or functions?
They are natural forms that serve human functions.
Then human started building their own forms based
on natural forms and the rest is history and "stigmergy"
proves it. Except something happened along the way
and someone started the notion or trend of "Form follows
function" and that to is history.
11 Dec 2006 @ 20:41 by swanny : The Aesthetic
I think though maybe the point is moot and oversimplistic and the real overlooked question is the Architectural Aesthetic in the mix.
Studies are starting to find that the way a building looks
feels, is colored, is organized, is designed, seems to effect
it effectiveness more than is obvious and can even influence its neighbourhood.
The real arguement then is aesthetic a component of form or function.
And then there is also building budget consideration and schedule.
It therefore is a complex task that the architect faces, to bring together
these aspects and perhaps more and create a effective structure.
11 Dec 2006 @ 23:36 by swanny : Library reopens
Dec 11, 2006
Canada
Monday
Well this happened in 2002 but I'm glad
I found out.
Apparently the fabled "Library of Alexandria"
in Egypt has "reopened" after 2000 years.
I not sure if my facts are correct but it was
apparently destroyed by fire 2000 years ago.
Not sure if the fire was accidental or arson.
Site Link
link = [link]
impressive architecture pics
Link = [link]
shine on
sir
Other entries in Thoughts
16 Jun 2007 @ 22:35: Joan Chittister on America
7 Feb 2007 @ 16:11: Leysh Nat'arak
2 Jan 2005 @ 11:19: Imagine 2
4 Nov 2004 @ 10:11: G L O B A L G R A C E
26 Oct 2004 @ 21:57: The Now Vision
18 Oct 2004 @ 11:45: 9/11 as methaphor
1 Oct 2004 @ 11:54: Orientation Exercise
29 Sep 2004 @ 22:54: 2004 09 28!
5 Sep 2004 @ 14:51: Leadership?????
11 Jun 2004 @ 06:02: The Magical Dance of Evolution
|
