Posted by Issi on March 26, 2002 at 09:51:17:In Reply to: Re: is art VERSUS functionalism?! posted by Paul Malo on March 26, 2002 at 06:06:22:
Now here's what I thought when reading the original posting:
I have a problem with seeing architecture PRIMARILY as an art. That is not to say I don't believe architecture is an art - it is - but it is primarily a field in which proffesionals (architects) provide solutions for problems.
These problems can be as basic as lack of shelter (from rain, sun, wild beasts, wild men, etc'), or as complex as Paris's need for new landmarks. The need to supply the masses with a stimulating environment is a problem to be solved; so are proper plumbing and ecological energy efficiency.
The range of "problems" the architect must solve is as wide as the range of consumers' engagements (consumers as opposed to clients - for he who uses a building is not necessarily he who pays for it). I believe art has a respectable place among the "problems" an architect must solve - aesthetic and non-immediate meaning (architectural "depth") are functions many buildings must supply, even if they are not initially obvious.
I am therefore upset at hearing modern functionalism attacked so bluntly. I believe that modern functionalism did indeed overlook many, if not most of the functions of a building and of the environment (Jane Jacobs, for example, did not write until the 1960's when much of modern functionalism was already history). Modern functionalist thought oversimplified the needs of human building consumers (people), overlooking many important functions recognized by later architect. Aesthetic is but one of these overlooked functions, as are many others coming from many disciplines - Herman Hertzberger's design brings about spontaneous meeting among people - causing a more fertile social environment - Edward T. hall brought forth fathoms of knowlege concerning man's need for personal space - and other examples from still other disciplines are aplenty.
The essence of modern functionalism - that architecture must meet man's needs - is to me a basic truth of the profession. I believe that what is called "functionalism" is merely an oversimplification of man's needs - much like seeing a complex shape and calling it a square, or like trying to mold chaotic forms into simple geometric patterns.
I find the essay about "the death of architecture" extremely troubling, because it fails to recognize this essence - and states that architecture is first and foremost an art.
Architecture COULD be a wonderful art - if only we (as civilized people) did not DEPEND on it. Architecture is first and foremost for people and their needs, and it is also an art in as much as people need it to be an art.
Thanks for reading this far!
Issi - Tel-Aviv.
|
ArchitectureWeek
Search
Buildings
Architects
Types
Places
Pix
Free 3D Models
Store
Library
|