fall 2005
ARC 350R/386M:
Architectural Criticism
NOTES ON A DESCRIPTIVE METHOD
A descriptive method with regard to form (and the form of space) and content as a basis for architectural criticism
Traditional architectural theory from the Renaissance (eg. Alberti, Palladio, Vignola) to the beginning of the twentieth century (eg. Julian Guadet) concerned itself with the competing prescriptions of the classical orders (Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, etc.), the temple forms, and by extrapolation, their application to domestic and communal buildings via, amongst other compositional and conceptual techniques and instruments, geometric typologies (eg. Durand).
Guadet's Elements d'Architecture was one of the last attempts at defining the parts of building from a theoretical point of view. However, it lacks a relational structure within which the parts are set to the different conceptual and physical wholes so as to render a comprehensive matrix that mirrors the scope of architecture.
Thereafter, research in methods of description in architecture led, amongst other directions, to Steadman and March's development towards a Shape Grammar. Here, the goal was to use the principle of the module (a triangle) to map the surface of a form as an analogue, using matrixes to determine the position within a three-dimensional network. While such attempts are related to the classical theories (cf. module), it also lacks a relational structure that enables the matrix from becoming overextended and therefore unmanageable.
The present descriptive method consists of five principles. The first deals with the criteria for identifying a phenomenon in the first place. The second deals with the nature and structural relations between identified elements. The third deals with the definition of elements and their relation to a whole. The fourth deals with the idea of the concatenation of a whole of one morphological category to the part of another morphological category. The fifth deals with the relations of part to the whole and content to form.
THE IDENTIFIABILITY OF A PHENOMENON
IDENTITY, DIFFERENTIATION, DEFINITION
The first axiom establishes the morphological basis of being able to identify anything at all. The second axiom establishes the abstract structural relationships of phenomena to each other, described as a resultant. The third axiom relates abstract geometric concepts to a typology of forms and spaces. The fourth axiom adopts the notion of part to whole to the phenomena of building. The fifth axiom relates compositional figures and conceptual figures to rhetorical figures (figures of diction and figures of thought).
THE IDENTIFIABILITY OF A PHENOMENON
Only through the relative isolation of a phenomenon can it be identified. Thus, a phenomenon has identity if it differs from the ground against which it is experienced (see for instance the discussion of figure-ground in Gestalt theory). A dot in space is an instance of a figure against a ground.
Phenomena can also be identified through the act of differentiation where no dominant and subdominant phenomena are involved. Thus, the meeting of two co-planar surfaces along a visble line is an instance of the act of differentiation.
The observed phenomenon does not need to be sharply outlined, as described in the previous example. An gentle undulation in a plane, even though there is no rupture in the surface of the plane, can again be identifiable as a figure through its subtle definitionfrom the ground.
MORPHOLOGICAL VARIABLES
Definitiveness
Heterogeneity/Homogeneity
Distributiveness/Arrangement
Iterativeness/Rhythmic Seriality
Proportion/Scalar Relation
Five variables can be identified to adequately describe the range of abstract structural relations which figures would have vis-a-vis one another.
DEFINITIVENESS
The degree to which figures in themselves are more or less clearly defined with regard to the ground is covered by the first axiom. Given that figures are at all defined, the first morphological variable describes the degree of definition vis-a-vis other figures and therefore the degree of clarity of the resultant structure or pattern.
HETEROGENEITY/HOMOGENEITY
The figures of a structure or a pattern may not all be identical. In the case that they are, the resultant is a homogeneous abstract structure. In the case that all figures of a structure only occur once, the resultant is a heterogeneous abstract structure. Mixtures exist between these two poles.
DISTRIBUTIVENESS/ARRANGEMENT
Figures of a structure or pattern have neighbourly relationships with each other. Thus, there may be "structures" without any clear neighbourly relationships at all, these structures are freely distributed. Figures can be found to be arranged in such a way that they always have two neigbours, one on either side, these structures are closed series. An open series is one in which two figures only have one neighbour, namely the first and the last in the series.
Structures or Patterns in which with at least one figure is in the neighbourhood of three other figures are grouped. These groups can be open, if the other three figures do not form a series themselves, or closed, if they form a series.
ITERATIVENESS/RHYTHMIC SERIALITY
Structures and patterns consisting of different figures may constitute recurring sub-patterns, which in turn establish an orderly description that is independent of the variety of figures that constitutes the sub-pattern or the overall pattern. Thus a pattern "a b a b a" is identical in its iterativeness or rhythmic seriality to "abc yx abc xy abc".
PROPORTION/SCALAR RELATION
Without defining absolute dimensions, figures within a structure or pattern may stand in scalar relation to each other. Figure "x" is a proportional factor of "y".
MORPHOLOGICAL ELEMENTS
The abstract geometric concepts of point, line, plane, cube
Equivalents in the five morphological categories Thesaurus of elements: their cognitive label and their geometrico-proportional description
Inasmuch geometric axioms begin with points, lines, planes and volumes, the abstract geometric transposition to the realm of building would render the block, the bar, the slab and the cube.
From this, a range of phenomena in the realm of building can be defined in abstract geometric terms.
MORPHOLOGICAL CATEGORIES
The notion of part to whole, the concatenation of elements of a lower category to elements of a higher category.
Constructional
Tectonic
Compartmental
Configurational
Contextual
Using the notion of part to whole, of parts forming other wholes, it is possible to understand the conceptual structuring of the phenomenon of building into five morphological categories. From construction, tectonic, compartmental, configurational to contextual, each category contains elements, that are constituted from elements from previous categories (with the exception of the category of construction).
Each morphological category is interfaced with social, scientific, economic, material, aesthetic domains of reality. Thus for instance, the constructional category engages issues of economy, statics, and building physiology. Such engagements could be modelled in qualitative as well as in quantitive terms.
The compartmental category could be modelled in terms of topological adjacencies and their social values which they embed (see Hillier & Hanson).
RELATIONS AS RHETORICAL FIGURES
The notions of form to content and part to whole.
The theory, imitation and practice of rhetoric sets out terms by which to understand the art of communication. Rhetorical analysis structures communicative phenomena into
the character of discourse (eg. solemn/stately, matter-of-fact, relaxed) leading to the notion of character of reality (see Dagobert Frey, "Realitaetscharakter")
the consistency of discourse (eg. appropriate choice of elements within the composition, conscious or unconscious errors in composition - i.e. "shabby chic"
compositional figures (see for instance Ad C. Herennium) for instance: duplication, repetition, inversion, suppresion, substitution, elimination
conceptual figures, for instance metaphor, metonymy, onomatopoeia, synecdoche, allegory
While not every term used in rhetorical analysis is applicable to the field of building, there are many rhetorical figures which shed clarifying liht on the question of the judicious choice of ideas, communicative elements and their appropriate composition.
BACKGROUND READING LIST
- Paul Frankl [in German only], Das System der Kunstwissenschaft,
- Bruenn-Leipzig, 1938, reprint Berlin 1998
- [Cicero] Ad C.Herennium, Cambridge, MA,1954
- Christian Norberg-Schulz, Intentions in Architecture, Oslo, 1963
- Hans van der Laan, Architectonic Space, Leiden 1983
- Richard Padovan, Dom Hans van der Laan: Modern Primitive, Amsterdam 1994
- Bill Hillier & Julienne Hanson, The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge, England, 1984
- Bill Hillier, Space is the Machine, Cambridge, England, 1994
SEMINAR SCHEDULE
14 Sep 04 Seminar 1: Introduction to the seminar
Assignment I: Review of one year's production of a medium
Possible media for review:
- Architectural Review, London
- Architecture, New York
- ARCHIS, Rotterdam
- A&T, Pamplona
- Baumeister, Munich
- Bauwelt, Berlin
- Blueprint, London
- Casabella, Milano
- DOMUS, Milano
- Metropolis, New York
- New York Times, New York
- ON, Madrid
- El Pais, Madrid
- Select one medium.
- Select one architectural criticism and one theoretical text from one year's production..
- Summarize the texts. Each summary should be no longer than one page.
- Analyze the underlying values and method(s) of description. Each anaylsis should be no longer than one page.
- Prepare a 10 minute seminar presentation of your review.
Discussion on assignments 2 and 3:
Assignment 2: Student Architecture Award
Assignment 3: a building criticism, seminar presentation and paper.
15 Sep 05 Seminar 2: Building Criticism I
Villa Mairea, Aalvar Aalto, Noormarkku 1938-1939
Analysis and discussion of building, design approach, context, type
21 Sep 05 Seminar 3: Building Criticism II
The Philharmonic Concert Hall, Hans Scharoun, Berlin 1957-1963
Analysis and discussion of building, design approach, context, type
22 Sep 05 Seminar 4: Building Criticism III
Science Center Wolfsburg, Zaha Hadid, Wolfsburg 2001-2005
Analysis and discussion of building, design approach, context, type
05 Oct 05 Seminar 5: Student Award
Discussions on the rules for the Student Architecture Award
Submissions of proposals for the Award - long list
Discussion of proposals
Students' presentations of summaries and analyses of the two articles:
4 presentations at 10 minutes each
06 Oct 05 Seminar 6: Building Criticism IV
The Museum of Modern Art, New York, Yoshio Taniguchi, 2000-2004
Analysis and discussion of building, design approach, context, type
12 Oct 05 Seminar 7: Building Criticism V
Visit of recently completed buildings/alterations on UT Campus
In-situ analysis and criticism
Presentation of buildings for the Student Architecture Award, at least one proposal per student
13 Oct 05 Seminar 8: Student Architecture Award, Jury Session Shortlist
Discussion on the process of selection
Discussion of each proposal,
Vote for shortlist of buildings
Preparation for permission to visit buildings, itinerary, logistics
02 Nov 05 Seminar 9: Student Architecture Award: Site Visit
Site visit to shortlisted buildings
03 Nov 05 Seminar 10: Student Architecture Award Jury Session
Jury session, discussion, vote
Preparation of statements for the award
16 Nov 05 Seminar 11: Student presentations I
Student presentations II
Presentation by seminarists of building criticisms
Prepare a 30 minute presentation with maximum of 40 images
Each presentation is followed by 20 minutes of discussions on the building and presentation
17 Nov 05 Seminar 12: Student presentations III
Presentation by seminarists of building criticisms
Prepare a 30 minute presentation with maximum of 40 images
Each presentation is followed by 20 minutes of discussions on the building and presentation
07 Dec 05 Seminar 13: Student presentations III
Presentation by seminarists of building criticisms
Prepare a 30 minute presentation with maximum of 40 images
Each presentation is followed by 20 minutes of discussions on the building and presentation
08 Dec 05 Seminar 14: Student presentations III
Presentation by seminarists of building criticisms
Prepare a 30 minute presentation with maximum of 40 images
Each presentation is followed by 20 minutes of discussions on the building and presentation.
16 Dec 05 Submission of final papers