The Humana Building in Louisville, Kentucky was designed and built by Michael Graves from 1982 – 1985 in what some say is a staple of the Postmodern movement. This skyscraper building is one of Graves’ most well known, due to its twist on classic features and the unique materials he used. It is 26-stories high and sits on the Ohio River. The Humana Building was made for the Humana Company which specializes in health care. There is actually a combination of many classical forms, from multiple time periods utilized in the design. Also, this building is unlike other skyscrapers due to the fact that, although it is a large rectangular box similar to other skyscrapers which surround it, each façade differs in a combination of style, shape and color.
The heavy appeal to the façade connects this building firstly to Romanesque architecture, where the front façade is considered the most important. This is a significant comparison because the building is putting on a show for the viewers who walk past, and the detail put into it makes the building more important to those simpler ones surrounding.
At the top of the building, or what is the conference floor, it shapes into a form similar to that of a ziggurat*; a Ziggurat is a type of temple. This once again connects the viewer to the grand feeling and gives of an air of importance about the company, and it helps to make the building intimidating.
At the base, the bottom eight floors of the building are made of large columns which are so wide and tall they will intimidate any customer. The idea of columns originates from Greek and early Roman design, and I believe is utilized by Graves to, once again, express the importance of the building.
The mix of these classical elements – a ziggurat from the Egyptian time, columns from the Greek and Roman period, an important façade from the Romanesque period – all occupy two reoccurring themes. These are, as I have mentioned, intimidation and importance. Healthcare is very significant to people in our country, it is difficult to live well without it. In this way, I believe Graves chose these significant features because they related to the point of the company. They also were easily recognizable and respected. The second factor, intimidation, was key in Graves design because health care itself is no easy thing. Unrelated to the business however, I think Graves also used these obvious designs because in the time of post-modernism, when it was considered okay to borrow from the past but American designers were still searching for what “American design” was, he wanted to put a twist on classic elements, making that statement and connecting the past to the present.
The building not only harkens back to classic designs, but it emulates the surrounding buildings which were previously in existence. He created the 8-story loggia – an Italian design – to sit with the small buildings and shops on the street front (to the right it you face the building), though he still made it taller reinforcing his buildings importance once again. The remaining 18-stories were built up into a skyscraper which places it on the same level of importance as those skyscrapers surrounding it, but most noticeably the tall skinny one to the very left.
Although it has the loggia, making the base almost square, the majority of the building is a rectangle, being vertical in shape. The building has these strong verticals, once again relating it to classic designs where buildings reached up ‘as far as the eye could see.’ This works especially well since most of the surrounding buildings are short – with the exception being the before mentioned tall, skinny skyscraper. It is definitely set apart from this building as well, and that is by the materials which were used to construct the Humana Building.
The skyscraper to the left is made of what seems to be steel and glass, popular during the revolution, while Graves’ Humana Building is made from unique pink granite. Most of the windows are small, differing once again from the other skyscraper which is basically all windows. Graves chose the pink granite** specifically because he wanted a unique material that was this pink color and texture, though it did cause uproar, because of where it came from.
Graves probably did not consider the three factors of commodity, firmness, and delight, but he did a good job incorporating them. The building has a unique design, provoking people to notice, to stop and look. The material is not widely used, and because of this it is very appealing to people walking by; it provides interest. It was functional and commodious, for example, because the columns at the base help to keep the structure standing, while also serving as a grand entrance way. There is also a large, open curved space near the top which serves as an observation deck. This deck allows for a wonderful view of the Ohio River as well as other surrounding buildings – accessible, though, only to those who attend the meetings, or those of importance, once again creating the superiority of the building.
When compared to the Proximity Hotel in Greensboro, one can see many obvious differences; I chose it due it the subtle similarities. The uses of the buildings differ and, though the Proximity Hotel it quite large, it is not as tall as the Humana building. They are different classifications all together, one is a skyscraper. The similarities, though, are the geometric shapes seen through the facades of both buildings. The Humana Building has varying façades, but down to its basics the windows are all squares that follow in straight rows and columns, through the whole side of the building. The Proximity Hotel is the same – it has rows and columns of square windows which never vary in size or placement. They both also have an X mark on a window, or in the place of a window, which furthers the geometric pattern.
Personally I find the Humana Building by Michael Graves to be a very intriguing building. He combines many classic elements, as well as new modern one to create a place for people to enjoy. I believe he blends the elements together nicely, and I appreciate the way in which he designed all the façades differently. Last, I believe he designed the building well in comparison to its use – a calming yet complex place that deals with things that aren’t so simple such as healthcare.
*http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/kentucky/louisville/humana/humana.html
**http://eng.archinform.net/projekte/6402.htm
Michael Graves: Buildings and Projects 1982 – 1989; Princeton Architectural Press
Kings of Infinite Space: Frank Lloyd Wright & Michael Graves; Charles Jenks
Friday, May 8, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Explorations
http://en.structurae.de/files/photos/2018/amiens/am_c1_st.jpg
http://www.destination360.com/europe/italy/trevi-fountain.php
http://www.revellphotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/2326031072_f5d4c3d022.jpg
http://ocw.core.org.cn/CORE/architecture/the-history-of-ancient-chinese-architecture/the-history-of-ancient-chinese-architecture
http://www.sjctax.us/stjohns/images/fort.JPG
http://media.photobucket.com/image/church%20stained%20glass%20winter%20park/MyLeftWing/Chartres_Cathedral_The_North_Rose_D.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Stonehenge.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Colored_pencils_chevre.jpg/800px-Colored_pencils_chevre.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.burnsland.com/photos/wdw043/wdw043_06.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.burnsland.com/photos/wdw043.shtml&usg=__Vv5EOrURupUMRdb-Oc5gnmZP3NE=&h=375&w=500&sz=78&hl=en&start=16&um=1&tbnid=sceYlsx3A0fnYM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmain%2Bstreet%2Bdisney%2Bworld%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4TSHB_enUS277US277%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Oregon_zoo_peacock_male.jpg
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Opus 14
Community
Architects wanted their buildings to have meaning. They wanted to give back to the community with an attempt at architecture being “exalted to become rich and meaningful.” (Roth 608) These designers created environments for groups of people, living and working together in traditional ways (Roth 607) – they were not designing based on what they wanted in particular. They wanted to create places of less monotony and more life, establishing clear identities. Also at this time a main influence which affected the community was sustainability. There are some exceptions to this, but by and large, the issue of sustainability has grown in importance on a global level, and also for the whole of the design community. (Massey 219) This has affected multiple aspects of design; renewable resources are being used, making some ‘exotic’ materials – such as ebony – banned, and there is a more careful thought out use of energy, the use of natural light for example. (Massey 219-221). An example of a design excelling in this is Yeang’s Menara Mesiniaga Tower. It has separations between the floors and an open service core allowing air flow; the windows which face the east and west are shaded to prevent the use of excess air conditioning. (Roth 609) This is just one buildings example, however, in how the entire design community is working to decrease the amount in which they negatively affect the land, and increase sustainability.
Stewardship
This issue of sustainability - which some say is the main issue of design at this time – I have already mentioned is a way in which designers have displayed stewardship. They are trying to improve the effects of their buildings and designs for themselves and others present, the future inhabitants of the earth, and the earth itself. They are picking products which require “less intrusive extraction of the raw materials and less toxic production process” and yet they are still maintaining a wonderfully designed building which also “depends less on the consumption of nonrenewable energy.” (Roth 608) This list, along with what I have already given expresses how designers and architects are trying to make the world a better, cleaner place to live.
Innovation
With a new century comes new inventions, and new ways of thinking. I have already described one building, the Menara Mesiniaga Tower by Ken Yeang, in which he uses innovative ideas to create a more sustainable building. There are other aspects of design, however, where designers create new, modern, innovative ideas. The use of minimalist designs are seen throughout modern buildings – the Prada store in Tokyo has a minimal quantity of clothing on display, but a futuristic design with digital databases of the clothes in stock (Massey 235). Another example, the 4-you Youth Savings Bank in austria, by Burgler and Petrovic, utilizes a baseball themed design to attract young people to the bank.
These two designs have little to do with the functions of the building, but are new ways of expressing the meanings. Also, another design being utilized recently is that of music being blasted through stores and buildings. This music creates a feeling, similar to that of the buildings meaning or location perhaps, but not necessarily to what is actually seen in the design of the building. (Massey 239)
Authenticity
At this time in design, I see it as difficult for anything to be authentic, or perceived as authentic. Many designs emulate pre-existing designs. Even if a designer or architect has a new innovative idea, chances are it was already in use in some way at some time. This can be difficult to judge, however. Take sustainability for example – although it is a design aspect that has recently become popular, the first sustainable designs can be linked back to when people used local materials which were in abundance, large windows, or the weather to their advantage, the even if it was unintentional.
This week I have learned through the discussion and reading that community has lead to less ‘crap in the suburbs’ housing being built, though it is still being built quite a lot. The consideration of community has also brought forth the aspect of sustainable design and how designers and architects have been trying to become better at sustainability. All of these considerations have created new (somewhat authentic) innovative designs to our community, local and global.
Architects wanted their buildings to have meaning. They wanted to give back to the community with an attempt at architecture being “exalted to become rich and meaningful.” (Roth 608) These designers created environments for groups of people, living and working together in traditional ways (Roth 607) – they were not designing based on what they wanted in particular. They wanted to create places of less monotony and more life, establishing clear identities. Also at this time a main influence which affected the community was sustainability. There are some exceptions to this, but by and large, the issue of sustainability has grown in importance on a global level, and also for the whole of the design community. (Massey 219) This has affected multiple aspects of design; renewable resources are being used, making some ‘exotic’ materials – such as ebony – banned, and there is a more careful thought out use of energy, the use of natural light for example. (Massey 219-221). An example of a design excelling in this is Yeang’s Menara Mesiniaga Tower. It has separations between the floors and an open service core allowing air flow; the windows which face the east and west are shaded to prevent the use of excess air conditioning. (Roth 609) This is just one buildings example, however, in how the entire design community is working to decrease the amount in which they negatively affect the land, and increase sustainability.
Stewardship
This issue of sustainability - which some say is the main issue of design at this time – I have already mentioned is a way in which designers have displayed stewardship. They are trying to improve the effects of their buildings and designs for themselves and others present, the future inhabitants of the earth, and the earth itself. They are picking products which require “less intrusive extraction of the raw materials and less toxic production process” and yet they are still maintaining a wonderfully designed building which also “depends less on the consumption of nonrenewable energy.” (Roth 608) This list, along with what I have already given expresses how designers and architects are trying to make the world a better, cleaner place to live.
Innovation
With a new century comes new inventions, and new ways of thinking. I have already described one building, the Menara Mesiniaga Tower by Ken Yeang, in which he uses innovative ideas to create a more sustainable building. There are other aspects of design, however, where designers create new, modern, innovative ideas. The use of minimalist designs are seen throughout modern buildings – the Prada store in Tokyo has a minimal quantity of clothing on display, but a futuristic design with digital databases of the clothes in stock (Massey 235). Another example, the 4-you Youth Savings Bank in austria, by Burgler and Petrovic, utilizes a baseball themed design to attract young people to the bank.
These two designs have little to do with the functions of the building, but are new ways of expressing the meanings. Also, another design being utilized recently is that of music being blasted through stores and buildings. This music creates a feeling, similar to that of the buildings meaning or location perhaps, but not necessarily to what is actually seen in the design of the building. (Massey 239)
Authenticity
At this time in design, I see it as difficult for anything to be authentic, or perceived as authentic. Many designs emulate pre-existing designs. Even if a designer or architect has a new innovative idea, chances are it was already in use in some way at some time. This can be difficult to judge, however. Take sustainability for example – although it is a design aspect that has recently become popular, the first sustainable designs can be linked back to when people used local materials which were in abundance, large windows, or the weather to their advantage, the even if it was unintentional.
This week I have learned through the discussion and reading that community has lead to less ‘crap in the suburbs’ housing being built, though it is still being built quite a lot. The consideration of community has also brought forth the aspect of sustainable design and how designers and architects have been trying to become better at sustainability. All of these considerations have created new (somewhat authentic) innovative designs to our community, local and global.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
OPUS 13
There was a concentration at this time of 'less is more' as Mies Van Der Rohe put it. It was a meditaion on what the building was about and a celebration of the building itself. There was less of an impact of what was in the building and the focus was the building - that was the art. This 'less is more' attitude also allowed for concentration on the small, important details of a building, and not the overwhelming, distracting things that may be put into it.
This 'less is more' also created a juxtapositioning. Take Mies van der Rhoe's barcelona chair, for example. It transposed what one was expecting with the juxtapositioning of materials. It was as if the chair was floating due to its thin metal frame. This cold frame however was paired with a comfortable leather seat - this then marries the use of machine with comfort. It is a chair made for the human form, one which you can slide right into. It also has a hand-made curve in the metal, which contrasts the machine feel it has.
As we discussed last week, and hit on again this week, there was a bold flattening of space in which geometrics was key, and things were reduced to basics. This was both literal - the forms used to make the buildings were not at all hidden - and abstract in that the ideas were new and, still being worked on. Take Crown Hall at IIT, a college campus, by Mies van der Rhoe for example. It was abstract because he created 16 identical buildings which were difficult to tell apart and in abundance. These were literal though, because they were basic buildings which allowed you to focus on small details.
During this time of 'less is more' there was also a strong impact of light, and the shadow it created, on a space. Some homes that were built had large windows which allowed for light to enter in, and in turn created shadow. These small details were not overlooked, and were utilized by the designers.
There were many things we discussed this week concerning modern designs and what is to come next. Some challenges to Modernism were historic preservation, where designers prefered to look back to the past for information, technology, which allowed for things such as deconstructivism (not at all a minimalist design, it has many details) and locality, or the use of what materials and building designs were already there (or the opposite - international). All of these factors led to the post modern movement.
This 'less is more' also created a juxtapositioning. Take Mies van der Rhoe's barcelona chair, for example. It transposed what one was expecting with the juxtapositioning of materials. It was as if the chair was floating due to its thin metal frame. This cold frame however was paired with a comfortable leather seat - this then marries the use of machine with comfort. It is a chair made for the human form, one which you can slide right into. It also has a hand-made curve in the metal, which contrasts the machine feel it has.
As we discussed last week, and hit on again this week, there was a bold flattening of space in which geometrics was key, and things were reduced to basics. This was both literal - the forms used to make the buildings were not at all hidden - and abstract in that the ideas were new and, still being worked on. Take Crown Hall at IIT, a college campus, by Mies van der Rhoe for example. It was abstract because he created 16 identical buildings which were difficult to tell apart and in abundance. These were literal though, because they were basic buildings which allowed you to focus on small details.
During this time of 'less is more' there was also a strong impact of light, and the shadow it created, on a space. Some homes that were built had large windows which allowed for light to enter in, and in turn created shadow. These small details were not overlooked, and were utilized by the designers.
There were many things we discussed this week concerning modern designs and what is to come next. Some challenges to Modernism were historic preservation, where designers prefered to look back to the past for information, technology, which allowed for things such as deconstructivism (not at all a minimalist design, it has many details) and locality, or the use of what materials and building designs were already there (or the opposite - international). All of these factors led to the post modern movement.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
OPUS 12
ACTION VERBS
Shape: This week we focused mainly on the early 20th century. We learned that what was happening in art began to shape what happened in architecture, and vise versa - they effected each other greatly. In art, the loss of perspectuve and flattening of space was widely used - fauvism and cubism were two techniques, and they also employed neutral colors and geometrical shapes. (friday massey reading) These elements were reflected in architecture - minimal colors were used, and there were cleanly shaped walls with little to no decoration.
Speculate: At this time, designers and architects alike speculated about the future of architecture. There were multiple interpretations which included fauvism, cubism, futurism, expressionim, and art noveau. The first two included a flattening of space, with geometrical patterns and neutral colors. The next two involved bright, colorful geometrical patterns, flattening space, and frozen movement. Destijl involved abstracting down to the basics. Of course, there were more explorations into art and architecture at this time, but these were examples to express the common factors - flattening space and geometry.
Compose: I have already mentioned that the artists and architects at this time composed their designs, usually, using geometrical shapes and flattened space. All of these designs, at the time, were modern. In the Modern Movement, however was the institute of design known as the Bauhaus, which was created because Gropius merged two schools - the School of Arts and Crafts at Weimar, and Weimar Academy of fine Arts. (Roth 522) Here, the designers were concerned with their products being "cheap, durable, and 'beautiful'" in order to be functional, according to Gropius. (Roth 524)
Stretch: The new ideas brought by members of the Bauhaus, as well as other modern designers at this time, were stretched to new heights. The Chrystler building, for example, as well as the Empire State Building, were modeled after what was popular at the time - the speed and form of the automobile. Also, buildings and objects weren't being created only for the rich - America was becoming a country revolved around consumerism. More and more things were being created to satisfy the need people felt at this time, stretching the function and quality of products.
Through this week we discussed The Modern Movement, and other modern buildings. We explored the flattening of space, use of geometrical patterns, use and lack of color, and the complete stripping of surface decoration as well as the exposed systems.
Shape: This week we focused mainly on the early 20th century. We learned that what was happening in art began to shape what happened in architecture, and vise versa - they effected each other greatly. In art, the loss of perspectuve and flattening of space was widely used - fauvism and cubism were two techniques, and they also employed neutral colors and geometrical shapes. (friday massey reading) These elements were reflected in architecture - minimal colors were used, and there were cleanly shaped walls with little to no decoration.
Speculate: At this time, designers and architects alike speculated about the future of architecture. There were multiple interpretations which included fauvism, cubism, futurism, expressionim, and art noveau. The first two included a flattening of space, with geometrical patterns and neutral colors. The next two involved bright, colorful geometrical patterns, flattening space, and frozen movement. Destijl involved abstracting down to the basics. Of course, there were more explorations into art and architecture at this time, but these were examples to express the common factors - flattening space and geometry.
Compose: I have already mentioned that the artists and architects at this time composed their designs, usually, using geometrical shapes and flattened space. All of these designs, at the time, were modern. In the Modern Movement, however was the institute of design known as the Bauhaus, which was created because Gropius merged two schools - the School of Arts and Crafts at Weimar, and Weimar Academy of fine Arts. (Roth 522) Here, the designers were concerned with their products being "cheap, durable, and 'beautiful'" in order to be functional, according to Gropius. (Roth 524)
Stretch: The new ideas brought by members of the Bauhaus, as well as other modern designers at this time, were stretched to new heights. The Chrystler building, for example, as well as the Empire State Building, were modeled after what was popular at the time - the speed and form of the automobile. Also, buildings and objects weren't being created only for the rich - America was becoming a country revolved around consumerism. More and more things were being created to satisfy the need people felt at this time, stretching the function and quality of products.
Through this week we discussed The Modern Movement, and other modern buildings. We explored the flattening of space, use of geometrical patterns, use and lack of color, and the complete stripping of surface decoration as well as the exposed systems.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Unit Summary: Reflections
The refections unit of this course took place duirng the 18th and 19th centuries. It dealt with rewriting the rules again - it relfected both classical and renaissance designs, while still incorperating present day. There was also more communiction at this time, by way of transportation and media, which cause news to travel faster, therefore it was easier for nations to eplore other nations' designs. Due to this, there was a linkage between west and east; it brought the exotic, ideas closer. There was also much mixing of cultires through decoration.
At this time east meets west also meant The United Stated copying England - during trade, the classical world came in conatact with the US; this was before the revolution. For example, houses in the US were being built in rural and suburban areas, with plain decorations, small windows, and were constructed almost always out of wood - this resembled English designs taking place at the same time.
After the revolution took place, North American design became more about classic revivals than copying england, and these ideas were used across the nation - Roman buildings were used for Washington, and Greek deaigns were used for other governmant buildings.
During the industrial revolution, design bacame all about the use of glass and iron. These elaments were seen in multiple countries, and they were often competing for the the largest or best use of them. These materials also allowed for fast, easy construction (iron) and a smooth, clean, airy appearance (glass) - together they spanned large distances, and were able to control the environment, connecting the exterior and interior.
The term Japonisme meant the Japanese simplicity of form - using only line to define features and nothing else - which was first visualized in comic book pages. Soon after, people in the US began to imitate Japanese forms, as well as other popular western forms - Egypt, and China mostly, as well as the continued imitation of European forms.
This was the start of experimentation - then people began to question it, some thought immitation of other places designs was inapproprite, and that designs should stick local. Regardless of this, designers began to feel that anything was possible due to the increase in technology. This increase brought forth a new question - should things be handcrafted, or done by machine? This began the arts and crafts movement which lasted a while. In the end, however, classicism was still the number one design chioce in America.
At this time east meets west also meant The United Stated copying England - during trade, the classical world came in conatact with the US; this was before the revolution. For example, houses in the US were being built in rural and suburban areas, with plain decorations, small windows, and were constructed almost always out of wood - this resembled English designs taking place at the same time.
After the revolution took place, North American design became more about classic revivals than copying england, and these ideas were used across the nation - Roman buildings were used for Washington, and Greek deaigns were used for other governmant buildings.
During the industrial revolution, design bacame all about the use of glass and iron. These elaments were seen in multiple countries, and they were often competing for the the largest or best use of them. These materials also allowed for fast, easy construction (iron) and a smooth, clean, airy appearance (glass) - together they spanned large distances, and were able to control the environment, connecting the exterior and interior.
The term Japonisme meant the Japanese simplicity of form - using only line to define features and nothing else - which was first visualized in comic book pages. Soon after, people in the US began to imitate Japanese forms, as well as other popular western forms - Egypt, and China mostly, as well as the continued imitation of European forms.
This was the start of experimentation - then people began to question it, some thought immitation of other places designs was inapproprite, and that designs should stick local. Regardless of this, designers began to feel that anything was possible due to the increase in technology. This increase brought forth a new question - should things be handcrafted, or done by machine? This began the arts and crafts movement which lasted a while. In the end, however, classicism was still the number one design chioce in America.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
OPUS 11
Roots: Similar to source, roots can mean the foundation of a buildings design; not the literal foundation which keeps a building standing, but the other ideas and elements incorperated into its design. The roots of the Trinity Church in Boston, for example, harken back to Romanesque Buildings. The Romanesque style was actually very prevalant in the 19th century because designers were linking to the past. As we didcussed in class, the Romanesque style was Roman revival, and this time was Romanesque revival. Some of the United State's first real designs are linked to Wright and the Greene brothers, as well as many others, who helped to create a post-modern era where any classic elements used were then fiddled with and re-created to be their own.
Concepts: Due to the influx of designers with new, different ideas (those specifically located in or around Chicago, California and New York) different concepts were being used in the design and construction of buildings. For example, there was a race for height. There were also new elements being used; concrete, steel and glass changed the way arches were built, now with a lighter frame. Other concepts, such as the importance of specialized rooms in a house - specialized for comfort of privacy - became more apparent as well.
Materiality: Along with the new materials (steel, glass and concrete) being new concepts for design, they were very important to the revolution. The sense of materiality was imperative because designers were looking for "the new modern" and that is just what these materials gave them. The use of these materials also aided in connecting people with nature and the outside. Full glass walls were used to experience the outside inside, and certain iron work is used in sich a curving way that it mimics actual natural elements.
Congruents: When something is congruent, it is the connecting of two or more angles in a geometric way. We saw this in class with William Jerry's Home Insurance Building in Chicago - he used horizontal spandrels to connect the vertical window lines, making it appear continuously horizontal, though the windows went vertical. Congruants may also be, I suppose, a connection of two or more ideas, desings or even times; connected in a logical way, by materials, designer, or time. At this time in the 19th century, there had been much change which occured quickly, and many felt a need for meaning, which is why designers took time to study and emulate the "romantic past" which people longed for.
Compression and Release: After the classical revival, postmodernism began. I believe the classical revival was the compression - compression of ideas and designs (though new materials were being used, and some designs had new twists, it was still similar) - and postmodernism was the 'out-of-the-box' release that we all sensed was comming. With this wave of new designs, some elements remained the same, but there was a sense of more private space, and, as I have mentioned, new materials, and a connection to the outside. Buildings and rooms were holistically designed, and things were brought into a space to be complements, not complete matches. Texture also played an important role at this time, as well as rooms made for a specific purpose - not with multiple purposes.
This week we discussed more about the 19th century - how the classical, romanesque elements were revived, and how post-modernism changed many peoples outlook on design. There were new elements encorperated, and people were building vertical again, instead of horizontal. There were still roots back to classic designs, but with a modern twist.
Concepts: Due to the influx of designers with new, different ideas (those specifically located in or around Chicago, California and New York) different concepts were being used in the design and construction of buildings. For example, there was a race for height. There were also new elements being used; concrete, steel and glass changed the way arches were built, now with a lighter frame. Other concepts, such as the importance of specialized rooms in a house - specialized for comfort of privacy - became more apparent as well.
Materiality: Along with the new materials (steel, glass and concrete) being new concepts for design, they were very important to the revolution. The sense of materiality was imperative because designers were looking for "the new modern" and that is just what these materials gave them. The use of these materials also aided in connecting people with nature and the outside. Full glass walls were used to experience the outside inside, and certain iron work is used in sich a curving way that it mimics actual natural elements.
Congruents: When something is congruent, it is the connecting of two or more angles in a geometric way. We saw this in class with William Jerry's Home Insurance Building in Chicago - he used horizontal spandrels to connect the vertical window lines, making it appear continuously horizontal, though the windows went vertical. Congruants may also be, I suppose, a connection of two or more ideas, desings or even times; connected in a logical way, by materials, designer, or time. At this time in the 19th century, there had been much change which occured quickly, and many felt a need for meaning, which is why designers took time to study and emulate the "romantic past" which people longed for.
Compression and Release: After the classical revival, postmodernism began. I believe the classical revival was the compression - compression of ideas and designs (though new materials were being used, and some designs had new twists, it was still similar) - and postmodernism was the 'out-of-the-box' release that we all sensed was comming. With this wave of new designs, some elements remained the same, but there was a sense of more private space, and, as I have mentioned, new materials, and a connection to the outside. Buildings and rooms were holistically designed, and things were brought into a space to be complements, not complete matches. Texture also played an important role at this time, as well as rooms made for a specific purpose - not with multiple purposes.
This week we discussed more about the 19th century - how the classical, romanesque elements were revived, and how post-modernism changed many peoples outlook on design. There were new elements encorperated, and people were building vertical again, instead of horizontal. There were still roots back to classic designs, but with a modern twist.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Essay Draft: The Humana Building
The Humana Building in Louisville, Kentucky was designed and built by Michael Graves from 1982 – 1985 in what some say is a staple of the Postmodern movement. This building is one of Graves’ most well known, due to its twist on classic features. There is actually a combination of many classical forms used in the design.
The front façade was very important to the design; each of the four sides differs at least slightly in a combination of color and texture. The heavy appeal to the façade connects to Romanesque architecture, where the façade was also the most important. Also, at the top of the building in the front, it molds into a temple form harkening back, obviously, to Egyptian styles. Some say that the eight story base which extends from the front can be seen as similar to a ziggurat. * The mix of these classical elements emphasize two main things; the first is that the building is important and borrows from well known and well respected designs, the second is that Michael Graves, the architect, wanted to create his own modern spin on these classic designs, connecting the past to the present.
The building itself actually has a mixture of elements from the past. As I have mentioned it has a temple at the top, however the base has columns, reminiscent of Greek and early Roman design. The Humana building is basically a rectangular shape, with a vertical rectangular shape. Verticals were important in this time, as well as during the early Greek and roman periods. The building is a vertical shape, reaching up as far as the eye can see’ or at least when compared to the buildings surrounding it. With the exception of one sky scraper directly next to it, the Humana Building is the tallest building in the area. It does stick out next to the other building, however; the sky scraper is made of almost entirely windows, while the Humana building is constructed of an even mixture of flat pink granite** and windows.
When concerning commodity, function and delight, Michael Graves did a good job. The building has strong materials, while also incorporating elements that were appealing, such as the pink granite. This material is not widely used, and because of this it is very appealing to people walking by; it provides interest. There are other elements in the design which function the same was. For example, the columns at the base help to keep the structure standing, while also serving as a grand entrance way. There is also a large, open curved space near the top which serves as an observation deck. This deck allows for a grand view of the Ohio River as well as other surrounding buildings – this is an element that has a function (a calming place), and is very delightful to those who use it.
Personally I find the Humana Building by Michael Graves to be a very intriguing building. He combines many classic elements, as well as new modern one to create a place for people to enjoy. I believe he blends the elements together nicely, and I appreciate the way in which he designed all the sides differently. Last, I believe he designed the building well in comparison to its use – a calming yet complex place that deals with things that aren’t so simple such as healthcare and insurance.
*http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/kentucky/louisville/humana/humana.html
**http://eng.archinform.net/projekte/6402.htm
The front façade was very important to the design; each of the four sides differs at least slightly in a combination of color and texture. The heavy appeal to the façade connects to Romanesque architecture, where the façade was also the most important. Also, at the top of the building in the front, it molds into a temple form harkening back, obviously, to Egyptian styles. Some say that the eight story base which extends from the front can be seen as similar to a ziggurat. * The mix of these classical elements emphasize two main things; the first is that the building is important and borrows from well known and well respected designs, the second is that Michael Graves, the architect, wanted to create his own modern spin on these classic designs, connecting the past to the present.
The building itself actually has a mixture of elements from the past. As I have mentioned it has a temple at the top, however the base has columns, reminiscent of Greek and early Roman design. The Humana building is basically a rectangular shape, with a vertical rectangular shape. Verticals were important in this time, as well as during the early Greek and roman periods. The building is a vertical shape, reaching up as far as the eye can see’ or at least when compared to the buildings surrounding it. With the exception of one sky scraper directly next to it, the Humana Building is the tallest building in the area. It does stick out next to the other building, however; the sky scraper is made of almost entirely windows, while the Humana building is constructed of an even mixture of flat pink granite** and windows.
When concerning commodity, function and delight, Michael Graves did a good job. The building has strong materials, while also incorporating elements that were appealing, such as the pink granite. This material is not widely used, and because of this it is very appealing to people walking by; it provides interest. There are other elements in the design which function the same was. For example, the columns at the base help to keep the structure standing, while also serving as a grand entrance way. There is also a large, open curved space near the top which serves as an observation deck. This deck allows for a grand view of the Ohio River as well as other surrounding buildings – this is an element that has a function (a calming place), and is very delightful to those who use it.
Personally I find the Humana Building by Michael Graves to be a very intriguing building. He combines many classic elements, as well as new modern one to create a place for people to enjoy. I believe he blends the elements together nicely, and I appreciate the way in which he designed all the sides differently. Last, I believe he designed the building well in comparison to its use – a calming yet complex place that deals with things that aren’t so simple such as healthcare and insurance.
*http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/kentucky/louisville/humana/humana.html
**http://eng.archinform.net/projekte/6402.htm
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
opus 9
In the beginning of this week, we reflected on what we had learned so far as the foundations of architecture. We also discussed how, during the French Revolution, architects and designers reproduced on the classical and the renaissance in their designs. As Blakemore states, in France neoclassicism and the reliance of antiquity became important in the 18th century. (285) Thus, these designers reflected on the past designs and showed an interest in ‘rustic objects’ and ‘antiques’ which were simple, unlike the Rocco forms showing up elsewhere at this time.
The French Revolution caused, also, a shift or movement in the materials that were used when constructing buildings. Glass and iron became important materials, for many reasons. First and foremost, they were new (for the most part) and hadn’t been used to make whole buildings but in the past were just small elements. They also were an easy and fast way to build, while still being structurally sound. Plus, architects were able to blur the line between inside and outside. The Crystal Palace, by Joseph Paxton is a great example of this: it was very large, was completed in nine months, and even allowed for the existing plant life to remain standing.
The use of glass and iron began in France, but was quickly picked up in England. The French Revolution was the source of these new skills, and caused a competition between the two countries. Also, England was the source of the first designs in colonial North America. This resulted in most buildings at this time looking like those in England. That is, until the Revolution in the 19th century, when American architects took inspiration straight from the classical Greek architecture.
The rotation of power and influence – after the Revolution – caused not only a change in politics, but in design as well. The exteriors, first of all, stopped mimicking those in England, and began to look similar to those found in Greece, and minute details changes as well. However, things changed on a larger scale; people began moving out of rural areas and into cities, and the cities themselves resembled Roman city designs.
The revolutions that took place between the 17th and 19th centuries were able to enlighten many of the architects of the time. Illuminations took place, such as beginning the use of cast iron and glass. These materials were simple and quick to use, and they also appeared airy and clean. Architects used them as a contrast to the busy, highly detailed Baroque and Rocco designs that preceded it.
The French Revolution caused, also, a shift or movement in the materials that were used when constructing buildings. Glass and iron became important materials, for many reasons. First and foremost, they were new (for the most part) and hadn’t been used to make whole buildings but in the past were just small elements. They also were an easy and fast way to build, while still being structurally sound. Plus, architects were able to blur the line between inside and outside. The Crystal Palace, by Joseph Paxton is a great example of this: it was very large, was completed in nine months, and even allowed for the existing plant life to remain standing.
The use of glass and iron began in France, but was quickly picked up in England. The French Revolution was the source of these new skills, and caused a competition between the two countries. Also, England was the source of the first designs in colonial North America. This resulted in most buildings at this time looking like those in England. That is, until the Revolution in the 19th century, when American architects took inspiration straight from the classical Greek architecture.
The rotation of power and influence – after the Revolution – caused not only a change in politics, but in design as well. The exteriors, first of all, stopped mimicking those in England, and began to look similar to those found in Greece, and minute details changes as well. However, things changed on a larger scale; people began moving out of rural areas and into cities, and the cities themselves resembled Roman city designs.
The revolutions that took place between the 17th and 19th centuries were able to enlighten many of the architects of the time. Illuminations took place, such as beginning the use of cast iron and glass. These materials were simple and quick to use, and they also appeared airy and clean. Architects used them as a contrast to the busy, highly detailed Baroque and Rocco designs that preceded it.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Unit Summary: Alternatives Unit
The alternatives unit encompassed designs that may have been inspired somewhat by what preceded them, but was usually the designers and architects during this time brought completely new ideas to designing – this time being the Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque and Rocco periods. For example, they began creating buildings along the horizontal instead of the vertical – the buildings spanned as far as the eye could see, not as high as one could see. Also, the landscape slowly became an important feature to building designs during the alternatives unit.
To start, Gothic Cathedrals were one of the first alternatives we discussed – these cathedrals, as well as many of the other buildings, were highly ornamented and displayed many details. For example, in a cathedral there were highly ornamented carvings which depicted stories from the bible. These details from these stories that spanned the exterior walls and doors, as well as the interior columns and walls sided in teaching the illiterate commoners who came to worship. Details were also very important for other reasons. For example, when the architect didn’t follow the original plans while building the Notre-Dame of Amiens, he made the buttresses too thin, almost causing the building to collapse. (Roth 334)
After the Gothic period, architects and designers went through a revival – the Renaissance. What was created during this time were places that followed rules more strictly, with less decoration, but the same amount of detail; the attention to detail was just used in a much different way. For example, instead of small, story-telling details, designers based their work on symmetry as well as geometrical shapes. During this time of revival, the façade of a building was crucial – the front face of buildings, especially ones that were directed toward highly populated gathering areas (those on busy street corners and surrounding a popular court), were grandly decorated to express wealth. These buildings may not have had the same expressions of detail the Gothic buildings had, but they were, as I have said, very strong symmetrical details. Also, as was the case of the Palazzo de Medici, there were different materials used to represent different levels of the building, each level was a different size, which separated floors for business, socializing and family. All of this was apparent just from the details on the front façade. (Roth 376)
There was another transition made during the alternatives unit – and that was from the Renaissance period to the Baroque and Rocco periods. During this time designers decided to break the rules and design ‘out of the box.’ This means that usually the designers disregarded any of the written design rules from the Renaissance, and made their own designs, usually more highly ornamented then anything yet. The designs were, at first, highly disliked and made fun of. Many designs, for instance, were so highly decorated that the viewer was unable to take in everything at once. (Roth 414) It required them to think deeply, and become more emotionally connected to the art. Also, other geometric forms began appearing; as a replacement for of simple circles, squares and rectangles, there were ovals – as seen in the Piazza of St. Peters – as well as hexagons instead of circular domes.
To start, Gothic Cathedrals were one of the first alternatives we discussed – these cathedrals, as well as many of the other buildings, were highly ornamented and displayed many details. For example, in a cathedral there were highly ornamented carvings which depicted stories from the bible. These details from these stories that spanned the exterior walls and doors, as well as the interior columns and walls sided in teaching the illiterate commoners who came to worship. Details were also very important for other reasons. For example, when the architect didn’t follow the original plans while building the Notre-Dame of Amiens, he made the buttresses too thin, almost causing the building to collapse. (Roth 334)
After the Gothic period, architects and designers went through a revival – the Renaissance. What was created during this time were places that followed rules more strictly, with less decoration, but the same amount of detail; the attention to detail was just used in a much different way. For example, instead of small, story-telling details, designers based their work on symmetry as well as geometrical shapes. During this time of revival, the façade of a building was crucial – the front face of buildings, especially ones that were directed toward highly populated gathering areas (those on busy street corners and surrounding a popular court), were grandly decorated to express wealth. These buildings may not have had the same expressions of detail the Gothic buildings had, but they were, as I have said, very strong symmetrical details. Also, as was the case of the Palazzo de Medici, there were different materials used to represent different levels of the building, each level was a different size, which separated floors for business, socializing and family. All of this was apparent just from the details on the front façade. (Roth 376)
There was another transition made during the alternatives unit – and that was from the Renaissance period to the Baroque and Rocco periods. During this time designers decided to break the rules and design ‘out of the box.’ This means that usually the designers disregarded any of the written design rules from the Renaissance, and made their own designs, usually more highly ornamented then anything yet. The designs were, at first, highly disliked and made fun of. Many designs, for instance, were so highly decorated that the viewer was unable to take in everything at once. (Roth 414) It required them to think deeply, and become more emotionally connected to the art. Also, other geometric forms began appearing; as a replacement for of simple circles, squares and rectangles, there were ovals – as seen in the Piazza of St. Peters – as well as hexagons instead of circular domes.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
OPUS 8
Baroque and Rocco designs and architecture were revisions of Renaissance architecture. During this time designers took what they knew from the renaissance period, yet broke the rules beginning to design things more "out of the box." With these new, modern forms they exercised their "newly won artistic prerogative to invent." (Roth 397) Some of the revisions included designing along the horizontal - not the vertical - as far as the eye could see. Another revision was how important stairs became architecturally. Designers built expansive, decorated rooms for stairs alone (Roth 424), and in German and Austrian Baroque designs, the staircase was actually the most developed feature. (Roth 426)
The transition from Renaissance to Baroque architecture was not widely accepted. Some thought it was too highly ornamented; to complex and elaborate when compared to the preceding form of architecture. (Roth 397) The Renaissance architecture was easy to perceive, and was very understandable, while the transition into Baroque was more about emotional understanding and connections, and even evoked a sense of mystery. (Roth 398) Roth even states that "Baroque buildings are so complex that they cannot be understood or comprehended in a single glance." (Roth 414)
Through the reading, and as I have already stated, it was expressed that the emotional impact and connections to the audience was very important. (Roth 398) The use of embellishments, as well as the multitude of materials and paint effects used, were all present to effect the audience. This did have an effect on the audience, in fact much of the architecture from this time was misunderstood and widely disliked. On a separate note, the audience even played a role in the construction of the Piazza of Saint Peter's. There was a wide semi-oval which directed people toward the church, acting as "motherly arms of the church" which welcomed the worshipers. (Roth 409)
There is quite a strong character to the Baroque architecture as well. At this time, designs were very elaborate and plastically designed, and this create a story and character in the architecture. (Roth 397) One of the most fascinating ways in which Baroque and Rocco architecture displayed character in a space was the act of using motion in paintings on walls, and in sculptures. As we discussed in class, the sculpture of David by Michelangelo is widely known and appreciated for expressing David, and following the rules while doing so. However, the statue of David by Bernini expresses David's character in that it is a depiction of David in motion, at the height of his battle.
The datum which was written down and recorded - by Palladio for instance - in during the period of Renaissance architecture was severely ignored during the Baroque and Rocco periods of architecture. To the point, in fact that architects began to break all of the rules and think, as we have discussed this week in class, 'outside the box.' Most architects and designers did this by playing tricks on the eye with the use of optical illusions such as perspective painting, for example. They also began to depict people in statues and paintings as being in motion, and they made some surfaces so complex that there were no dull areas on them.
The transitions made from the Renaissance to the Baroque and Rocco periods of architecture were not initially accepted. While the designers were ready to 'more outside the box,' their audience was not. In fact, many people disliked and discredited these designs at first, giving them derogatory terms. These new visions did become accepted, however. Still, the initial dislike of new visions in architecture is common even to this day. I have learned that many people dislike the twentieth century designs being built today, still preferring older, more classical themes.
The transition from Renaissance to Baroque architecture was not widely accepted. Some thought it was too highly ornamented; to complex and elaborate when compared to the preceding form of architecture. (Roth 397) The Renaissance architecture was easy to perceive, and was very understandable, while the transition into Baroque was more about emotional understanding and connections, and even evoked a sense of mystery. (Roth 398) Roth even states that "Baroque buildings are so complex that they cannot be understood or comprehended in a single glance." (Roth 414)
Through the reading, and as I have already stated, it was expressed that the emotional impact and connections to the audience was very important. (Roth 398) The use of embellishments, as well as the multitude of materials and paint effects used, were all present to effect the audience. This did have an effect on the audience, in fact much of the architecture from this time was misunderstood and widely disliked. On a separate note, the audience even played a role in the construction of the Piazza of Saint Peter's. There was a wide semi-oval which directed people toward the church, acting as "motherly arms of the church" which welcomed the worshipers. (Roth 409)
There is quite a strong character to the Baroque architecture as well. At this time, designs were very elaborate and plastically designed, and this create a story and character in the architecture. (Roth 397) One of the most fascinating ways in which Baroque and Rocco architecture displayed character in a space was the act of using motion in paintings on walls, and in sculptures. As we discussed in class, the sculpture of David by Michelangelo is widely known and appreciated for expressing David, and following the rules while doing so. However, the statue of David by Bernini expresses David's character in that it is a depiction of David in motion, at the height of his battle.
The datum which was written down and recorded - by Palladio for instance - in during the period of Renaissance architecture was severely ignored during the Baroque and Rocco periods of architecture. To the point, in fact that architects began to break all of the rules and think, as we have discussed this week in class, 'outside the box.' Most architects and designers did this by playing tricks on the eye with the use of optical illusions such as perspective painting, for example. They also began to depict people in statues and paintings as being in motion, and they made some surfaces so complex that there were no dull areas on them.
The transitions made from the Renaissance to the Baroque and Rocco periods of architecture were not initially accepted. While the designers were ready to 'more outside the box,' their audience was not. In fact, many people disliked and discredited these designs at first, giving them derogatory terms. These new visions did become accepted, however. Still, the initial dislike of new visions in architecture is common even to this day. I have learned that many people dislike the twentieth century designs being built today, still preferring older, more classical themes.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Deliverables - Precedent Analysis
I. Humana Building
A. Michael Graves
B. 1982-1985
C. Louisville, Kentucky
II. Façade
A. Each side is slightly different
B. Connect to Roman Architecture
1. Roth, Lecture notes
C. Pyramid on top floors
III. Transition into similarities in ancient architecture
A. Pyramid
B. Columns
C. Shape
1. Use texts to connect a, b, c; why were these elements used?
D. Height
1. Connect to other buildings
2. Why was it important for this building?
E. How were these elements used to make the building better?
IV. Connections
A. Surrounding buildings
1. Similar/different in façade
2. Similar/different in height
3. Similar/different in material
B. Surrounding land
V. Commodity/ Function/ Delight
A. Structure/material/weather and other considerations the designer made
B. What was the purpose of the building? Fulfilling its purpose?
C. Is it appealing?
VI. Interior
VII. Conclusion
A. Personal thoughts on the building
B. Others opinions
________________________________________________________
1. Drawing of the front facade; pencil on paper
2. Floor plan of ground level; pen on paper
3. Drawing of the left exterior; colored pencil on paper
4. Drawing of the top portion (temple/open area); pencil on paper
5. Aerial View; colored pencil on paper
6. Rear view of building; pencil on paper
7. Interior view (if allowed); colored pencil on paper
8. Drawing of entrance way (columns, etc.); pencil on paper
9. Drawing of street face, with surrounding buildings, pen on paper
10. Interior view; colored pencil on paper
____________________________________________
1. Am I allowed to make an interior view one of my pictures?
2. I thought I found a floor plan, but I was wrong. What should I do if I can't find one?
3. I don't know much about different media to use other than pens, pencils and on paper.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Precedent Analysis
The building I chose was the Humana Building by Michael Graves. It was built from 1982 - 1985 in Louisville, Kentucky.
I chose this building because it is a postmodern building, and it intrigued me since each side is build slightly different. Also, I like many of Michael Graves buildings, but this one seems to be both popular and important to his designs.
OPUS 7 - P Week
An object or drawing with perspective – that is something that depicts volume while none is present – has the ability to connect the present with the past, as well as the indoors with the outdoors. Also, as Blakemore states, the use of perspective "seems to obliterate the solidity of the wall" (Blakemore 100) as achieved by Baldassare Peruzzi in his Hall of Perspective. The person most famous for designs featuring perspective at this time, however, was Palladio. He used these “illusionistic devices” or perspective drawings in a deliberate order or “compartmentalized arrangements” to illustrate the subject, usually on entire walls. (Blakemore 98)
During the Italian Renaissance, rooms were sparsely furnished, but this furniture was highly ornamented, and massive. (Blakemore 107) The processes of creating these highly decorated, dignified pieces included inlay, carving and veneer application. This process was highly important because it wasn’t how much furniture a person had, but how royal and highly decorated they appeared (even if only appearing on the façade).
In the case of the Villa Giullia, periphery played an important role – what surrounded the building was actually important and served a purpose. This was one of the first instances of a garden-scape and building-scape being locked together to create one flowing landscape. The Villa Barbaro did a similar thing; there was one horizontal room across the whole building which controlled the landscape, demonstrating how buildings and land work together.
During the Renaissance some families, such as Medici and his family, had homes with space on the ground floor for their business. (Roth 376) To maintain a sense of professionalism, and in order to separate home life from business (as well as literally the home from the business) though the buildings were connected, Michelozzo di Bartolommeo created exterior visual cues which he utilized in the Palazzo de Medici. The ground floor was the largest in scale, and had the roughest stone, the next level was smaller and had a smoother surface, followed by the top level which was smallest and the smoothest. The building was then topped with an oversized cornice, tying the separate layers together.
A portfolio is crucial to making or breaking an architect in their career. For example, Palladio was very accomplished – he not only had four books on architecture, but he also had many buildings and was responsible for well known perspective drawings. This made him better known and well respected, people liked his work and wanted houses or rooms designed similar to ones he had done. However, a portfolio is not just about quantity, but about quality. If someone has made many buildings, however they have not been functional, firm, or appealing, for example, they don’t have a very effective portfolio.
This week we learned the importance of the Italian Renaissance. Some crucial aspects were the façade, the surrounding land (or in some cases the surrounding water) and the idea of perspective drawings. Also, I learned that one of the most influential architects, Palladio, designed during this period, and utilized each of the things I have already mentioned – façade, land, and perspective.
During the Italian Renaissance, rooms were sparsely furnished, but this furniture was highly ornamented, and massive. (Blakemore 107) The processes of creating these highly decorated, dignified pieces included inlay, carving and veneer application. This process was highly important because it wasn’t how much furniture a person had, but how royal and highly decorated they appeared (even if only appearing on the façade).
In the case of the Villa Giullia, periphery played an important role – what surrounded the building was actually important and served a purpose. This was one of the first instances of a garden-scape and building-scape being locked together to create one flowing landscape. The Villa Barbaro did a similar thing; there was one horizontal room across the whole building which controlled the landscape, demonstrating how buildings and land work together.
During the Renaissance some families, such as Medici and his family, had homes with space on the ground floor for their business. (Roth 376) To maintain a sense of professionalism, and in order to separate home life from business (as well as literally the home from the business) though the buildings were connected, Michelozzo di Bartolommeo created exterior visual cues which he utilized in the Palazzo de Medici. The ground floor was the largest in scale, and had the roughest stone, the next level was smaller and had a smoother surface, followed by the top level which was smallest and the smoothest. The building was then topped with an oversized cornice, tying the separate layers together.
A portfolio is crucial to making or breaking an architect in their career. For example, Palladio was very accomplished – he not only had four books on architecture, but he also had many buildings and was responsible for well known perspective drawings. This made him better known and well respected, people liked his work and wanted houses or rooms designed similar to ones he had done. However, a portfolio is not just about quantity, but about quality. If someone has made many buildings, however they have not been functional, firm, or appealing, for example, they don’t have a very effective portfolio.
This week we learned the importance of the Italian Renaissance. Some crucial aspects were the façade, the surrounding land (or in some cases the surrounding water) and the idea of perspective drawings. Also, I learned that one of the most influential architects, Palladio, designed during this period, and utilized each of the things I have already mentioned – façade, land, and perspective.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
OPUS 6
A composition, whether it is created in music, written works, architecture or otherwise, is a complete set of parts that, when put together, makes sense as a whole. The way a house or building is composed – which pieces go in it, and where – has a large influence into how functional it is, as well as how it makes a person feel. A cathedral whose walls are mainly composed of windows has the ability to create the feeling, to a person currently inside, that they are completely surrounded by heaven, or are connected to god. The placement of something seemingly small, such as a window in the last example, influenced how the full composition is interpreted and used.
On a larger scale, the way a city is composed of different buildings and houses effects what the main focal point of the city is. We discussed in class that Gothic Cathedrals, such as the Notre-Dame of Amiens which was built in a pre-existing city, buildings with strong vertical orientation, rising above all other buildings in the city. Due to the way this was composed, all focus is on the striking cathedral. This creates an overall impression that the Notre-Dame of Amiens is an important structure. Due to the massive scale of this building, when compared with the rest of the surrounding city, gives off an impression of might, power, and connectedness with heaven.
I have found that in any building, a person can recognize its porch, court and hearth. These are three sections of a building that help to identify the areas use, and the feeling one gets while there. A cathedral, such as the Salisbury Cathedral in Salisbury, England has large entrance, its porch, which evokes a feeling of awe at its grandeur, and changes the mood of the person entering. The court is the congregation area where worshipers sit, stand, or kneel to pray, and to listen to the Preacher. Where the preacher stands is the hearth, or the most important part. This is usually emphasized by being at the center and, in the case of the Salisbury Cathedral, is topped with a large Spire. The spires heavenward reach directs viewers’ eye up, creating a feeling of connectedness with heaven. Though there is a large spire, this cathedral is more focused on horizontal lines than vertical. (Roth 340).
We spent a substantial amount of time this week discussing four of the major Gothic Cathedrals, their similarities and differences. Some of the very minute details differing between any two of the buildings can evoke completely separate feelings. For example, I spent a particular amount of time with the Notre-Dame of Amiens, and found that it had fewer modifications than another, making it what many believe to be a true representation of the Gothic style (Roth 333). Another cathedral, such as the Abbey Church at Saint-Denis, had many Gothic features, but was not purely gothic in its form, and it was these details, along with many others such as height, length and light, that set the many cathedrals apart. I found that the little details are sometimes what matter the most. For example, when the architect didn’t follow the original plans while building the Notre-Dame of Amiens, he made the buttresses too thin, almost causing the building to collapse. (Roth 334)
Diagrams can be a helpful way to compare and contrast differences in floor plans. They also help in identifying when the building was constructed, dating it by various architectural elements used, and where, depending on how the different cultures in that time varied. In the diagram of Notre-Dame of Amiens one can get a notion of where the central focal point of the building is, and we can tell where the main focus is placed. Section diagrams can also display where the different architectural fearures are, such as arches.
This week we talked mainly about Gothic Architecture, and spent a substantial amount of time discussing Gothic Cathedrals. The one which stuck out the most to me was the Notre-Dame of Amiens – the composition of the building created such a striking, and to me awe-inspiring, impression on viewers. I found that the little details are sometimes what matter the most. For example, when the architect didn’t follow the original plans while building the Notre-Dame of Amiens, he made the buttresses too thin, almost causing the building to collapse. (Roth 334)
On a larger scale, the way a city is composed of different buildings and houses effects what the main focal point of the city is. We discussed in class that Gothic Cathedrals, such as the Notre-Dame of Amiens which was built in a pre-existing city, buildings with strong vertical orientation, rising above all other buildings in the city. Due to the way this was composed, all focus is on the striking cathedral. This creates an overall impression that the Notre-Dame of Amiens is an important structure. Due to the massive scale of this building, when compared with the rest of the surrounding city, gives off an impression of might, power, and connectedness with heaven.
I have found that in any building, a person can recognize its porch, court and hearth. These are three sections of a building that help to identify the areas use, and the feeling one gets while there. A cathedral, such as the Salisbury Cathedral in Salisbury, England has large entrance, its porch, which evokes a feeling of awe at its grandeur, and changes the mood of the person entering. The court is the congregation area where worshipers sit, stand, or kneel to pray, and to listen to the Preacher. Where the preacher stands is the hearth, or the most important part. This is usually emphasized by being at the center and, in the case of the Salisbury Cathedral, is topped with a large Spire. The spires heavenward reach directs viewers’ eye up, creating a feeling of connectedness with heaven. Though there is a large spire, this cathedral is more focused on horizontal lines than vertical. (Roth 340).
We spent a substantial amount of time this week discussing four of the major Gothic Cathedrals, their similarities and differences. Some of the very minute details differing between any two of the buildings can evoke completely separate feelings. For example, I spent a particular amount of time with the Notre-Dame of Amiens, and found that it had fewer modifications than another, making it what many believe to be a true representation of the Gothic style (Roth 333). Another cathedral, such as the Abbey Church at Saint-Denis, had many Gothic features, but was not purely gothic in its form, and it was these details, along with many others such as height, length and light, that set the many cathedrals apart. I found that the little details are sometimes what matter the most. For example, when the architect didn’t follow the original plans while building the Notre-Dame of Amiens, he made the buttresses too thin, almost causing the building to collapse. (Roth 334)
Diagrams can be a helpful way to compare and contrast differences in floor plans. They also help in identifying when the building was constructed, dating it by various architectural elements used, and where, depending on how the different cultures in that time varied. In the diagram of Notre-Dame of Amiens one can get a notion of where the central focal point of the building is, and we can tell where the main focus is placed. Section diagrams can also display where the different architectural fearures are, such as arches.
This week we talked mainly about Gothic Architecture, and spent a substantial amount of time discussing Gothic Cathedrals. The one which stuck out the most to me was the Notre-Dame of Amiens – the composition of the building created such a striking, and to me awe-inspiring, impression on viewers. I found that the little details are sometimes what matter the most. For example, when the architect didn’t follow the original plans while building the Notre-Dame of Amiens, he made the buttresses too thin, almost causing the building to collapse. (Roth 334)
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Unit Summary: Foundations Unit
Foundations are the basic unit of a space: what holds a building together, the beginning of a structure, the basics, and in some considerations the most significant part. Either in buildings – if the foundation is not secure then the building may collapse – or in architecture as a whole – the first bits of architecture that influenced everything thereafter. To begin this review, however, I feel I should set my own foundation; we began with a very important concept, the power of three. Many strong architectural designs stem in threes and, ironically, there are three main forms I have learned in this unit.
The first, as declared by Sir Henry Wotten (Roth 11), is commodity: function: delight, all of which must occur in a building for it to be great. For a building to live up to its potential, it must have a sturdy structure, serve its intended purpose, and bring pleasure to those who pass through/by it. A church, for example, usually fulfills these three concerns; it is used as a place of worship, it is sturdy, and more often than not, the building makes its worshipers feel joyous.
The next power of three group it archetype: prototype: hybrid, which can be experienced anywhere in architecture. The archetype of columns, for example, came from Egypt and was known as the Doric column. The Grecians took this idea of the column and expanded on it, creating Ionic columns. Ionic columns were prototypes because they stemmed from the original idea; they became sturdier and more appealing to the eye. The hybrid in this situation would be Corinthian columns, which were the most delightful to the eye, most full of life, and sturdiest. A further example of this would be how the Romans took the Doric column and created a prototype – the Tuscan Doric – which was more slender. (Roth 31)
The last power of three we learned was porch: court: hearth, and can also be found throughout architecture. Take for instance an average house in the suburbs; it has a porch area (the entrance, which can create a change in mood), a living room functioning as the court (the gathering center; this can also be a kitchen), and a master bedroom which is the hearth (the private, sometimes most important space). This can also be applies to whole cities, Acropolis in Athens, Greece is a good example of this. There is a large winding path to Acropolis in which a traveler may encounter multiple other people, and become overwhelmed with the importance of this grand space, followed by the actual entrance itself with towering walls, all part of the porch. The court was the gathering area near the front where there weren’t many buildings, and the hearth was the Parthenon – the large temple built for Athena.
There were many buildings constructed for people, and they were most often dedicated to men who were Pharaohs or rulers. There were also buildings, cathedrals for example, which rose in height in attempt to connect the heavens and the earth, or used a dome shape with a hole in the center to the heavens could always be visible. Of the buildings dedicated to people, the ones which were tallest and spotted the landscape the most were more often for men (such as the temples in Egypt and the towers in Rome), and this is because the height imitated the male form, and was expressing his power. Some buildings were made for women, such a Queen Hatshepsut’s Tomb; it was still a heavy structure, but was more feminine because it centered more on the horizontal, and seemed to be built of the land. The difference between being of the land and on the land was how much its appearance differed from the land, or how much the structure utilized (or didn’t utilize) its entourage. The Romans, for instance, preferred ignore the natural landscape, and cut through and hills or mountains, and attempt to move water. (Roth 250)
The shapes that were first used in architecture were very basic – circles were utilized in Stonehenge, lines were found in Carnac, and triangles were used in Egypt. Each of these shapes would later be improved upon and create more options; a plain circle, for example, was used in later Roman architecture to make domes and even octagonal shapes. The use of squares and rectangles came into play in the Roman Empire as well to create ordered areas of axially disposed buildings (Roth 250). Order was important to the Romans, and they made buildings appear the same on the outside, as well as sit in straight lines.
The section on foundations explained the basic principles that created architecture in its very beginning. The first architects used basic shapes, as well as directional cues to create order and fluidity. Designs from these times are the archetypes of architecture today.
The first, as declared by Sir Henry Wotten (Roth 11), is commodity: function: delight, all of which must occur in a building for it to be great. For a building to live up to its potential, it must have a sturdy structure, serve its intended purpose, and bring pleasure to those who pass through/by it. A church, for example, usually fulfills these three concerns; it is used as a place of worship, it is sturdy, and more often than not, the building makes its worshipers feel joyous.
The next power of three group it archetype: prototype: hybrid, which can be experienced anywhere in architecture. The archetype of columns, for example, came from Egypt and was known as the Doric column. The Grecians took this idea of the column and expanded on it, creating Ionic columns. Ionic columns were prototypes because they stemmed from the original idea; they became sturdier and more appealing to the eye. The hybrid in this situation would be Corinthian columns, which were the most delightful to the eye, most full of life, and sturdiest. A further example of this would be how the Romans took the Doric column and created a prototype – the Tuscan Doric – which was more slender. (Roth 31)
The last power of three we learned was porch: court: hearth, and can also be found throughout architecture. Take for instance an average house in the suburbs; it has a porch area (the entrance, which can create a change in mood), a living room functioning as the court (the gathering center; this can also be a kitchen), and a master bedroom which is the hearth (the private, sometimes most important space). This can also be applies to whole cities, Acropolis in Athens, Greece is a good example of this. There is a large winding path to Acropolis in which a traveler may encounter multiple other people, and become overwhelmed with the importance of this grand space, followed by the actual entrance itself with towering walls, all part of the porch. The court was the gathering area near the front where there weren’t many buildings, and the hearth was the Parthenon – the large temple built for Athena.
There were many buildings constructed for people, and they were most often dedicated to men who were Pharaohs or rulers. There were also buildings, cathedrals for example, which rose in height in attempt to connect the heavens and the earth, or used a dome shape with a hole in the center to the heavens could always be visible. Of the buildings dedicated to people, the ones which were tallest and spotted the landscape the most were more often for men (such as the temples in Egypt and the towers in Rome), and this is because the height imitated the male form, and was expressing his power. Some buildings were made for women, such a Queen Hatshepsut’s Tomb; it was still a heavy structure, but was more feminine because it centered more on the horizontal, and seemed to be built of the land. The difference between being of the land and on the land was how much its appearance differed from the land, or how much the structure utilized (or didn’t utilize) its entourage. The Romans, for instance, preferred ignore the natural landscape, and cut through and hills or mountains, and attempt to move water. (Roth 250)
The shapes that were first used in architecture were very basic – circles were utilized in Stonehenge, lines were found in Carnac, and triangles were used in Egypt. Each of these shapes would later be improved upon and create more options; a plain circle, for example, was used in later Roman architecture to make domes and even octagonal shapes. The use of squares and rectangles came into play in the Roman Empire as well to create ordered areas of axially disposed buildings (Roth 250). Order was important to the Romans, and they made buildings appear the same on the outside, as well as sit in straight lines.
The section on foundations explained the basic principles that created architecture in its very beginning. The first architects used basic shapes, as well as directional cues to create order and fluidity. Designs from these times are the archetypes of architecture today.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
OPUS 5
An interior view of Hagia Sophia.*
The grand Basilicas and Cathedrals found in the Roman era created a very strong spiritual presence. The designers of these buildings, such as Isidoros of Miletos and Anthemios of Tralles who built Hagia Sophia, used domes to create a connection between heaven and earth, as well as tall columns to show height. (Roth 290) These structures, as well as numerous windows were used to shed luminous dazzling light. This light also increased the presence of high spirits because it made awe-inspiring reflections and colors.
The Greek architecture was used as a precedent to the later Roman buildings – Romans took the best of Greek arches, as well as ideas for large interiors and other structures, and then improved on them. (Roth 290) The Roman building types all came from the same ideas, but started to become more diverse. Also, the architects became much more focused on materials such as concrete and mosaics. (Blakemore 53) The use of mosaics unified the peoples, because they created pictures which told stories, even ones the illiterate could read. Also, the concrete and mosaics proved a functional purpose; they kept buildings such as the Baths clean.
There were other small details used as well, such as flowers, leaves and mythological scenes all steming from a Greek prototype. (Blakemore 67)
Many moments were shared in these great Baths, as we talked about in class. These places were used as a gathering area, a center for exercise and learning, and a place of course public bathing. Since it was public, men and women were not allowed at the baths at the same time (and neither were servants); however it still served its purpose, allowing people to bathe and socialize. These moments enable us to tell the story of how Romans lived during this time; creating a general area for the ‘circuses’ part in ‘bread and circuses’, distracting people by engaging them in many opportunities for social situations.
The building worked as a system of separate interests. These separate metrics, such as the bath being used as a place for bathing, a place for reading, a gymnasium, and even a theatre, create unity once again. Everything is being done in the same general building, but there are vast differences in what can be going on in each specific area, as well as the issue of who is supposed to be there – as I have already mentioned, there are separate times of the day for men, women and slaves.
Along with the different metrics presented by a bath – it is a single area for many purposes, and serves many dualities. This is to say, as I have previously stated, that they are separated into different spaces based on what a person wants to do, and different times of day based on whom the person is. It tells the story, as well, of how the Romans lived in this time – divided in some ways, but brought together in others.
This week we concentrated on the end of Roman architecture, before the Dark Ages began. We learned specifically about the Baths of the Diocletian, as well as many other structures. In all, the precedents to these types of buildings were other Roman and even earlier Greek buildings. Also, the architecture helped to create moments, which along with the buildings system (metric), and it’s many dualities, created a story of how the Romans lived. Last I found that in much of the architecture at this time, there was a Holy presence, sought after in cathedrals and through minute details, such as mosaics.
*This picture can be found at www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/lecture_mid_civ.htm the photographer was not credited.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Building selection and Justification:
I chose the Johnson Wax Building, also known as the Administration Building. Construction began in 1936 and ended in 1939, until the Research Tower was added in 1944. This building was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright in Racine, Wisconsin. It is located in a suburban area, which usually experiences a warm summer and a snowy, cold winter.
I chose the Johnson Wax Building first and foremost because it was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Wright’s buildings are very popular, and a staple of twentieth century design, however I don’t know much about Wright’s designs and would like to learn more about his take on architecture. While I do know that I won’t always agree with his design styles, I respect Wright for his unorthodox designs.
My analysis of this building may introduce a new perspective, one that may understand the design theory, but won’t always agree with the design elements in the building. This is because I have never seen or read about this particular work of architecture and his buildings have always been of interest to me.
Picture by Prof. Jeffery Howe.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/FLW_JWax.html
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
OPUS 4
This week we learned that in architecture there seems to be and archetype, prototype and hybrid for most or all building forms. This is to say that ideas for buildings generally originate from older buildings - the new buildings take the best aspects from the old, and improve the ideas. Therefore the archetype is the foundation - the first step. An example of this would be the Doric columns used in Greek architecture. These Doric columns were improved on; the basic structure was the same but the shape was slightly changed, and detail was added to create ionic columns. The hybrid in this example is the Corinthian columns. While the Romans used Doric as well as ionic columns, they modified them once again to create thinner, more precise columns which had still more decoration. 
Another example of the archetype, prototype, and hybrid comparisons would be the use of arches. In Greece, post and lintel construction was used (the archetype) which gave way to the idea of arches. The arches were then constructed by the Romans to create a larger appearance of space, and vaults were then formed out of those (prototypes). Finally two vaults were placed on top of each other in opposite direction creating groin vaults (the hybrid) as well as making the most possible room.
The evolution of architecture based on archetype, prototype, and hybrid brings to mind the idea that there is a source for everything. Something I have already mentioned was that the source of vaults used in Roman architecture were arches, and the source of arches were columns from Greek architecture. Much of Roman architecture came from Greek buildings - whether it was improving their ideas, or discarding them and beginning all over, the Romans took what they new of Greek architecture and created new, fantastic buildings. Another form of source is architecture being based off of the landscape and the warfare. (Roth, 247) Many Roman buildings were constructed on the land, ignoring any natural surrounding features. Also, different roman villages were build with a large wall border, separating the city from outside predators.
In many areas during Roman rule, cities and buildings were named after priests or kings in charge, to show their status. Hierarchy in the Roman empire important, for instance, because only priests and the social elite were allowed to go inside many buildings and experience their awesome interior. (Roth, 247) Ordinary civilians and especially servants and slaves were not allowed into some of these more precious buildings, but were only able to admire them from the outside. Also, priests had very little contact with ordinary artisans, merchants and slaves. (Roth, 250) It was not very often that they were around these people, but instead were surrounded with people of equal status. A simpler example of hierarchy can be seen on the columns in the Coliseum - the first floor has Doric columns, the most basic; the second floor had ionic columns, becoming greater; the third Corinthian, the most complex. (Roth, 267)
Order was a main influence in Roman architecture. In the Roman empire they tried to achieve order ond unity by the way they shaped urban spaces. The Romans "ordered ranks of axially disposed and colonnaded buildings." (Roth, 250) What this means is that the roads formed what looked similar to a series of right angles, creating lines of homes. Also, urban spaces looked very similar, and did not vary on outward appearances. In this way, the Romans created some form of order, and they even sliced through nature (ex. mountains, hills) to make it as perfect as possible. Old cities used somewhat irregular rectangles in their building design, but the basic idea of "axial disposition" was still in use. (Roth, 253) The main streets in a city moved from north to south (the Cardo) and east to west (the decumanus), which was known as orthogonal planning. (Roth, 253)
The entourage, or the landscape surrounding a piece of architecture, was not an important feature to the Romans. As I have already mentioned, they cut through nature in order to make their order possible, they changed nature for their benefit. As explained in Roth, p. 250 "if a stony outcrop loomed in the way, they simply cut through it. They captured streams and conducted water more than 30 miles...to the cities, tunneling through hills and lifting the aqueducts over valleys." Instead of building closer to the water, or moving the stream with the land, the Romans actually went straight through everything that was in their way, as in this example.
I have learned in this last week that the source of architecture today was heavily influenced by Roman architecture, just as the roman architecture was influenced by Greek buildings and so on. A major way to show this is by the use of the archetype, prototype and hybrid comparisons. Hierarchy played an important role in the Roman empire as well - slaves built the beautiful buildings, but were not allowed into some of them. The use of hierarchy also helped create order, such as the hierarchy and order of the Doric, ionic, and Corinthian columns. This order was also a very prominent aspect of Roman architecture. The societies, in some ways were surrounded by order - the order of buildings, of roads, and even of external appearances. Lastly, the order they employed would not have been possible without the manipulation of the surrounding nature, or entourage.
Another example of the archetype, prototype, and hybrid comparisons would be the use of arches. In Greece, post and lintel construction was used (the archetype) which gave way to the idea of arches. The arches were then constructed by the Romans to create a larger appearance of space, and vaults were then formed out of those (prototypes). Finally two vaults were placed on top of each other in opposite direction creating groin vaults (the hybrid) as well as making the most possible room.
The evolution of architecture based on archetype, prototype, and hybrid brings to mind the idea that there is a source for everything. Something I have already mentioned was that the source of vaults used in Roman architecture were arches, and the source of arches were columns from Greek architecture. Much of Roman architecture came from Greek buildings - whether it was improving their ideas, or discarding them and beginning all over, the Romans took what they new of Greek architecture and created new, fantastic buildings. Another form of source is architecture being based off of the landscape and the warfare. (Roth, 247) Many Roman buildings were constructed on the land, ignoring any natural surrounding features. Also, different roman villages were build with a large wall border, separating the city from outside predators.
In many areas during Roman rule, cities and buildings were named after priests or kings in charge, to show their status. Hierarchy in the Roman empire important, for instance, because only priests and the social elite were allowed to go inside many buildings and experience their awesome interior. (Roth, 247) Ordinary civilians and especially servants and slaves were not allowed into some of these more precious buildings, but were only able to admire them from the outside. Also, priests had very little contact with ordinary artisans, merchants and slaves. (Roth, 250) It was not very often that they were around these people, but instead were surrounded with people of equal status. A simpler example of hierarchy can be seen on the columns in the Coliseum - the first floor has Doric columns, the most basic; the second floor had ionic columns, becoming greater; the third Corinthian, the most complex. (Roth, 267)
Order was a main influence in Roman architecture. In the Roman empire they tried to achieve order ond unity by the way they shaped urban spaces. The Romans "ordered ranks of axially disposed and colonnaded buildings." (Roth, 250) What this means is that the roads formed what looked similar to a series of right angles, creating lines of homes. Also, urban spaces looked very similar, and did not vary on outward appearances. In this way, the Romans created some form of order, and they even sliced through nature (ex. mountains, hills) to make it as perfect as possible. Old cities used somewhat irregular rectangles in their building design, but the basic idea of "axial disposition" was still in use. (Roth, 253) The main streets in a city moved from north to south (the Cardo) and east to west (the decumanus), which was known as orthogonal planning. (Roth, 253)
The entourage, or the landscape surrounding a piece of architecture, was not an important feature to the Romans. As I have already mentioned, they cut through nature in order to make their order possible, they changed nature for their benefit. As explained in Roth, p. 250 "if a stony outcrop loomed in the way, they simply cut through it. They captured streams and conducted water more than 30 miles...to the cities, tunneling through hills and lifting the aqueducts over valleys." Instead of building closer to the water, or moving the stream with the land, the Romans actually went straight through everything that was in their way, as in this example.
I have learned in this last week that the source of architecture today was heavily influenced by Roman architecture, just as the roman architecture was influenced by Greek buildings and so on. A major way to show this is by the use of the archetype, prototype and hybrid comparisons. Hierarchy played an important role in the Roman empire as well - slaves built the beautiful buildings, but were not allowed into some of them. The use of hierarchy also helped create order, such as the hierarchy and order of the Doric, ionic, and Corinthian columns. This order was also a very prominent aspect of Roman architecture. The societies, in some ways were surrounded by order - the order of buildings, of roads, and even of external appearances. Lastly, the order they employed would not have been possible without the manipulation of the surrounding nature, or entourage.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
OPUS 3
We spent some time in class this week not only comparing and contrasting two buildings in particular - Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza with Hatshepsut's Tomb - but also male and female architecture. We found that the scale of a building had a lot to do with the specific sex it was made for. For example, Khufu was a male pharaoh, and his pyramid was large, reaching toward the sky, and was surrounded by smaller pyramids. These smaller pyramids were most likely for his wives and mother. (Roth, 196) Therefore, in this case the women's temples were not nearly as grand, causing Khufu's pyramid to stand out. Even when compared to the female pharaoh Hatshepsut's tomb, hers was not as large in scale or quite as intimidating.
In this same light, Hatshepsut's tomb did not stand out as much as Khufu's pyramids did. Instead, her tomb seemed to be unified with the land. It appeared that her tomb was actually a part of the mountain behind it, and that she took consideratin for others and the land, using similar materials. Khufu's Pyramid on the other hand was built to contrast the land and be noticed as a completely seperate ground. Another example of unity would be the cities and homes in ancient Egypt. Most homes were built the same way with flaired edges, were about the same size and were built connected to each other, almost like a townhouse in our current times. (Roth 207)
Also when comparing the before mentioned pieces of architecture, we found that the Tomb of Hatshepsut had many openings and, though it did have some large male comumns, it was more open and accessible than Khufu'd pyramid. The pyramid seemed to have many boundaries - for one it had no easy visible entrance. Also, anyone who wanted to enter knew there were traps set inside, and passage ways which were kept secret, creating more boundaries. (Roth 199)
A hypostyle hall, such as the one in the Temple of Khonsu, houses many columns. (Roth, 206) These comuns are usually massive and may even have engravings on them called heiroglyphics. These heirogliphics tell a story, much like a vignette. They were very deep, complex markings with intricate designs, made in an attempt to stand the test of time.
Many important elements in architecture, as we have discussed, come in threes. The one that has come up most reciently was porch, court, and hearth. I learned that to every building, and in some cases to every city, or just every room, one can find a porch a court and a hearth. This divides an area into sections. A porch would the transition place from out to in, and creates a change in atmosphere (a famous example of a porch would be the Loins Gate); a court is a place for gathering, a place to be seen; the hearth section is usually only available to specific individuals. This means it can be a master bedroom, which sould only be entered by the owner, or a place of worship, with a statue of a god, which should only be entered by someone of great importance or religious hierarchy, such as a priest.
In this same light, Hatshepsut's tomb did not stand out as much as Khufu's pyramids did. Instead, her tomb seemed to be unified with the land. It appeared that her tomb was actually a part of the mountain behind it, and that she took consideratin for others and the land, using similar materials. Khufu's Pyramid on the other hand was built to contrast the land and be noticed as a completely seperate ground. Another example of unity would be the cities and homes in ancient Egypt. Most homes were built the same way with flaired edges, were about the same size and were built connected to each other, almost like a townhouse in our current times. (Roth 207)
Also when comparing the before mentioned pieces of architecture, we found that the Tomb of Hatshepsut had many openings and, though it did have some large male comumns, it was more open and accessible than Khufu'd pyramid. The pyramid seemed to have many boundaries - for one it had no easy visible entrance. Also, anyone who wanted to enter knew there were traps set inside, and passage ways which were kept secret, creating more boundaries. (Roth 199)
A hypostyle hall, such as the one in the Temple of Khonsu, houses many columns. (Roth, 206) These comuns are usually massive and may even have engravings on them called heiroglyphics. These heirogliphics tell a story, much like a vignette. They were very deep, complex markings with intricate designs, made in an attempt to stand the test of time.
Many important elements in architecture, as we have discussed, come in threes. The one that has come up most reciently was porch, court, and hearth. I learned that to every building, and in some cases to every city, or just every room, one can find a porch a court and a hearth. This divides an area into sections. A porch would the transition place from out to in, and creates a change in atmosphere (a famous example of a porch would be the Loins Gate); a court is a place for gathering, a place to be seen; the hearth section is usually only available to specific individuals. This means it can be a master bedroom, which sould only be entered by the owner, or a place of worship, with a statue of a god, which should only be entered by someone of great importance or religious hierarchy, such as a priest.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
OPUS 2
Henry Wotten claimed "well-building hath three conditions: commodity, firmness and delight" (Roth, p.11). This is to say that any truly high-quality piece of architecture needs to be functional – at least in most cases, since it is difficult for a room to always function to its highest potential – have a secure, reliable foundation, and bring joy as well as satisfaction to those who enter, or at the very least look at it. An example of this would be the ziggurat at Ur: functional in its time because it brought people together to worship the moon god; firm because it is still standing after thousands of years; delightful because of its beauty. 
The ziggurat in Ur was made out of hard brick which was laid in bitumen, a thick crude oil which came from the springs in Hit. (Roth 184) Hit was relatively nearby, providing them easy access to this lasting material. Like the Sumerians who constructed the Ziggurat in Ur, Cro-Magnons made shelter out of materials that were easily accessed from the areas they inhabited. The ones found across what is now Eastern Europe were constructed out of internal frames of wood, which were covered with hides, then surrounded at the base by mammoth skulls and bones. (Roth 163) Some may have also used caves or other shelters found naturally on the earth, or clay from nearby rivers. Unlike the Ziggurat however, these vernacular structures may have been commodious and even firm in very few cases (because some structures were found intact thousands of years later), but were most likely not pleasing to the eye.
As I have already mentioned, these structures were built at different time periods, by tremendously dissimilar cultures, and therefore they convey separate attitudes and feelings. Any piece of architecture communicates by a specific fashion, one that is affected by the society which built it, and the time they did so. The idiom, or distinct style, of the ancient Egyptian era for example conveys how important they thought the afterlife was, especially of pharaohs. They created pyramids which served as the instrument used by the king to ascend to the heavens. (Roth 200).
There were more structures which were illuminated by their relationship with the heavens. For example, though we do not know the exact meaning behind Stonehenge, one assumption is that it was a place to mourn the dead, and the circular formation of it could be seen from the heavens. Another more common idea is that it may have served as an astronomical observatory, marking phenomena such as eclipses and the summer solstice. (Roth 173) This also brings the idea that people spent much time and concentration making the stones, and placing them in a particular pattern, which shows how intelligent they were even then.
In conclusion, for architecture to be appreciated to its highest degree, it must be commodious, firm, and bring delight. The different materials used to build can influence how sturdy the structure is and even how beautiful or appealing it is. The materials used also translate what the meaning behind the architecture is, meaning that each culture and society, each architect has their own specific language, their own idiosyncrasies, which can be understood through the exploration of the architecture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)