Philosophy of Architecture - AV

PHILOSOPHY OF ARCHITECTURE

1. Introduction

Philosophical reflection on architecture nowadays is much less lively than other forms of art,

especially compared to those of recent origins such as movies and comics. This deficit is much

analytical aesthetics.

more marked in In the essay we refer to the exit of architecture by defining

its architectural object (parallel to that of art art). Alternatively, the architectural product can

be defined as:

Architectural work,

• which combines the creator's intent and aesthetics;

Buildings,

• certainly referring to concrete construction;

Structures constructed,

• which designates the architecturally constructed in a generic way.

2. What is architecture? what kind of initiative is architecture.

The first question that arises spontaneously is:

We can assume that, although we don’t know how to define architectural products and objects,

there are a number of features that we can historically associate with architecture and enable us

to define the role and understand what an architect does.

Vitruvius, Indian Manasara and Chinese Yingzao fashi represent the point of reference for what is

empirical approach

defined as an to the study of architecture.

If we think to delineate a unified profile that allows us to define what architecture is, we risk

becoming a uniquely engineering characterization.

But architecture can not be reduced to a form of engineering, there must be something more; for

this reason many contributions suggest that architecture should have an artistic part.

To define the fundamental characteristics of architecture we can start from Vitruvius and its

utilitas, firmitas venustas.

and

An hard line of functional essentialism states that if there is no function there is no architecture.

Graham argues that a structure with a function is yes, an architectural work, but that a definition

in this sense excludes works that are commonly considered architecture and seemingly have no

function in the strict sense (memorials, monuments).

Functional necessity raises two issues:

1. The Vitruvian triad may not be the right list of essential features. Someone, for example,

suggests adding space as a salient trait;

2. Perhaps essentialism is not suitable as it leaves with it a whole series of features that an object

of architecture has to possess, because we, as, for example, users, have a subjective experience.

Probably architecture objects do not share any essential aspect.

What are architectural objects?

Are they artistic objects or belong to a special category of artistic objects? Or are they a special

5

class of constructed buildings?

At the very least we find the location where architectural objects, only accidentally, have an

aesthetic value. At the positive end, the position for which architectural objects are, in all cases,

works of art.

avies argues that artwork is not enough to do a work of art, on the contrary, Stecker argues that

there is a subclass of architectural objects that are always artistic. Assuming that the "negative"

position is correct, it would be necessary to demonstrate which criteria are used to assert that

architectural objects are not artistic. If, on the other hand, architecture is like other forms of art

we may think it has distinctive features that make it anyway.

Winters argues that, while in the other forms of art it is allowed a detached attitude of the artist,

architect is always involved; a critical art

in architecture the for Winter, therefore, architecture is

form. Still, for others, architecture is able to tell and communicate events given the possibility

that the user has to move inside.

What can we include in the list of architectural objects? All buildings (inclusiveness)? Only a

coherent subsystem of the built environment (exclusivity: a) buildings that can be occupied; b)

buildings designed in response to precise aesthetic dictates)?

At the base of the exclusive theory there are features that a building must possess to be part of

the architectural construction: marked aesthetic qualities, the intention of the designer to create

art and the intent of aligning himself to the more general artistic currents.

The arguments, on the other hand, of inclusivist position are based on Carlson's appeal, which sees

a continuum between architectural objects and the widest class of objects drawn on a daily basis.

This allows you to include in the list of architectures, constructions such as: garages, drainage

It is the intention of creating objects that is artistic itself.

moats that do not express any artistic intent.

3. Metaphysics

We think of architectural objects intuitively and simply as constructions, however, intuition can

be misleading.

Are the architectural properties only of the built objects or of models, drawings and plans? If it is

true that the built building has architectural properties what we can say of its single parts or of a

set of more buildings?

Can you talk about architectures that have a multiple instance like other forms of art such as

music and photography?

We must establish criteria to understand when an object is architectural, but also when, more

generally, an object is that given object or instance of a multiple object. In architecture to

identify an instance of an object, reference is made to historical, environmental, stylistic and

informal criteria.

There are several types of architecture ontology:

• Concretism - Architectural objects are structures or other physical manifestations of the

project (model);

• Abstractism - are also architectural objects those historical objects (which nowadays no

longer exist), fantastic and unstructured.

6

Against abstractism one may find that some architectural objects seem apparently individual

because historically and geographically contingent; Abstract objects are by definition not created

while architectural objects are and in this sense you can not understand what abstract theory

refers to.

As an alternative to concretism and abstractism we have:

pluralistic ontology

• A - responds to an aesthetic idea and states that an object is

architectural only if it realizes perfectly what is determined by the project;

• Action and Performance Ontology - an architectural object is conceived as an event with a

beginning and an end.

Individual constructions are the fundamental unit of our architectural aesthetics. All other forms

of designing architecture are derived.

Alternative views to these are the following:

• Merological, in which the parts of a building are a self-contained object;

environmental contextuality

• in which the buildings are an independent object.

Both share a link with some forms of compositionality among architectural objects. That

meteorological is a downward compositionalism (downward); environmental contextualism is a

composing upward (upward).

Architecture seems to play a role in the pursuit of things, a causal effect that can have effects on

the built environment, for example. What is to be asked is whether the presence of a building

that has low functionality or low aesthetic value can create a constructive process that will lead

to the construction of a structure that is functional and beautiful.

4. Architectural Language and Notion

The basic idea is that the combination of stylistic elements and fundamental design is capable of

generating a semantic meaning (language).

1. The syntactically inspired position claims that there is at least one set of rules guiding the

architectural composition (orientation, relationship, combination of all architectural

objects).

2. The semantic inspired position argues that architectural objects or their parts produce

internal or external meanings to the object. The first tells us something about its function

or its internal composition or how it relates to other buildings, the second tells us

something about the cultural world.

3. A third approach sees buildings as communicative systems capable of suggesting their own

function and directing the behavior of users.

The theory of architectural language has recently been discredited. It does not seem that

architectural objects behave like, say, phrases; there is not even a unique meaning with regard

to stylistic elements (the Ionic order in the history suggests, for example, female sensitivity for

Vitruvius, gravitas in the Renaissance, good governance in New York City); attributing to the

architecture the ability to transmit the messages seems a hypothesis not too welcome even for

7

architects who see, in this way of understanding the profession, a limitation to their aesthetic

ingenuity.

It seems that the theory of architectural language works better as a metaphor, rather than as a

set of rules prescriptions.

Goodman suggests that architecture is an allograft shape limit case (infinite configurations that

the same symbol (eg a letter) can take in manual writing or printing, both (and above all) all the

signs and combinations of signs that serve to graphically translate a sound of a language depending

on the context) and that its notational schemes (plans, projects) are intended to ensure that all

work instances are consistent with each other. So the architectural notational system makes the

design identity of the instances respected.

5. Formalism and Anti-Formalism

Formal properties seem to have a central role in our aesthetic appreciation of architectural

objects, but formal aspects play a unique role or a dominant driving role for our aesthetic

judgment?

Other forms of formalism assume formal properties as the material and physical properties of

constructed structures. For some, however, while some architectural objects can be understood

by their formal properties, others are not.

Anti-formalists focus on the capabilities that non-formal properties, such as the historical context,

have in the formation of aesthetic judgment.

Variants of the architectural theory of anti-formalism come from the theory of beauty that has its

roots in: a) the modern tradition of judging a beautiful object if it corresponds to its original

function, b) the Kantian proposal for which architecture is an art form capable of generating

addictive beauty.

Parson and Clarson warn of the fact that the function alone can determine the form, since it would

overlook other features that were not highlighted by their functions (the function alone can not

determine the form).

For example, ruins or architectural ornamentation have no function, but they still have other

characteristics and their beauty manifests itself in the fact that they are not functional.

As for architecture, there are certainly other variants of a spiritual, emotional and conceptual

nature that allow for the understanding of structures such as memorials and triumphal arches;

Beauty alone can not be the only aesthetic value that allows a practicable notion of aesthetic

properties. In general, the theory of architectural objects suggests a moderate formalism.

6. Architectural Experience, Knowledge and A