It's interesting to see that something thinks that the 3 functions
of "good design" - whatever that means - have little to do with any
intellectual expression, that we also would normally consider with
architecture: geometry, proportion, or more , I suppose, existential
conditions, such as weathering and ageing, its symbolic aspects, and so on.
Mr Tsuchiya's response seems to be somebody who build, but is not really
interested in architecture, as such. Buildings that leak, of are stuffy in
summer, may still have aspects that we are interested - an occasionally
majestic sunset in winter, the wind going through my bones in a storm, to
feel nature. Often the norms of architecture deprive us of the variety of
experiences we would expect to see in a normal life. The opening lines of
Robert Venturi's Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture are exciting
still for us, in the sense that he manages to simply like the banal and the
exoteric, the ugly and the bad, no matter the excesses of his oeuvre, there
is more to architecture than 3 simple physical conditions of shelter,
structure and orientation. They are part of architecture, but not its essence:
otherwise the "voluptas" of Alberti's will be ignored, and we will be left
with mere building, and no art. And design can fail at times, as Corbusier
mentioned: there is only the waxing and waning of human life to be considered,
or even Heidegger's notion of us knowing how to dwell: to reduce complexities
to simple guidelines is truly a recipe for disaster, and the forgetting of
architecture - which may or may not be "good design", as you so glibly put it.
Martin Hayes
of "good design" - whatever that means - have little to do with any
intellectual expression, that we also would normally consider with
architecture: geometry, proportion, or more , I suppose, existential
conditions, such as weathering and ageing, its symbolic aspects, and so on.
Mr Tsuchiya's response seems to be somebody who build, but is not really
interested in architecture, as such. Buildings that leak, of are stuffy in
summer, may still have aspects that we are interested - an occasionally
majestic sunset in winter, the wind going through my bones in a storm, to
feel nature. Often the norms of architecture deprive us of the variety of
experiences we would expect to see in a normal life. The opening lines of
Robert Venturi's Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture are exciting
still for us, in the sense that he manages to simply like the banal and the
exoteric, the ugly and the bad, no matter the excesses of his oeuvre, there
is more to architecture than 3 simple physical conditions of shelter,
structure and orientation. They are part of architecture, but not its essence:
otherwise the "voluptas" of Alberti's will be ignored, and we will be left
with mere building, and no art. And design can fail at times, as Corbusier
mentioned: there is only the waxing and waning of human life to be considered,
or even Heidegger's notion of us knowing how to dwell: to reduce complexities
to simple guidelines is truly a recipe for disaster, and the forgetting of
architecture - which may or may not be "good design", as you so glibly put it.
Martin Hayes