- - The original note follows - -
Path: psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
uunet!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!tsuchiya
From: tsuchiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (N John Tsuchiya)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: Design in General...
Date: 17 Sep 1993 22:02:13 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 54
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <27dc56$hfh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <273hcn$g66@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<gibsonf1CDHGMD.CFF@xxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: m14s-010-4.mit.edu
Fred Gibson (gibsonf1@xxxxxxxxxx) suggested different "functions" as the
purpose of architecture, as follows:
>
> Good Architecture must:
>
> I. serve man
> A. Provide physical protection
> 1. Structure
> 2. Enclosure
> B. Provide life-sustaining functions
>
> Great Architecture must:
>
> II. Provide spiritual enrichment / inspiration (Art)
> A. Respond to the physical context
> 1. Natural
> 2. Man-made
> B. Respond to the spiritual context
> 1. Concept to express the essence of the project
> (The idea which integrates all of the contextual
> requirements of the project; the BIG IDEA)
> 2. FORM
> a. Scale (generated from the big idea)
> b. Proportions (generated from the big idea)
>
This may be true, but parts of this are extremely ambiguous. Architecture
does "serve man", but so do many things that are not architecture. Gibson also
lists "providing life-sustaining functions." Which life-sustaining functions
in particular? I don't think architecture needs to provide food and clothing,
and I'm sure Gibson did not intend to imply this, of course, but the statement
itself does mean that. I would also argue that "spiritual inspiration (Art)"
is a necessary life-sustaining function, but that's certainly very debatable.
Also, I still believe that even "merely" good architecture MUST be able to
accomodate human actions, and not just "life-sustaining" ones. For example,
a door must be designed to be opened sufficiently easily, corridors must be
designed to be sufficiently wide, kitchens must be designed to be sufficiently
usable, etc.
Now about the conditions for "Great Architecture", Gibson has listed "FORM."
To me, form is simply the physical shape of any object. So in itself, it can't
be a "function" of architecture. About "scale" and "proportions" which Gibson
has listed under functions for "FORM", I believe that they actually would fall
under "psychological" functions of a building, along with designs accomodating
human actions. I would suggest that even "good architecture" needs to
incorporate these concepts, since they have a great influence on people's
perception of buildings---that is, whether the users feel that it is a good
building or not.
John Tsuchiya
Path: psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
uunet!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!tsuchiya
From: tsuchiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (N John Tsuchiya)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: Design in General...
Date: 17 Sep 1993 22:02:13 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 54
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <27dc56$hfh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <273hcn$g66@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<gibsonf1CDHGMD.CFF@xxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: m14s-010-4.mit.edu
Fred Gibson (gibsonf1@xxxxxxxxxx) suggested different "functions" as the
purpose of architecture, as follows:
>
> Good Architecture must:
>
> I. serve man
> A. Provide physical protection
> 1. Structure
> 2. Enclosure
> B. Provide life-sustaining functions
>
> Great Architecture must:
>
> II. Provide spiritual enrichment / inspiration (Art)
> A. Respond to the physical context
> 1. Natural
> 2. Man-made
> B. Respond to the spiritual context
> 1. Concept to express the essence of the project
> (The idea which integrates all of the contextual
> requirements of the project; the BIG IDEA)
> 2. FORM
> a. Scale (generated from the big idea)
> b. Proportions (generated from the big idea)
>
This may be true, but parts of this are extremely ambiguous. Architecture
does "serve man", but so do many things that are not architecture. Gibson also
lists "providing life-sustaining functions." Which life-sustaining functions
in particular? I don't think architecture needs to provide food and clothing,
and I'm sure Gibson did not intend to imply this, of course, but the statement
itself does mean that. I would also argue that "spiritual inspiration (Art)"
is a necessary life-sustaining function, but that's certainly very debatable.
Also, I still believe that even "merely" good architecture MUST be able to
accomodate human actions, and not just "life-sustaining" ones. For example,
a door must be designed to be opened sufficiently easily, corridors must be
designed to be sufficiently wide, kitchens must be designed to be sufficiently
usable, etc.
Now about the conditions for "Great Architecture", Gibson has listed "FORM."
To me, form is simply the physical shape of any object. So in itself, it can't
be a "function" of architecture. About "scale" and "proportions" which Gibson
has listed under functions for "FORM", I believe that they actually would fall
under "psychological" functions of a building, along with designs accomodating
human actions. I would suggest that even "good architecture" needs to
incorporate these concepts, since they have a great influence on people's
perception of buildings---that is, whether the users feel that it is a good
building or not.
John Tsuchiya