I think the catagories might be thought of as PRAGMATICS and SYNTATICS.
It seems that other catagories of SEMANTICS and AESTHETICS have been
omitted on the senders comments. Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Path: psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!tsuchiya
From: tsuchiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (N John Tsuchiya)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Revised Design
Date: 24 Sep 1993 19:01:02 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 25
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <27vg5e$68v@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: m16-034-15.mit.edu
Taking into account what Fred Gibson pointed out as the "axiomatic
function" of architecture, here is a revised definition for the "function"
of architecture:
I. An artificial environment which improves the natural environment
to better serve man's needs
So, architecture would include, as examples:
- an igloo, which is an artificial environment designed to moderate the
harsh artic climate
- a football field, which is an artificial environment designed to
provide a better playing area (i.e., flatter) than would a
natural field
The so-called "functions" I mentioned earlier (structure, energy, and
psychology) would actually be better described as "tools" by which the real
function is achieved. That is, structural considerations, energy
considerations, and psychological considerations are what architects need to
know
to create an environment which improves upon the natural conditions to better
"serve man."
John Tsuchiya
It seems that other catagories of SEMANTICS and AESTHETICS have been
omitted on the senders comments. Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Path: psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!tsuchiya
From: tsuchiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (N John Tsuchiya)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Revised Design
Date: 24 Sep 1993 19:01:02 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 25
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <27vg5e$68v@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: m16-034-15.mit.edu
Taking into account what Fred Gibson pointed out as the "axiomatic
function" of architecture, here is a revised definition for the "function"
of architecture:
I. An artificial environment which improves the natural environment
to better serve man's needs
So, architecture would include, as examples:
- an igloo, which is an artificial environment designed to moderate the
harsh artic climate
- a football field, which is an artificial environment designed to
provide a better playing area (i.e., flatter) than would a
natural field
The so-called "functions" I mentioned earlier (structure, energy, and
psychology) would actually be better described as "tools" by which the real
function is achieved. That is, structural considerations, energy
considerations, and psychological considerations are what architects need to
know
to create an environment which improves upon the natural conditions to better
"serve man."
John Tsuchiya