(Student’s Full Name)
Aldo Rossi argues that architecture should be seen as having “profound value as a human thing that shapes reality and adapts material according to an aesthetic conception” (394). This proposal may appear to be simply when studying the subject of architecture, but, throughout the years, architecture has not always presented itself in such clear and direct terms. In fact, Charles Jencks’s definition of the “Post-Modern building” underscores the point that architects can take multiple positions in their very design of a building (306). Whether this is done consciously or subconsciously is unknown. Nevertheless, it is clear that architectural theorists have the tendency to take dual positions when attempting to apply their espoused principles of design to their edifice. Indeed, the selected critical readings emphasize the idea that in analyzing the various arguments of architects throughout history, it is easy to become confused by the ambiguous stances that are presented. Therefore, it is the responsibility of today’s aspiring architects to focus on their buildings having a functional role within the necessary for the present age rather than strictly adhering to principles expounded on by architectural theorists.
There is evidence that indicate that many architectural designs are made to express two opposing ideas simultaneously. For instance, Jencks explains that the post-modern building is defined as a building that “speaks on two levels at once” (306). In other words, the post-modern building should appeal to “other architects and a concerned minority who care about specifically architectural meaning” while the general public should find this building appealing because it fulfills their need to have an edifice that is a “traditional building” that provides “comfort” and a “way of life” (306). Therefore, an architect, who has a desire to adhere to the principles of post-modernism, is forced to create a building that appeals both to the masses and the small group of the intellectual elite. Colin Rowe adds that “modern architecture” produced two sets of persons the “camp of success” who followed the demands of the masses and the “camp of the ‘true believer’” to make things “interesting to the few and inaccessible to the many” (75). However, it should be noted that Jencks appears to suggest that the aspiring architect should focus his attention on using design to “proclaim its function” (308).
It should be noted that architects, at times, end up constructing buildings that are opposed to their espoused philosophy of architecture. For example, Robert Venturi, Steven Izenour, and Denise Scott Brown indicate that modern architects who “righteously abandoned ornament on buildings,” they “unconsciously designed buildings that were ornament” (163). The writers indicate further that modern architects have “distorted the whole building into a duck” (Venturi, Izenour, Scott Brown 163). Additionally, Rossi notes that modern architects are still creating houses with a “loggia,” which is an “old scheme” (398). The writer explains that despite changes, this type of design has “imposed itself on the ‘feelings and reason’ as the principle of architecture” (qtd. in Rossi 398). Nevertheless, Venturi, Izenour, and Scott Brown appear to argue for function in architectural design rather than form where the architect can “decorate construction” that allow the edifice to cater to the function required by both “[c]ommercial interests” and “cultural lobbies and design review boards” (162, 163).
In conclusion, the architectural theories that have been presented by numerous architects throughout the years provide perspectives that are ambivalent and, therefore, confusing. Consequently, the duty of aspiring architects to focus more on function rather than form. When this happens, the architect will be able to create buildings that are “not decoration” or “dead ducks” (Venturi, Izenour, & Scott Brown 162, 163). Therefore, it can be argued that architectural theories should not be seen by aspiring architects as theories promoting principles that need to be strictly adhered to. However, they should be perceived as guides that can inspire an architect to construct a building in the best way that he sees fit and that appeals to his personal “aesthetic conception” at the time (Rossi 394).
Works Cited
Jencks, Charles. “Post-Modern Architecture.” The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. New York: Rizzoli, 1977. Print. 306-316.
Rossi, Aldo. “The Urban Artifact as a Work of Art.” The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1982. Print.393-398.
Rowe, Colin. Introduction. Five Architects. New York: Wittenborn, 1972. Print.73-84.
Venturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour. “Some Definitions Using the Comparative Method.” Learning from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1972. Print.87-163.
