The scholarly world has struggled to come up with a definition of the essence of architecture. The critical question is where the emphasis of architecture should be placed; whether on the functionality of the designs or the impact, architecture has on the people. The writings by Pérez-Gómez and Norberg-Schulz, look to make an effort to shed some light on this debate. According to the two authors, architecture as a form of art should tone down the emphasis placed on functionality, while putting more emphasis on translating human reality in architectural work. I agree with the position taken by the two authors since I believe that architects have more to do than just creating functional pieces of art. They have the responsibility of fostering the relationship people have with their environment, via architectural work.
The modern day approach to architecture, paints a picture of a discipline that is based on science and a set of rules. As pointed out by Pérez-Gómez, the modern day approach to the planning of human dwellings and especially cities is entirely informed by statistics and science (7). Architects no longer make these plans with the goal of satisfying human needs and catering for an exciting human experience. The product is the creation of architectural work that is not meaningful to the people. People need to find a connection with the environment they live in. A way through which this link to the environment can be realized is through the creation of an existential space (Norberg-Schulz 5). This is the same effect that Pérez-Gómez refers to as offering the human experience through architecture. Such outcomes cannot be realized through the conventional approaches to architecture. The architects need to come up with ways to which their work yields not only shelter, but a dwelling to the people. Getting people to form this kind of connection to architectural work calls for the reduction in the functionalization of architecture. To this end, architects will need to rely less on the rules which lead to the realization of efficiency, but a loss of the noble objective or architecture (Pérez-Gómez 4). As Norberg-Schulz puts it, architecture needs to reduce its analytical outlook which results in architecture missing the environmental character (5).
In coming up with a fresh approach to architecture, it is important to understand the perception that human beings have regarding their environment. According to Norberg-Schulz, life is made up of a multiple of phenomena (6). Most of the phenomena are tangible, but there is a major component of life made up of intangible aspects such as feelings. To come up with an environment fit to live in, people have to find the right mix of both tangible and intangible phenomena. The environment is what is defined as “place” (Norberg-Schulz 6). Based on this understanding, it is clear that architecture stands at a strategic position, where it can help people combine intangible and tangible aspects of life in the places they live. This should be the ultimate focus of any architectural ventures. More emphasis should be put on how architectural artwork affects human lives and the places they live. Just like Perez points out, architects need to move from coming up with constructions that make functional and economic sense (6). The emphasis should be on the creation of architecture that is in touch with human reality as opposed to architecture that follows mathematical logic.
In speaking about the aspect of perception and the phenomenon of place, Pérez-Gómez and Norberg-Schulz note that the functional and economical approach to architecture fails in the creations of spaces that are desirable to the people. The argument here is that architecture should emphasize more on the creation of meaningful places for the people, through architecture that is in touch with reality.
Works Cited
Norberg-Schulz, Christian. Towards A Phenomenology of Architecture. New York: Rizzoli, 1980. Print.
Pérez-Gómez, Alberto. Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1983. Print.
