Jan 25, 2018 in Informative

Architectural Theology

Question 1

Vitruvius stressed on the need for rich background of knowledge for all architects stating in his famous quote, “let him be educated, skilful with the pencil, instructed in geometry, know much history....”[1] According to him, being an architect was in order to offer quality services to one’s society. That assertion was later supported by Guarino Gaurini who indicated that an architect requires being educated in things of art as well as sciences. Referring to Vitruvius’s assertion, there is great need to unlock senses of architects that are closely associated with knowledge of master builders. On another note, the author can be said to have unreflective temperament and ignored the probability that disputes between certain formulae and irreducible values would become sources of dismay for many architects. That way, he was sure that effectively prepared architects who have knowledge would be able to resolve such disputes. Vitruvius is supported by other theorists in architecture such as Harries who concentrated on the moral aspects of architecture. In fact, Harries stated that the aim of architecture is to develop the world and that it requires knowledge and keenness.[2] In other words, it can be deduced that Vitruvius was concerned about the complexities that surround architecture including conflicting values and temperaments, hence asserted that knowledge is vital in the field.

Question 2

John Ruskin provides a great topic of debate in his statement with regards to architecture. His statement is true in that modern architecture should be entirely based on ethics and expression of the truth. Structural integrity ought to be the main focus of any architecture and eventually incorporates personal morality. In fact, rationalism can be said to come to play in this case although it is influenced by the notion of a religious mind that architecture is based on morality.[3] According to Ruskin, the violation of truth in architecture should be avoided since it dishonours works of art. It can be simple to command beauty of architecture, but falsify the nature and other aspects of architecture. At the initial stages, the ethical standpoint taken by Ruskin triggered people to think about the truthfulness in construction. However, the influence of religion indicated that there is vitality in truthful planning. That can easily be confirmed by the Catholic Emancipation Act the called for effective planning. That way, honesty in architecture should be enhanced through three major aspects of a building that include the mode of structure, painting of surfaces that should represent the material used and use of cast that reflects the main purpose.[4] It is only through following such steps that the false expedients in architecture will be prevented.

Question 3

There is much information and guidelines that can be deduced from the primitive hut. In fact the whole ides by Laugier in the primitive hut is in the statement that, “the man is willing to make himself an abode which covers but not buries him.”[5] I feel that the concept is quite clear in that it is a major treatise especially in developing architectural theory in today’s world. It has been quoted by teachers as well as architects in the present century. That has also influenced argument for upcoming architectural movements towards establishing unadorned, efficient and eco-friendly homes. That way, the primitive hut concept has been in support of a “back-to-nature”[6] assertion that has majorly influenced the work of architecture. It calls for simplicity of design along with the use of natural inputs. In this case, Laugier holds that the natural materials are vital and should be embraced by current architects. As a way of giving an example, he mentions Frank Lloyd Wright who is a renowned architect across the globe. Moreover, a rustic cabin developed by Laugier was based on works of Marcus Vitruvius who was a renowned architect in Rome. I strongly advise the adoption of concepts of the primitive hut which are efficiency, natural materials and eco-friendly architecture.

Question 4

It is possible to have pure experience of a building. Pure experience has been referred to as the personally felt aspects of encounters before mental labelling. The experience can be a small bit, although it is solid in its existence. That means that it is not hollow or an abstract of experience. That way, a building can be an object when it is sorted out from other elements. It can become a complete fact despite the fact that it can emerge as an insignificant fact to some people. Pure reasoning will be attained y avoiding unrealistic reasoning of human beings that will positively contribute to positive reality of the building. It is easy to avoid false sense of worth when viewing buildings. That way, humans will seek to blend effective works of architecture that have natural surroundings and the ones that are developed by their knowledgeable minds. Vitruvius provided an assertion that completely supports pure experience of a building stating that “practitioners are regarded as good architects because they have designed buildings that are widely recognized as good.”[7] Therefore, it is possible to have a pure experience of a building if humans abide by the values and knowledge required in architecture.

Question 5

History asserts that between years 1880 and 1900, most urban cities across the United States expanded immensely due to rapid emergence of any industries in the country. However, the growth of the cities brought in more challenges in the 19th century. In fact, the challenges of noise, traffic congestion, air pollution as well as emergence of slums and poor hygiene became major problems.[8] Phillip Sheldrake explained how each of the industrial cities developed and the challenges that the cities could face in the course of their development. The main challenge in the cities was immigration challenge that caused overpopulation in the cities which in return increased deterioration of architecture levels in the cities. Poor structures in the cities were accelerated by congestion. Therefore, architectural work was affected in that the outputs were of low quality. During the last periods of the 1800s, the industrial cities were faced with an increase in population that lacked sufficient infrastructure that could support development.[9] Poor drainage systems due to poor city planning and congestion emerged as critical problems. It was at that time that the cities came together to form special bonds that enhanced multiethnic and multicultural societies that have thrived up to the current times.


Related essays