The Grand Canyon is one of the most majestic places on Earth to visit. Whether seeing the canyon from its rim, or descending into its depths and experiencing it from the thousands of places below, it is certainly an awe inspiring place to be. Thousands of people vacation to the Grand Canyon each year to experience the natural beauty of the environment seen there.
Whether it is the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, or other large body of water, the beauty of the waves coming into the sea shore, the sounds, the smells... all of it taken together provide an environment of majestic splendor. The waves rolling in, the expanse of the sky above, the simplicity of the horizon, and the miles and miles of water have an overwhelming effect on most who visit these large bodies of water.
These experiences have a notable impact on the people there... a sense of awe and grandeur at our exposure to the sensory phenomena all around us results in feelings that are complimentary to our existence (we know we are a part of this world), but they also provide a contrast to our experiences (we are different from what we are seeing). In distinct ways, we are a part of the big picture, but because we are different from the world we live in there is a bit of discord that results. Although both are examples from the natural world, we can learn from the design of the natural world and take the strategies we learn and implement them into the things we design.
Seeing the best displays of design in the natural environment, we move forward into the built environment. I believe good design can be summarized as this: To the degree that any object, building or experience is designed well by a human designer, that is the degree to which it emphasizes one of the two extremes of a person's experience in encountering the building - both being a part of the world and being different from the world, while not losing sight of the other.
Due to these issues being so broad and inclusive, I need to clarify something at the outset; namely that the bare minimum that any building must have to approach the "Architecture" mentioned in the last post is to be that the building functions as it needs to function relative to the need of the users of the building. This is mere 'Building Design' at its best. These needs not only include arrangement of spaces in a floor plan, but also things such as, will the building perform economically over time as it needs to in order to satisfy the 'bottom-line' of user, client, builder, developer and the like. This proposition is that there is a 'win-win' situation for all who are involved in the design of the building. Does the building reach the economic goals of the user and developer? Does it meet the environmental goals of the community? ... more questions abound, but the sum total of the bare 'minimum' that a building must accomplish is function - does the building work? It is only after those initial questions are addressed that we can at all begin to address issues related to bigger questions of aesthetic consequence. But, those questions must be addressed in order for a building design to be truly considered good 'Architecture'.
If a building meets all known functional requirements, then it can be considered on the level of adding to or detracting from life. In order for a building to be a true 'Architectural Masterpiece', it must meet both functional and aesthetic requirements. The Aesthetic requirements include a dual framework which is a sliding scale, but essentially, it is that the building emphasizes either a person's "being in the world" or "being not of the world".
For those familiar with the Christian faith, it is easy to recognize this principle that is found in the Gospel of John, chapter 17 and verses 11 through 18. In it, Jesus is praying to the Father and asking for His protection of His children / sheep as He is about to undergo the suffering and humiliation of the crucifixion. He describes (in verse 11) that His children are in the world (not yet in heaven with the Father) and also not of the world (the Christians are from God - having a heavenly and not earthly origin).
So, to summarize, in order for a building to be "Architecture" with a capital "A", the building must seek to reconcile two different extremes of our experience: We are in the world and we are not of the world. 'Architecture' may then function as it ought to in this world... as a host to its users doing what it was designed, as a part of creation, to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment