Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Opus Entry 5


"The dome of Hagia Sophia was not there to mark an
object of veneration, as domes did in martyria...
the thought of crowning Hagia Sophia with a dome related to the
sanctity of the whole building as an earthly analogue to heaven.
The visible universe was concretized in the Byzantine mind as a cube surmounted by a dome."

- Spiro Kostof, A History of Architecture, 1985
(Roth, 275)


Hagia Sophia

Church of San Marco

Presence. The presence of a structure is the attention-grabbing ability of a structure. Among its surroundings, the presence of the building is created through its scale and its ornament. The type of building it is somewhat determines the presence it holds in a community. A governing structure, and a religious structure, I feel hold similar presence in a community scale wise. Each are built in a massive scale and are often focal points of an environment. However the mood perceived as a result of the presence of these two building types are different. The presence of a structure is composed strongly on its scale. The massive size of a building induces upon a spectator a presence of emphasis, that this which they are looking is important, arguably the most important structure in its surroundings. The ornament of s structure provides the presence of it through several ways. Geometry of a building can produce a pleasing approach to the eye and can give the presence of perfection, which was the Greek ideology, and was expanded upon into roman architecture and further into Western. From the Parthenon into the early basilicas and soon churches, the sense of geometric equality brought about a strong presence to a building. Also, the use of ornate décor brings about a certain presence to a piece of architecture. To me, the more ornate, the more important; the less ornate, the less emphasis on importance. Both approach appeals to the presence of the building, but it also feeds to the hierarchy of the building as well, which was also rooted in the Greek civilization. Both Hagia Sophia and the Church of San Marco express their presence through their massive size and ornate decor.


Precedent. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the term precedent can be defined as prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance. I feel this definition can be molded to fit the term precedent in an architectural relation. Precedent to me, is the beginning of a later expanded idea; in which the idea goes through an evolution. I see this as similar to a prototype; however something that is a precedent I feel undergoes more evolution than a prototype. The basilica form was precedent to the church form. Under the rule of Constantine, the basilica originated as a place for public gatherings or ceremonies; it then evolved and took form as a religious center. The alter, which was intended for the emperor developed into the religious alter. This was possible because of the axial in the special organization of the basilica. There then was a shift of the entrance to the structure to the end opposing the new alter (Roth, pg 280).
The octagonal shapes and other geometric shapes of royal tombs were also a precedent to Christian churches (Roth, 280).

Moment. A moment in a piece of architecture, to me is an obvious adoption of a form which is embedded in another piece of architecture. As a result to X moment in time, later generations adapted X into their architecture. A moment makes me think of a phase in history on the other hand. As if there was a moment in which the round, curved arch was emphasized and used, and then there became the moment in which the pointed arch was used.


Duality. Duality makes me think of consisting of two parts. In that sense, duality is seen when East meets West. There are two very significant ideals which the west adopts in the east. The first of these, the mosaic. The mosaic was an Eastern form of design which the west adopted in order to communicate civility. Mosaics became a way for language to be created through visual experience. This Eastern idea became adopted into walls, ceilings, and floors. The second major eastern form is the pendentive. After expanding the basilica form by intersecting the square base with a circular dome at the top, the west adopted the Eastern Church form. This form consisted of square base with an embedded circle and two half circles on either end. The pendentive was on a square base, with a cupola, then an addition of arches, and a dome at the top. This also made possible the latter gothic cathedral form. The pendentive allowed light to enter the space in a new way, which changed how we perceive the space, and therefore the perceived mood changes as well. Rome began to have this duality because of its position in the trade industry. This duality between eastern ideals adopted into western continued to spread later through the “dark ages” and eventually touched all of Europe.


Metric. Metric makes me think of geometry. The emphasis on geometric forms or the emphasis on symmetry was adopted in the late Roman Empire and after. The metrics of a structure determined its firmness, and often aided in delight. The sense of symmetry aids in its visual appeal.


This time period was a time in which intrigue in what was architecturally possible became a challenge. A communities ability in defying what was thought to be the one way to build something was seen with higher respect. During this time, the ability to embed a circular form above a square base was the task at hand. Forms such as the Hagia Sophia were successful at this challenge. This opened doors to a new aspect in mood of holy places as a result of the new light reflections. Thanks to the Eastern idea of the pendentive, the west adopted a new church style through duality which would only become more intricate going into the medievil times. The idea of reaching the heavens was very important during this time and through the massive scale and presence it seems as if they were trying to build something which could be seen from the heavens and from the use of mosaics and stain glass it was as if there ws a heavenly connection. Much like the Greek oculus. There was also a focus in delight through geometric appearances and symmetrical appearances as well, which gave the structure a metric sense. This time, the Roman basilica was the precedent to the latter churchs and the Church of Nativity became the precedent to the latter Gothlic style. Moments in history can be read through the combination of all these elements in an individual piece of architecture.


http://www.drbilllong.com/images/00860a-1.jpg

http://www.planetware.com/i/map/ISR/bethlehem-church-of-the-nativity-map.jpg

http://encyclopedia.vbxml.net/Basilica_of_Maxentius

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precedent


Thursday, February 19, 2009

Precedent Analysis Building Selection + Justification

Building Selection: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum
Date of Construction: started 1956, completed 1959
Designer: Frank Lloyd Wright
Location: Manhattan, New York City

My selection for the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum as my building was a result of my trip to New York February of 2008. On the trip I got to go to this museum myself and see the temporary exhibit of the time. Being an art lover myself, I decided to take advantage of this opportunity to study this building dedicated to housing art. I was astounded by the interior of the building and how the floor spiraled to the ceiling; I had never seen this type of construction. I chose this building to explore the commodity of the unique design. I was worried this building was built in the 21st century, and I was shocked to see the construction date of this building, it seemed as though Frank Lloyd Wright was very intelligent in determining design and successes of risky structures. I feel this analysis will be more so useful to myself as an outsider looking into the world of design, and I felt if I was to do a project like this, I might as well research a building which would appeal to me as an artist. I am sure Frank Lloyd Wright's design in the Solomon R. Guggenheim building has a much more important effect to the world of design than I am aware of, and that's why I chose to do my analysis for this building.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Opus Entry Quatre

Greek orders were comprised of Tuscan, Doric, ionic, Corinthian, and composite evolutions. The five orders listed go from simple to complex designs. Each previous order was a prototype for the next order. I feel that the Doric order represented a masculine form. Like in the comparison between Khufu and Hatshepsut, the emphasis on the surface or the appearance of the design was more so evident in the temple for Hatshepsut. The pyramids for Khufu were strong in appearance, however simple to the eye. I feel that as the representation or ornament as depicting wealth, it would make sense for the masculine forms to also become more elaborate; however, I feel the first intentions were the Doric order as masculine form and the Ionic as a feminine form. When it comes down to the appearance as well, the Ionic form could be viewed as a symbol for female breast at the top with the addition of the two spiral forms. The Temple of Athena Nike on the Acropolis was made of ionic orders, which would be well represented as a feminine form of order for a feminine goddess. Orders became what formed the actual structure of a temple or building for the Greeks. The Roman’s continued the use of orders, however they made them more so part of the surface as opposed to the structure or firmness of the piece of architecture itself.





Hierarchy
was expressed in civic manors along with exterior manors. The position in society in which one held was important (to the high class). In order for others to understand their importance, a visual representation was given to the common man, reminding them of who had power. No longer was the emphasis only expressed in temples, reaching to the gods, but now hierarchy expressed personal wellbeing in society. The higher, the better; the more elaborate, the more you had; the more massive the scale, the more massive the ego. In Egypt, the pharaohs built the pyramids in order to show how worthy they were. The Greek society did built massive scale for temple purposes, but it was also to show non-Greeks their ability and the power of their empire and it was done out of competition between city states. The Parthenon was built for Athena; however, it also showed the technology of the Grecians. The Romans became all about the surface of a building; they valued surface over system. The massive scale of the buildings expressed Roman hierarchy among their own peoples as well as those outside of the Roman Empire. The interior of a place also determined the wealth of a person, or their domination over others.

Archetype: Prototype: Hybrid
The best way to explain the three are when discussing orders. The archetype, or the basic form which other forms evolve from, would be the concept of an order in and of itself. This captivated the idea of a vertical column. The tuscan/Doric would then become the prototype to the ionic form. A prototype would be a precedent to a further evolution to a general archetype. This would also mean the ionic was a prototype to the Corinthian, and the Corinthian a prototype to the Composite. I like the name for the final order, because it’s composed of the previous first orders. This would then make the Composite order a hybrid because it was compiled of the preceding orders.
Also, in the Greek temple there were prototypes and hybrids. The concept of a temple would be the archetype. The earliest form found in Temple of Hera I, involved walls, and a single row of orders down the center, and a series of orders surrounding the temple. The temple also had a porch, court, and hearth, which stuck around as a prototype for all temples, as well as a prototype for architectural structures themselves. There then was the development of two single rows of orders in the Temple of Hera II with the court down the middle. This showed the Grecians were realizing that the orders were also creating a direction for the people to be going in. This concept still lasts today. The double rows of orders were also used in the Temple of Zeus (Roth, pg. 232). This was then a prototype to the Grecians structures for more eccentric temples such as that for Athena. After having discovered the general structures which stood with orders in a certain way, the Grecians developed more complicated hybrids, most of which continued the concept of surrounding the building with orders; and all of them keeping the concept of porch, court, and hearth.






SIDE BAR:
I analyzed my apartment. The porch is my den. The court, my hallway. The hearth, my bed. It makes sense that the kitchen is the hearth in many homes, but to me, my bed is my focal point. No, people don’t gather there, I am not that kind of girl, but it’s the place of most importance to me.

Moving to Rome…
Two summers ago I went to Rome, which is very exciting to hear about once again.

The Trappings of Rome:
Extravagant Pleasure- modern city
A lot like our civilization- modern looking
Horizontal expression opposed to vertical
Lived with Greek ruins
Assimilation + Adaptation (of Greek structures and ideals)
Bread + Circuses (entertainment, keeping others from political awareness)

Roman Architectural Achievements:
Widespread use of concrete and vaulting
Went from single system to more options (bath, market, forum, basilica, coliseum, arch, temple, aqueduct, villa, road, dome)
Technological breakthrough through arch construction
Columns went from structural to decorative
All about surface versus system

The arch system demonstrated their power.
The decoration was an ostentatious display of wealth.
This then showed the hierarchy of the Roman Empire as a whole in comparison to other empires.

VAULT: series of arches along one direction
GROIN VAULT: intersecting vaults (a new way of enclosing space)

The Roman’s developed the idea that “size matters” and unlike any civilization before, the Roman peoples ignored nature. They defied nature because of their desire for straight lines; they would manipulate the natural curves and build over them to get what they wanted.

ROMAN ARCHITECTURE:

The Coliseum.

The Coliseum was modeled after the Greek theater, it was considered an ampitheater because it was not going with nature, it defied nature while entertaining the populous. It was created through a series of arches in circles, and has orders on the surface as decoration as opposed to its structure. The coliseum shows the Roman’s emphasis on surface because it’s a combination of Corinthian, Doric, and Ionic orders (however only half an order). I think this is the Romans way at somewhat sending a stab toward the previous Greek Empire, it’s almost as if the Romans were summing up the Grecian achievements in one building emphasizing how much more this new empire has developed. It is somewhat disrespectful in my eyes, however, it goes to show that the Romans were technologically intelligent and they were capable of much more that the Grecian peoples.
I got to go see the Coliseum; it was an amazing experience for me to see the massive scale of the building. Of course, my mind wasn’t able to grasp all of the history of the figure and understand it but now that I look back on it, I feel even more honored to have gotten to be there and see the inside of what so long ago people regularly used.





The Pantheon.

The Pantheon had a Greek facing temple front as the porch, however not a whole temple, and the back part of it was the prototype to the dome. After seeing how much tho0ugh had to go into the structure in order for it to have firmness, I was astounded. This prototype has effect on cultures even today; the White House follows this prototype in the United States. The Romans viewed the dome as a small “version of the universe.” The universe was created through light, geometry, and statuary. Concentric squares at the roof of the dome lighted the weight of the structure. The oculus at the top allowed a two way communication you could say between the gods and the holy ones on earth. It inspired a connection to the gods.




The Wu-Wu.
A vertical, single column. A “male form” dotting the landscape and was a marker of territory. These represented a political act, military might, and masculine strength. Always found in an open space, which made the wu-wu appear even larger. Ironic.
Having traveled to Europe and then hearing about the wu-wu, I realized how many I had seen and in fact taken pictures of. Because there was little around them, it did seem as though they had more emphasis and were important, so I have a nice collection of wu-wu pictures. Along with the arch, I feel the wu-wu is a sculpture more so than a piece of architecture because of the lack of commodity to the pieces. Also, the wu-wu related to the style of the Doric order, it has a larger base and comes to a more slender point, however lacking much intricacy at the top, which also makes me think the Doric order may in fact have been a masculine form of order.






The Arch.
Composed of a large middle arch and two smaller side arches. The arch was a ceremonial gateway which was rarely used, therefore creating a questionable commodity and therefore prompting me to view these arches as a sculpture NOT a piece of architecture. Often from a distance, a masculine wu-wu can be seen intersecting an arch.




Source can be taken in many ways. For the Greeks, and Romans, water was the main source for them. Water provided a place for civilization to survive and maintain. The city states were near water and water was the main source of transportation. The structural forms of the Parthenon could only have been exchanged through oral transportation by a water source or by coming there oneself to see the building, also from water. Also, source can be taken as materials; the source in which Greeks build was stone and wood, resembling stone. As time went on to the Romans, the source or material used still embodied some stone usage, however it began to focus heavily on cement. It could/should be said that the source of the Roman architectural successes belonged to the introduction and use of cement.
Greek and Roman architecture in and of itself could be considered a source. The Greeks prototype for the order is still around today, as well as the idea of porch, court, and hearth. The Romans introduced to the world the use of arches, and domes, which domes are still used today and still portray the same message of unity. Also the Romans developed the modern city, and modern civilization which many countries have adapted today as well.

***All of the pictures of the pieces of architecture are my own, taken from my trip summer of 2007***

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

I started off my Opus project incorrectly.
My first entries were a mix of week one and two, and I've resubmitted what I thought was week two as week three according to what's required for week three. I am sorry for the confusion.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Week 3 Opus
(Welp, since I misunderstood what was expected of me, I had to change this to my third Opus entry)

Egyptian Architecture and furniture showed 4 main components of Egypt of the time:
1. Social Hierarchy
2. Inpiration by the everyday, idigenious materials
3. Technology of ancient Egypt
4. Religious importance

Temple of Amon: COMANDS the common Egyptian peopl to worship the gods.
Evidence:
Symmetry
Made of stone
Dieties
Superhuman scale
Flared walls (creating a sense of weight)

male:female
KHUFU-
on a flat level plane
made of rock
made on land
massive scale
unity among pyramids, proportion is visually appealing
smoother surface, figures in the inside
reaches towards heaven
sealed
additive production process
build for the dead

HATSHEPSUT-
made of the earth
ornament on exterior
built for the living
subtractive production process
massive scale
protected
built into the enviornment
less reaching towards heaven

The hatshepsut temple is built with a horizontal feeling but in reality shows the maculine form of vertical lines throughout the design. The khufu pyramids give a soley vertical sense, providing evidence as being a masculine form of design. Vertical lines meant social hierarchy, it enveloped an idea of power above others. Similarly to Blakemore's views on Eygyptian chairs (pg 17). A chair with a back showed more emphasis on social status than a stool, which showed higher social status then one who may merely sit on the ground. Egyptian architecture was strongly based on social hierarchy and religious importance while using earthly materials and providing evidence for an immense amount of technology and intelligence of the ancient peoples.

As I walk around campus and look at the structure of many buildings, my mind travels to images of Stonehenge. Stonehenge provided a basic structure, with strong vertical support pair with a horizontal fixture above. The ideals of massive structures being formed from heavy materials and the ideals of pairing the materials in a firm matter brought about the structure of our architecture today. This shows the reality of the intelliengence of the early civilizations. These group's designs have been added to, but everywhere I look I can see Stonehenge. I say to myself, here's the basic vertical structures, and here's the horizontal addition to the structure. Despite the controversy in what Stonehenge's intentions were, that frankly doesn't matter because the structure has stuck and has been added on becoming the basis of our designs today, and the purpose of each design varies as well. I am also reminded of an aedicule when I look at Stonehenge.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Week 3 Opus Entry




Scale can be described by the following words:

Individual

Room

Building

Community

Region

Nation

A structure tells one about the above words based on cultural influences as well as time in which the structure was built. The scale travels from the little picture, the individual, to the big picture, the nation. Each of these factors is represented in a single piece of architecture.

Unity is brought about by balance. Concentric circles, as in early Stonehenge brought about a sense of unity because of the balance created in the shape of a circle. It also creates a sense of completeness; a circle is a shape of perfection and despite the lack of concrete known intentions of Stonehenge, its apparent that it was intended to create unity whether it was for a sun dial, ceremonial place, or a symbol to a higher power.

The earliest cities first began the creation of landscape boundaries. The earliest structures were markers on the landscape explaining that one side is different than the other. These structures provided a boundary for the civilizations; it provided protection and defined the curves along the earth’s surface. Boundaries were important for the early peoples because there had been no marks of guidance on the land, and by creating their own; a sense of home was created, stating that this area was known while the outlying areas are unfamiliar. An example of the creation of boundaries was the Great Wall of China.

(Roth pages 164 and 172)

The three basic ideals to structures in the earliest cities were structures with skins like teepees, taking stones to form patterns like Stonehenge, and caves.

Avebury/Stonehenge: circular pattern, centralized formation, emphasis on center, most important part.
Earliest civilizations weren't necessarily the most primitive, they established the building blocks to successful structures and established a purpose to building from and of the earth.
Possibilities of reason for Stonehenge:
1. a clock or sun dial/ eclipse of the moon (Roth, 173)
2. burial place or ceremonial haven for the dead
3. a pattern created for a higher power to see

Earliest structures... Marked the landscape, provided a boundary, showed the technology of the time.

Are first efforts of making buildings repeated across regions?
Two repeated general ideas:
1. artificial mountains
2. curves on earths surface

Ziggurat: stepped pyramid, artificial mountain; marker in landscape, indicates importance of location, built high... able to reach the heavens.
Prototype for Egyptian pyramid?


I found the video on Stonehenge and moving the blocks very interesting. It boggles my mind to think of how a human would be able to move such massive amount of weight without the technology we have today. How intelligent and determined these peoples must have been to create such predominate structures. Despite the controversy in possibilities for the reason as to which it was built, the craftsmanship and the ideals behind it paired with the man power that had to have been involved, early structures must be respected and observed... After all, such structures have withstood the test of time to the fullest.

I found the concept of bringing light into darkness by the eastern civilizations very moving. It's beautiful how in the wedding rocks this is depicted by them being simultaneously separated and united. I look at the early easter civilizations with high regards.












The first unit establishes the basics to the term architecture and looks into the important factors to look into as a designer or respecter of the unavoidable art known as architecture. Architecture is an unavoidable art because it is the art form in which we inhabit, meaning it is necessary, physical, and all around us. Architecture is an art form because it is expressive and takes expendable skills. Architecture differs from other art forms because it provides utility beyond simply and aesthetic appeal.

A designer is to consider furnishings, materials, color, light, 3-D, 4-D, and where the inside and outside meet when planning a structure. Each of these compose architecture and build upon each other, each changes but sticks with time, like the chambers of a mollusk. Each of these also provides the three main components of architecture: commodity, firmness, and delight. Sir Henry Wotton said “In architecture, as in all operative arts, the end must direct the operation. The end is to build well. Well building hath three conditions: commodity firmness and delight.”

The first unit covers the commodity of a building. The commodity of a building is how the building functions, or its pragmatic utility. Buildings are usually a mixture between utilitarian and symbolic functions. Firmeness is also discussing, or observing the question of how the structure of the building allows it to stand up; can the structure stand the test of time? Structure can be divided into physical and perceptual structures. There are varying building forms which can provide support and structure, while taking visual and structural risks such as domes. The delight of a building is perceived by the space in the structure; space can be broken into: perceptual, conceptual, behavioral, and physical space. “The reality of architecture lay not in the solid elements that seem to make it, but in the space defined by those elements (Roth).” Space is a very important factor in directing and serving users of the building. The human eye finds patterns and repetition pleasing to the eye so that is important when considering the visual perception of delight. Visual perception is enhanced by proportion, scale, rhythm, texture, light, color, ugliness, and ornament. Different shapes of rooms and furnishings can create different acoustics in a space; lives spaces are created through dense, rigid surfaces and dead spaces are created through resilient surfaces.

The reasons for studying and understanding the history and theory of the design process is because it expresses values, gives cross-cultural insight, provides information on successes and failures, shows many ways of doing things, and human to nature interaction. Even looking at early architecture, a designer is able to get insight from these categories and can learn today even from centuries ago.

The unit also discusses the design cycle in which designs or trends work up to a peak and then decline and end or plateau at a non responsive state. The design cycle shows that popularity of a designer or trend declines, but also overlaps, so several designs are occurring at one time. A design either experiences continuity or change.

This unit establishes the idea that figure plus arrangement plus mode equals form plus space plus style.