Let's not rehearse the tired, obvious mantra about buildings needing to be a combination of form AND function. We all know that. Function is not hard in the modern world. It is what people think about the most: "oh, dont put a window facing the west - it will ruin the evening service" "the front desk of the lobby should be the first thing people see so that they have to sign in before going further" "be sure to observe all the regulations for the disabled - and that kills the idea of a balcony."
Church architecture - does any one want to argue that churches should be built first for God's glory and second for man's function? I just finished The Hunchback of Notre Dame, so this is on my mind. The overwhelming sense upon walking into most cathedrals is one of the greatness and majesty of God and the smallness of man. Why did they build such buildings then, and why are church buildings so man centered today? Who would countenance building a building that was less functional, but more formal? forget about it.
"...a society's architecture represents the character of the society."
ReplyDeleteSounds like something an architect would say. I would say that architecture is a very imperfect represenatation of the character of society - one of many, many expressions of many, many aspects of the character of a very diverse society.
Admittedly my view of architecture's role is predicated upon my view of humanity. But I do not see any reason to suggest it is a "very imperfect representation." Seems quite clear to me. You should read "The Architecture of Happiness" by Alain de Boton.
ReplyDelete