Quasitecture
Yesterday we got an assignment to make a 2d composition and thereafter transfer it into 3d. Said and done. Above you find the result. I like it - it's cute! So long it all went just fine, but then one of my teachers brought a string with a hook. His idea was that if you can hang the threedimensional composition and if it remained in the right position it is BALANCED. And a BALANCED composition is by definition GOOD.
Unfortunately my composition is obviously UNBALANCED - which by definition is BAD. If this was about construction I could've understood the purpouse. But this was about beauty. For me this is bullshit. It's an attempt to objectively define beauty by absolute rules.
I'm really disturbed by architects who tend to talk about architecture as a field of science with definitive rights and wrongs. Architects always tend to simplify things into black and white. This works and this doesn't no matter the circumstances. This kind of absolute thinking is to me pointless since you can't define good architecture with absolute rules. Different circumstances create different needs and different persons has different preferences.
Imagining architecture as a field of science defined by absolute rules that goes into every detail is by its complexity a never ending task. I don't believe that a simpel set of rules could guarantee a sucessful design and it could definetely not define beauty.
I think this tendency among architects to simplify and regard good architecture as something that could be defined by rules has to do with a rather big problem. It's impossible to objectively prove good architecture when it's described on paper. That good architecture can't be objectively defined is of course a problem. But it doesn't help to pretend that it is.
Kommentarer
Skicka en kommentar