One Love
"Lia’s statement is a good example. Gosto muito de dizer que Arquitectura para mim é uma questão de inconsciência e acaso, não de gosto, e que todo o meu presente é devido ao destino, não à justiça, no sentido popular do termo.
A very interesting remark and a good starting point for us to discuss: It touches quite an actual and essential issue of human factor of architecture. I share some of these fears about too rigid and technocratic features that we may observe in many of the recent realizations of modern architecture around the world. It would be good to remember about it - and avoid! - in the process of our course of architectural design. That is why, for example, in exercise 2 we base the concept of the design on broad areas of culture and seek ways of their transformation in an artistic way. We must keep in mind that architecture should carry a meaningful message which appeals to our knowledge and imagination, thoughts and emotions, making a piece of architecture both livable and lovable.
In our course, we try to look at architecture as a culmination and synthesis of all forms of arts. Such architecture unites sculpture, painting, and engraving as well as drama, music and dance - a vital synthesis of all the arts working in harmonious cooperation. Only when composed into one specific building, they are able to awake us to our individuality and task in life.
It also turn our thoughts to the Anthroposophy and its influence on Architecture. Putting Anthroposophy-in-Architecture into just a few words, we might say that in the beginning a house was created through an observation of a human body. A symbolic design, almost like a drawing of a child: 2 windows like human eyes, a door as a channel of communication that let people and things in-and-out (just like human mouth), and a chimney – nostrils of a building. However, there is one important difference – the walls of our house are usually straight and rigid, made of hard materials, and organized by straight angles. A human body is soft and mostly made of floating lines (probably with not a single place where you could draw an angle of 90° or 45°). Perhaps this is what makes this gap between our inner and outer space? Some architects tried this gap to disappear. Antroposophical Architecture was invented to search these areas. How to organize a building the same way as human body is made? What to do to make a building breathe, warm up-and-cool down, to be self-sufficient in terms of temperature and air ventilation etc.
An interesting question remains: why buildings which follow such soft lines – like those made by F. Gerhy, for example – are not warm and human-like? What do you think?
by Prof.Jacek Krenz
A very interesting remark and a good starting point for us to discuss: It touches quite an actual and essential issue of human factor of architecture. I share some of these fears about too rigid and technocratic features that we may observe in many of the recent realizations of modern architecture around the world. It would be good to remember about it - and avoid! - in the process of our course of architectural design. That is why, for example, in exercise 2 we base the concept of the design on broad areas of culture and seek ways of their transformation in an artistic way. We must keep in mind that architecture should carry a meaningful message which appeals to our knowledge and imagination, thoughts and emotions, making a piece of architecture both livable and lovable.
In our course, we try to look at architecture as a culmination and synthesis of all forms of arts. Such architecture unites sculpture, painting, and engraving as well as drama, music and dance - a vital synthesis of all the arts working in harmonious cooperation. Only when composed into one specific building, they are able to awake us to our individuality and task in life.
It also turn our thoughts to the Anthroposophy and its influence on Architecture. Putting Anthroposophy-in-Architecture into just a few words, we might say that in the beginning a house was created through an observation of a human body. A symbolic design, almost like a drawing of a child: 2 windows like human eyes, a door as a channel of communication that let people and things in-and-out (just like human mouth), and a chimney – nostrils of a building. However, there is one important difference – the walls of our house are usually straight and rigid, made of hard materials, and organized by straight angles. A human body is soft and mostly made of floating lines (probably with not a single place where you could draw an angle of 90° or 45°). Perhaps this is what makes this gap between our inner and outer space? Some architects tried this gap to disappear. Antroposophical Architecture was invented to search these areas. How to organize a building the same way as human body is made? What to do to make a building breathe, warm up-and-cool down, to be self-sufficient in terms of temperature and air ventilation etc.
An interesting question remains: why buildings which follow such soft lines – like those made by F. Gerhy, for example – are not warm and human-like? What do you think?
by Prof.Jacek Krenz
__________________________________________________________
Teacher:
In first place, I would like to thank you for exposing an argument that was said by me in an uncompromised way. When I say that architecture to me is a question of unconsciousness and random, I have in mind that everything in man is a way for himself to relieve his emotiveness that by its excess is a weight on their shoulders, this random and unconsciousness work came from a being, although rational, with a bit of caution of its feelings, no matter how much thought is put into it, like the phrase “love has reasons that reason itself doesn’t know” and as everything ends up being a victim in love (being hatefulness also a form of love, therefore belonging to the same scale of feelings, being its opposite) architecture also enlaces itself in this confused human perplexity.
So this isn’t being afraid "of the too strict characteristics that we can find in modern architecture", but on the contrary, for everything what is correct, the contrary is equally valid, and part of the extremes are from the unconciousness, of course, always with the excuse of the experimentation…like in love.
In exercise two there is something interesting, that isn’t strange to me, although we didn’t apply that method of "apparition" of a project, I have already applied it in another university that I was in previously, and I can say that I had a lot of fun, and I lament that the pragmatism of the practical life doesn’t give space, most of the times, for the application of more spiritual concepts, I agree with you when you say that architecture is like the synthesis of all arts, therefore we have in mind that a blind man lives architecture by how the space feels, but it stays limited by example in painting or sculpture.
Now answering the question: Why are the F. Gehry buildings not as hot as the human beings although Anthroposophycs?
In my way of seeing things, the organic forms are appellative to an emotional life, and regular and straight forms appeal to calmness, concentration, meditation, and finally rationality, by its sobriety in the representation and stable and lineal apparition. The human being is already by itself a natural chaos of feelings, and today, more and more it searches rationality, and so it prefers strict forms like a square or a rectangle.
I consider that the Anthroposophyc resemblances, of an hypothetical form, are not more than residues of an animal “feel”, that each time is more annoyed, and so, even if it is made, in its enjoyment it will not be well received, and that regular forms appeal more to an objective each time more popular – rationalism - with the aggravating that opposites attract, such as in love, and like in one of the objectives of exercise 2.
______________________________________________________________
In first place, I would like to thank you for exposing an argument that was said by me in an uncompromised way. When I say that architecture to me is a question of unconsciousness and random, I have in mind that everything in man is a way for himself to relieve his emotiveness that by its excess is a weight on their shoulders, this random and unconsciousness work came from a being, although rational, with a bit of caution of its feelings, no matter how much thought is put into it, like the phrase “love has reasons that reason itself doesn’t know” and as everything ends up being a victim in love (being hatefulness also a form of love, therefore belonging to the same scale of feelings, being its opposite) architecture also enlaces itself in this confused human perplexity.
So this isn’t being afraid "of the too strict characteristics that we can find in modern architecture", but on the contrary, for everything what is correct, the contrary is equally valid, and part of the extremes are from the unconciousness, of course, always with the excuse of the experimentation…like in love.
In exercise two there is something interesting, that isn’t strange to me, although we didn’t apply that method of "apparition" of a project, I have already applied it in another university that I was in previously, and I can say that I had a lot of fun, and I lament that the pragmatism of the practical life doesn’t give space, most of the times, for the application of more spiritual concepts, I agree with you when you say that architecture is like the synthesis of all arts, therefore we have in mind that a blind man lives architecture by how the space feels, but it stays limited by example in painting or sculpture.
Now answering the question: Why are the F. Gehry buildings not as hot as the human beings although Anthroposophycs?
In my way of seeing things, the organic forms are appellative to an emotional life, and regular and straight forms appeal to calmness, concentration, meditation, and finally rationality, by its sobriety in the representation and stable and lineal apparition. The human being is already by itself a natural chaos of feelings, and today, more and more it searches rationality, and so it prefers strict forms like a square or a rectangle.
I consider that the Anthroposophyc resemblances, of an hypothetical form, are not more than residues of an animal “feel”, that each time is more annoyed, and so, even if it is made, in its enjoyment it will not be well received, and that regular forms appeal more to an objective each time more popular – rationalism - with the aggravating that opposites attract, such as in love, and like in one of the objectives of exercise 2.
______________________________________________________________
Quando digo que a arquitectura para mim é uma questão de inconsciência e acaso, tenho presente que tudo no homem é um meio para se aliviar da sua emotividade que pela sua excessividade é um peso nos seus ombros, sendo esta obra do acaso e inconsciência vinda de um ser embora algo racional com pouco freio sobre os seus sentidos, por mais que pensados, tal como na frase “O amor tem razões que a própria razão desconhece” e como tudo acaba por ser vitima do amor (sendo o ódio também uma forma de amor, pois pertence á mesma escala do sentir, sendo o seu oposto) a arquitectura também se engloba neste confuso enredo humano.
Ora isto não será ter medo “das características demasiado rígidas que podemos encontrar na arquitectura moderna”, antes pelo contrário, pois para tudo o que é certo, o contrário é igualmente válido, e da inconsciência faz parte os extremos, claro, sempre com a desculpa da experimentação…tal como no amor.
No exercício dois algo interessante se passa, que não me é estranha, pois embora não tivéssemos aplicado esse método de “aparição” de um projecto, já o apliquei noutra universidade em que estive anteriormente, e digo já que me divertia imenso, e lamento o pragmatismo da vida prática não dê espaço na maioria das vezes para aplicação de conceitos mais espirituais, visto concordar consigo que a arquitectura é como uma síntese de todas as artes, pois tenhamos em conta que até um cego vive a arquitectura pelo sentir do espaço, mas fica limitado por exemplo na pintura ou escultura.
Agora respondendo á pergunta: Porquê que os edifícios de F. Gehry não são quentes como o ser humano embora antropomórficos?
A meu ver as formas orgânicas são apelativas a uma vida emotiva, e formas regulares e rectilíneas apelam ao sossego, concentração, meditação, enfim racionalidade, pela sua sobriedade na representação e aparição linear e estável. Ora o ser humano já por si é um caos natural de sentimentos, e hoje, cada vez mais parte em busca da racionalidade, daí que prefira formas rígidas como o quadrado ou rectângulo.
Considero que as semelhanças antropomórficas, de uma forma hipotética, não serão mais do que resíduos de um sentir animal, que cada vez mais é contrariado, e por isso ainda que feito, no seu desfrutar não será bem recebido, e que as formas regulares apelam mais a um objectivo cada vez mais em voga – racionalismo - com a agravante de os opostos se atraírem, tal como no amor, e tal como num dos objectivos do exercício 2.
Ora isto não será ter medo “das características demasiado rígidas que podemos encontrar na arquitectura moderna”, antes pelo contrário, pois para tudo o que é certo, o contrário é igualmente válido, e da inconsciência faz parte os extremos, claro, sempre com a desculpa da experimentação…tal como no amor.
No exercício dois algo interessante se passa, que não me é estranha, pois embora não tivéssemos aplicado esse método de “aparição” de um projecto, já o apliquei noutra universidade em que estive anteriormente, e digo já que me divertia imenso, e lamento o pragmatismo da vida prática não dê espaço na maioria das vezes para aplicação de conceitos mais espirituais, visto concordar consigo que a arquitectura é como uma síntese de todas as artes, pois tenhamos em conta que até um cego vive a arquitectura pelo sentir do espaço, mas fica limitado por exemplo na pintura ou escultura.
Agora respondendo á pergunta: Porquê que os edifícios de F. Gehry não são quentes como o ser humano embora antropomórficos?
A meu ver as formas orgânicas são apelativas a uma vida emotiva, e formas regulares e rectilíneas apelam ao sossego, concentração, meditação, enfim racionalidade, pela sua sobriedade na representação e aparição linear e estável. Ora o ser humano já por si é um caos natural de sentimentos, e hoje, cada vez mais parte em busca da racionalidade, daí que prefira formas rígidas como o quadrado ou rectângulo.
Considero que as semelhanças antropomórficas, de uma forma hipotética, não serão mais do que resíduos de um sentir animal, que cada vez mais é contrariado, e por isso ainda que feito, no seu desfrutar não será bem recebido, e que as formas regulares apelam mais a um objectivo cada vez mais em voga – racionalismo - com a agravante de os opostos se atraírem, tal como no amor, e tal como num dos objectivos do exercício 2.
Mensagens
2 comentários:
Muito interessante.
Gostei muito, é caso para citar Aleksander Solzenytsin, quando diz que aqueles que vivem em harmonia com a sua consciência mostram sempre um semblante atractivo.
Enviar um comentário