On the Implications of Convention in Architecture
On the Implications of Convention in Architecture
There are, I would argue, two major threats to the individuality and creativity of the arts, one of which is the historical study of such, and the other being convention. Both lend themselves to degrade the innate creativity from which the arts is able to separate itself from the sciences. While the former is a viewpoint considered by many past architects, the most prominent of which is probably Gropius, the latter, although directly related, deserves further consideration.
It is impossible to separate convention from architectural history; there exists no convention without history. So it is now important to consider how convention affects young architects in training as well as seasoned designers. To begin, I do concede the point that some conventions are, and should be, accepted as standards. For example, the conventions which are established by legislation, such as ADA and other codes are obviously well examined, criticized, and reviewed to the point that it is considered universally right. That is where other conventions become subjective; what is right? We base the ADA’s “correctness” by justifying it with maintaining the Constitutional mandate of Equal Protection. What justifies the convention of “house”?
Why do houses need to have bedrooms, kitchens, bathrooms, and the other delineation of rooms we tend to associate with “house”? Why do houses need to consider the privacy between the house and the exterior? Although interesting questions, my point is much more general and grand; why are these conventions considering only Western precedents? Architectural history education in American schools is comprised solely of Western and European precedents. The occasional Eastern architectural project is considered only as a token.
The eastern and western architectures both consider the same issues and yet we base our conventions on only western precedents. How can we possibly claim that the conventional ideas referenced in these essays are “transforming” when they may possibly be catching up to a state of evolution already present in other architectures? Is an underdeveloped country “transforming” when all they are doing is mimicking technologies and methodologies embraced by developed countries? Similarly, I would argue that without a complete broad understanding of architecture as a global phenomena, it is impossible to say that the concept of conventionality is transforming, even at a local scale. The writers of these articles cannot even possibly claim they are considering the issues on a local scale, or otherwise they would not have cited projects from other countries and localities.
Having already denounced the consideration of interpretation on its prima fascia “traditional” sense, I will continue to analyze the case study on this traditional definition, for otherwise there would be nothing to discuss. For the sake of this analysis, let us consider the “convention” of materiality is that certain materials are reserved for residential work, and others are for commercial and industrial architecture. In this sense, the Maison de Verre strayed from these constructed conventions in that it explored alternative uses. One could claim that the usage of the materials, including rubber tiling, glass block, and steel columns is a drastic evolution of materiality in the consideration of townhouse design, but I would have to disagree; the rationale is even stated in a reading. As unknown implies in Creating the New American Town House, industrial materials have “latent” residential characteristics (10). If all industrial materials innately have a residential quality, then is it really a transformation to exploit these qualities? I argue it is not a transformation to simply explore alternate uses of materials. Brick was once exclusively a load-bearing material, and was used in interior and exterior walls. Now that we can build brick veneers as non-load-bearing, has it really signed an age of transformation to the convention of “brick”? Is it still not a “heavy” material, implying weather-fastness and strength? We simply explored alternative uses for “brick”, but doing so did not fundamentally change the convention of brick.
Once more, I will revert to the traditional view of “convention” in order to discuss its presence in my own project. Very clearly, the convention of fireplace would be the first aspect to consider. In many cases, if a fireplace is integrated into a residence, it is pushed into a side wall or otherwise made diminutive by insetting it in the center of a wall without consideration. This “transition” is possibly the result of the creation of centralized heating systems; one could argue the purpose of fireplaces was to provide warmth to the residents, and once other systems were developed the need for fireplaces was reduced. It then becomes necessary to consider another ancient typology, the Roman townhouse. Roman townhouses have consistently over a period of several years, included fireplaces; the Romans then developed the first thermal transfer heating system, wherein a fire in the sub floor heats water and a series of pipes pumps the water throughout the building, heating the spaces indirectly. The development of the centralized heating system did not reduce the frequency of fireplace inclusion. I would hypothesize the decrease in fireplace importance in our modern times is a direct result from a reduction in the significance and meaning of “fireplace”, not a typological or conventional transformation resulting from solely the different treatment or usages of fireplaces. The social change affected the architecture, not the other way around. Conventions, resulting from societal changes, result directly as a dialogue between architecture and society, and there cannot be a radical transformation or deviation so severe from the norm without strict criticism and review. My project, though it includes four fireplaces instead of the “traditional” one, cannot be considered a conventional transformation, because I do not change the intent of “fireplace”. I still use it as a point of convergence for the family and social guests, and I still use it to provide light and heat for the residents. Having an element multiple times is not significant enough to constitute a conventional transformation.
There are, I would argue, two major threats to the individuality and creativity of the arts, one of which is the historical study of such, and the other being convention. Both lend themselves to degrade the innate creativity from which the arts is able to separate itself from the sciences. While the former is a viewpoint considered by many past architects, the most prominent of which is probably Gropius, the latter, although directly related, deserves further consideration.
It is impossible to separate convention from architectural history; there exists no convention without history. So it is now important to consider how convention affects young architects in training as well as seasoned designers. To begin, I do concede the point that some conventions are, and should be, accepted as standards. For example, the conventions which are established by legislation, such as ADA and other codes are obviously well examined, criticized, and reviewed to the point that it is considered universally right. That is where other conventions become subjective; what is right? We base the ADA’s “correctness” by justifying it with maintaining the Constitutional mandate of Equal Protection. What justifies the convention of “house”?
Why do houses need to have bedrooms, kitchens, bathrooms, and the other delineation of rooms we tend to associate with “house”? Why do houses need to consider the privacy between the house and the exterior? Although interesting questions, my point is much more general and grand; why are these conventions considering only Western precedents? Architectural history education in American schools is comprised solely of Western and European precedents. The occasional Eastern architectural project is considered only as a token.
The eastern and western architectures both consider the same issues and yet we base our conventions on only western precedents. How can we possibly claim that the conventional ideas referenced in these essays are “transforming” when they may possibly be catching up to a state of evolution already present in other architectures? Is an underdeveloped country “transforming” when all they are doing is mimicking technologies and methodologies embraced by developed countries? Similarly, I would argue that without a complete broad understanding of architecture as a global phenomena, it is impossible to say that the concept of conventionality is transforming, even at a local scale. The writers of these articles cannot even possibly claim they are considering the issues on a local scale, or otherwise they would not have cited projects from other countries and localities.
Having already denounced the consideration of interpretation on its prima fascia “traditional” sense, I will continue to analyze the case study on this traditional definition, for otherwise there would be nothing to discuss. For the sake of this analysis, let us consider the “convention” of materiality is that certain materials are reserved for residential work, and others are for commercial and industrial architecture. In this sense, the Maison de Verre strayed from these constructed conventions in that it explored alternative uses. One could claim that the usage of the materials, including rubber tiling, glass block, and steel columns is a drastic evolution of materiality in the consideration of townhouse design, but I would have to disagree; the rationale is even stated in a reading. As unknown implies in Creating the New American Town House, industrial materials have “latent” residential characteristics (10). If all industrial materials innately have a residential quality, then is it really a transformation to exploit these qualities? I argue it is not a transformation to simply explore alternate uses of materials. Brick was once exclusively a load-bearing material, and was used in interior and exterior walls. Now that we can build brick veneers as non-load-bearing, has it really signed an age of transformation to the convention of “brick”? Is it still not a “heavy” material, implying weather-fastness and strength? We simply explored alternative uses for “brick”, but doing so did not fundamentally change the convention of brick.
Once more, I will revert to the traditional view of “convention” in order to discuss its presence in my own project. Very clearly, the convention of fireplace would be the first aspect to consider. In many cases, if a fireplace is integrated into a residence, it is pushed into a side wall or otherwise made diminutive by insetting it in the center of a wall without consideration. This “transition” is possibly the result of the creation of centralized heating systems; one could argue the purpose of fireplaces was to provide warmth to the residents, and once other systems were developed the need for fireplaces was reduced. It then becomes necessary to consider another ancient typology, the Roman townhouse. Roman townhouses have consistently over a period of several years, included fireplaces; the Romans then developed the first thermal transfer heating system, wherein a fire in the sub floor heats water and a series of pipes pumps the water throughout the building, heating the spaces indirectly. The development of the centralized heating system did not reduce the frequency of fireplace inclusion. I would hypothesize the decrease in fireplace importance in our modern times is a direct result from a reduction in the significance and meaning of “fireplace”, not a typological or conventional transformation resulting from solely the different treatment or usages of fireplaces. The social change affected the architecture, not the other way around. Conventions, resulting from societal changes, result directly as a dialogue between architecture and society, and there cannot be a radical transformation or deviation so severe from the norm without strict criticism and review. My project, though it includes four fireplaces instead of the “traditional” one, cannot be considered a conventional transformation, because I do not change the intent of “fireplace”. I still use it as a point of convergence for the family and social guests, and I still use it to provide light and heat for the residents. Having an element multiple times is not significant enough to constitute a conventional transformation.
posted by microzeta at
11:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home