Christopher Barlow

ARCH 100

10/23/2013

ARCH 100 Reading Activity 2

What is Vitruvius formula for a successful career as an architect? Is this formula valid for architects, or
for other types of professions? In his writings, Vitruvius argues that for any architect to have a successful career, or even to be allowed to consider himself or herself an architect at all, he or she must be educated thoroughly and diversely. In order to be thoroughly educated, the architect must always strike a balance between theoretical and practical knowledge. In other words, an architect must strive to harbor information obtained from manual work as well as seek out new solutions to old problems through personal reflection and postulation. Expanding on this point, he makes clear that an architect must be able to communicate. The ultimate goal of this, the sign of a truly successful career, culminates in the architect's treatise. The latter criteria, a diverse education, pertains to the numerous faculties of study with which an architect must indulge his or her mind. Sketching, geometry, history, philosophy, music, a basic understanding of human health and medicine, law, and astronomy, Vitruvius boldly claims that an architect must pursue knowledge in all of these seemingly unrelated fields. Personally, I agree with Vitruvius and would say that this is a valid set of standards for architects. In fact, I believe all true professionals ought to subscribe themselves to this system. Limiting yourself to one method of learning or one subject will ultimately cripple your growth as an individual and stagnate your career. A mechanic who has practiced fixing cars for his entire life without researching the theory behind how they work will run into trouble when new cars are put on the market with newly advanced engines. A salesman who understands all of the theory of selling will still fail to sell a single product if he does not regularly interact with people and learn to communicate. As you can see, Vitruvius' formula does not apply just to architects but all types of professions. What does Vitruvius include in the scope of the architects activity? How does this compare to what most architects do today? Which picture do you prefer? As stated in my previous answer above, Vitruvius includes a wide variety of subjects in the architect's arsenal of knowledge: sketching, geometry, history, philosophy, music, medicine, law, and astronomy. Today, most architects fulfill just two or three of these at best. "Let him be educated, skillful with pencl..." and it seems that the rest has been forgotten. Perhaps a few may intuitively understand the basics of geometry or have received somewhat of an education in history or philosophy by attending a university but not nearly to the standards set by Vitruvius. As someone who thoroughly enjoys learning, I very much prefer the picture Vitruvius illustrates. I greatly struggled with picking my major upon entering college because I did not want to limit myself to just one area of study. In high school, I took everything from AP Lit to AP Calc. It didn't matter to me that these were seemingly incompatible subjects; I enjoyed them both. I actually chose Architectural Engineering because it blends together so many subjects - perhaps not to the extent described by Vitruvius but close enough. Le Corbusier writes: The purpose of construction is to make things hold together; of architecture to move us. What do you think he meant by this? What do you think this implies about the architects job? As discussed in lecture, Le Corbusier only considered a building architecture if it contained a vital element: ingenuity. He saw the world of art and architecture as a progression. He argued that architects in his day had forgotten this and that the buildings they created, though almost exact copies of ancient buildings universally considered to be great, were in fact vapid precisely because they did not break any rules or push forward. Instead, he contended that machines built by engineers could be more accurately considered architecture because they were evolving and changing the world.

Christopher Barlow

ARCH 100

10/23/2013

Thus, the key word in the quote given is this: "move". Although it serves a practical purpose of providing safe rigid shelter, architecture must also move us and develop our understanding of the world around us. Staying along the lines of Vitruvius' thinking, this implies that the architect must to some extent consider himself a historian and a philosopher. He or she must have a knowledge of the past in order to have a foundation from which to leap into the unknown. He or she must also consider the philosophical ramifications of where architecture might lead us next. *Why does Le Corbusier think its bad for people to live in old-fashioned houses? Do you agree? How does he see houses as a sort of tool, and why is it important to throw away old tools ? According to Le Corbusier, it is bad (even unhealthy) for people to live in old-fashioned homes. He establishes this notion on the following principle: a house is a tool which can be used to mark out the progression of civilization. Tools are meant to fulfill the needs of a specific time and place. Once that need has become obsolete and new problems are presented, new tools must be introduced and old tools thrown away in order to keep society in a state of "moral health". Continuing to use old tools or living in old-fashioned homes prevents society from progressing forward. It allows us to become comfortable with the status-quo. To some extent, I agree with Le Corbusier. I do often find myself unsettled by the fact that my house is just another cookie-cutter home built in a development of hundreds of other buildings just like ours. I am, however, not disgusted or repulsed by it as Le Corbusier might be if he were still alive. I have memories of that place which will always stick with me. The actual space does not matter as much to me as what went on inside it. Thus, it is impossible for me to dislike my home even though it may be somewhat old-fashioned or unoriginal. I also therefore cannot say I entirely agree with Le Corbusier. Although I believe it is important for architecture to constantly move forward, a building does not need to be totally original to have a positive effect on a person. What does Loos comparison of human cultures, especially Europeans and the Papuans (from Papua New Guinea), say about how he sees different groups? Is this an accepted view today, and why or why not? Loos' comparison of human cultures, especially between Europeans and Papuans, begins to reveal his belief that there are two basic types of people: those he considers primitive or under evolved and the true modern man. The Papauns, representing the former class, tattoo and ornament "everything they can get their hands on". According to Loos, this means they are indulging in a "plastic" art equivalent to "baby talk". Today, this is certainly not considered an accepted view. Many traditional Asian ceremonies involve painting one's face in a particular manner (e.g. Geishas, Kathakali theater, etc.). We do not consider this childish; rather, it is a form of expression pertaining to a culture of people. To do without it would mean abandoning a great deal of insight into that culture. Loos believes that choosing simple instead of ornamented objects says something important about a person. What is it? Do the consumer choices we make today send similar types of messages?

Before I go any further, I would just like to say that I do not agree with Loos at all. In fact, to me he sounds crazy. Periodically during my reading of this excerpt I would turn to my roommate to read him a few sentences in order to have a laugh. It was the only way I could continue onward and actually finish the reading. We were both so baffled by his arguments, especially when he stated that he refused to eat anything that wasn't perfectly smooth, shapeless, and unadorned. His declaration "I eat roast beef" had us both chuckling. It's just so absurd.... Anyway, to answer the question: Loos believes that choosing simple instead of ornamented objects says that you are a true modern person, not an immature degenerate who lives in the past. To some extent, the consumer choices we make today do reflect this idea of Loos's simplistic modern

Christopher Barlow

ARCH 100

10/23/2013

aesthetic. People seem to prefer simplicity in the aesthetic design of their electronics. This is how Apple has made their money. There is, however, also a very potent desire in most people to personalize their gadgets with stickers, cases, and other accessories. My latop, for instance, has about 20 different stickers on it. I do not think that this makes me a degenerate person. Yes, some of the stickers are a bit childish and as I grow older, I do see them differently. I have kept them there, however, because it often invites strangers who I would normally never meet into a conversation. They see a particular symbol or phrase from a show they like and come over to discuss it with me. Thus, ornament is not a vacuous release of pent up primal urges; I view it as a means to personalize and communicate one's self with others.