Final Exam

History, Theory and Culture II Spring 2014

Clifford Mario Kosasih

1000294

Question 1: Over the course of the semester, we have seen a number of different
attitudes towards the social role of architecture. Choose two different authors or
architects, and compare their different understandings of the social role of
architecture. You may use both texts and buildings as necessary to illustrate your
chosen authors'/architects' position on this topic.

It was not until the first half of the 20th century that architecture started to project
different kind of image to the masses. People, then, began to realize that architecture
was capable to assume different roles to create an impact in the society. As years
passed and society was changing rapidly, these roles kept transforming indefinitely.
While it is defined in this essay as the function and impact of architecture towards
society, environment and culture, the social role of architecture has been a highly
debated topic that renders architects and critics differing opinions. Walter Gropius, a
Bauhaus pioneer, believes that architecture (and design in general) should be kept to its
minimal, serving its necessary functions, yet it must be aesthetically pleasing; while
Kenneth Frampton, an architecture critic, thinks that architecture is about the
experience of the entire human sensorium and is grounded to the topographic context
and local culture. I believe that both have valid arguments for the social role of
architecture, considering their background and context in which they lived in. Thus, this
essay will dissect both Gropius and Framptons attitude towards the social role of
architecture, compare and contrast their understandings while closely referring to
relevant works, as well as evaluate their ideas on this matter.
Robert Campbell, in Architecture Boston journal, says that Gropius believes in
architects responsibility in promoting welfare of society by creating rational, economical
and well-designed places for people to live and work in (Campbell 2013). As an
educator in both Bauhaus and Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD), Gropius tried
to instill his beliefs to his students as he penned them down in the Principles of Bauhaus
production (1928). He proposed an organic design based on their own present-day
laws, without romantic gloss and wasteful frivolity, simplicity in multiplicity, and
economical utilization of space (Gropius 1975, 95). His stand is perfectly
Page 1 of 5

Final Exam
History, Theory and Culture II Spring 2014

Clifford Mario Kosasih

1000294

understandable when we look at where he was coming from: the society he lived in was
fighting tremendous battle of recovering from the aftermath of the World War I. He
believes that architecture is able to help them recuperate by doing away the extravagant,
highly-ornate, and historically avant-garde architecture, but instead providing a one-fitsall solution that is economical and functional. This, he understood as the social role of
architecture at that time.
Almost sixty years later, paved by Alexander Tzonis and Liane Lefaivre,
Frampton finally fully developed his stand on architectures social role, packaged in a
handy phrase: critical regionalism. He opposed the homogenizing forces of modern
technology, globalization and other centralized structures in art or business as well as
superficial postmodern architecture (Frampton 1987, 374). Instead, he proposed an
architecture that is more humane in terms of scale and experience, more concerned for
the environmental impact of the immediate site, and more engaging for the local labor
and skills in the architectural production. Again, his attitude is fathomable as he grew up
watching a society that was too caught up in modernist and industrialist approach of
things, where design was mass produced, International Style was widely-accepted and
commodification of architecture began to rise. Inevitably, Frampton believes that society
should enjoy and experience architecture that is not detached from its origin and site;
that is not devoid of relationship to the environmental and cultural state of the locals.
Comparing the two architects, both carry valid points with regards to their attitude
of architectures social role. They both reacted to the conditions of their time: one is at
the aftermath of warfare and one is at the aftermath of modernism. This calls for a
fundamental difference in their attitude towards social role of architecture. I see that
Gropius attitude towards it is more inclined towards a quantitative aspect, something
that is more tangible: being functional, economical and possessing simple aesthetic
values; on the other hand, Framptons approach is more of a qualitative one, something
that is more intangible: he deals with societys perception and experience of architecture
in a more intimate context to the immediate site.
Furthermore, with regards to architectures role as an instrument of social reform
and an opportunity for social engagement, both Gropius and Frampton have different
Page 2 of 5

Final Exam
History, Theory and Culture II Spring 2014

Clifford Mario Kosasih

1000294

attitude towards it. Gropius believes in a democratic way of approaching architectural

process. In his Harvard prospectus, he said that students were not to be an ego-driven
form maker but [would be] a democratic leader and coordinator of a team of creative
people (Campbell 2013). He then displayed this principle in his firm The Architects
Collaborative (TAC). As interesting as the fact that the firms name epitomizes collective
effort and teamwork as well as the idea of anonymity, the firm was also committed in
only doing socially responsible briefs such as schools and housing estates. In their
notable works which include a rural residential project, Six Moon Hill, Gropius did not
only demonstrate the collective and democratic approach to design, but also the kind of
ideals in which the firm believes: a coherent community living, while taking advantage of
the scenic views of the rural character of the property appropriate to the residents and
their time.
On the other hand, Frampton believes that to achieve a socially responsible
architecture one must try to involve the local community in terms of decision making and
skills. He argues that by having them involve in the architectural process, the
architecture becomes a place rather than a space, carrying a strong local presence
rather than foreign artificial intervention. In doing so, the architecture must have a
constant interactive relationship with nature which includes the topographic context of
the original site, the local climate and environment as well as the local culture
(Frampton 1987, 382-383). The most famous example of this type of architecture is
Alvar Aaltos Saynatsalo Town Hall in Finland. As Lefaivre and Tzonis have described:
The various buildings forming the complex are planned round a courtyard
artificially raised above the surrounding wooded countryside. Gaps between the
buildings allow access to the courtyard and also allow views towards distant
lakes, and penetration of the low northern sun. The materials, not unlike the
buildings of the region, are naked: dark red brick, wood and copper, and abruptly
varied roof shapes (Lefaivre and Tzonis 2012).
Thus, it can be seen that Framptons ideal on architectures social role extends beyond
more than just people and the society, but also towards preservation of local

Page 3 of 5

Final Exam
History, Theory and Culture II Spring 2014

Clifford Mario Kosasih

1000294

environment and culture, so as to avoid depriving future generations of enjoying the

native and local quality.
At a glance, both Gropius and Framptons attitude towards this matter seem to
bear similar connection. However, after close analysis of the two approaches there is a
slight difference which sets them apart. Gropius aim is to elevate the societys welfare
and quality of life through collective design and democratic effort in architecture. This
implies that he does not necessarily involve any differentiated solutions or specific
treatments for different individuals, as he believes that the current condition will
determine the kind of economical and functional design that suits the client or society.
He claimed that the necessities of life are the same for the majority of people and
design is more a matter of reason than a matter of passion (Gropius 1975, 96).
Frampton, on the contrary, believes that architecture needs to be free from fashionable
stylistic conventions (Frampton 1987, 385) which suggests architecture should provide
a more focused solution that is suited for the kind of site condition. Simply put, in order
to achieve architecture that needs to be seamlessly integrated to the site, with little or as
minimal intervention as possible, architects need to involve the local populations in the
process.
Lastly, I believe that Gropius took on a more active part in imparting his ideals
and principles regarding architectures social role as compared to Frampton. Although
both of them are registered as faculty members in various higher institutions such as
Bauhaus, Harvard GSD, Princeton and Columbia University, Gropius, being one of the
founder of Bauhaus and a notable faculty in Harvard GSD, had more influence towards
the way the school runs and the kind of students the institution is nurturing, as
compared to Frampton. Nonetheless, Frampton is well-known as an architecture critic
and historian as he produced various history books and manifestoes to influence the
society about his idea of architectures social role. In a way, I believe that by being an
educator and a historian respectively, Gropius and Frampton have displayed a certain
extent of responsibility to the society as an architect to nurture and influence younger
generations of architects to take on a more critical social role. As architecture deals a lot

Page 4 of 5

Final Exam

Clifford Mario Kosasih

History, Theory and Culture II Spring 2014

1000294

with people and the way they live, it is important to ensure that architects show
responsibility towards the relationship between architecture and the society.
In conclusion, Gropius and Frampton have demonstrated and stood by their
attitude towards social role in architecture, through the way they approach the subject
and the way they ensure that it last. Although essentially they took on different approach,
both of them have a similar goal in mind which is to enhance societys life. As utilitarian
as it may sound, Gropius believes that functionality and economical utilization should be
the drive for a better society; while Frampton believes that the local climate and
environment as well as cultural aspect should be the critical basis from which
architecture is derived for the betterment of society.

Bibliography
Campbell, Robert. "A Man of Parts: Walter Gropius in Five Acts." Architecture Boston
16 (2013): 27.
Frampton, Kenneth. "Ten Points on an Architecture of Regionalism: A Provisional
Polemic." In Center Vol. 3: New Regionalism, by University of Texas, edited by
Lawrence Speck and Wayne Attoe. Austin: Rizzoli, 1987.
Gropius, Walter. "Principles of Bauhaus production (1928)." In Programs and
Manifestoes on 20th Century Architecture, edited by Ulrich Conrad, translated by
Michael Bullock, 95-97. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1975.
Lefaivre, Liane, and Alexander Tzonis. Architecture of Regionalism in the Age of
Globalization. New York: Routledge, 2012.

Page 5 of 5