An aedicule – architectural “frame” or unit of space – allows an individual to break down a building or structure into human scale. This form has been used from the earliest buildings up to today and seems to incorporate an innate human desire to understand the world around us in relation to ourselves. That which can not be explained or understood in these terms is then rationalized through religion, gods and/or the universe. 
Early forms that humans placed on the earth illustrate this need to create an environment that can be understood on a human scale. Homo erectus created a village at Terra Amata, Nice, France that was occupied during the hunting season year after year and demonstrates communal gatherings by the use of a hearth. (Roth, p.161-162) Homo sapiens then began to leave their mark through more permanent materials like the stone alignments at Carnac or the structures at Stonehenge. All of these break down the landscape in an organized manner, one that is specifically for human use. Homo sapiens’s marks on the earth also can be interpreted to represent a belief in gods or a greater understanding of the universe. The monolithic structures illustrate a community that worked together to construct these “symbolic spiritual structures” that are most easily read from above. Who is the intended viewer? Beyond the spiritual, Stonehenge also is designed to align with the movement of the sun. The structure is illuminated by the sun during the summer solstice, “4,000 years ago, the sun would have risen directly over the heelstone, as viewed from the center of the trilithons. Other alignments within the complex suggest that [it] might have been used to mark phases and eclipses of the moon and other astronomical phenomena.” Roth, p. 173. Later structures also align with the sun and can be seen as a form of clock, calendar, or directional points when illuminated. What was the astronomical knowledge of these early men and cultures? (Roth, p.169-173)
These same ideals are advanced by later cultures. Ziggurats were built in Mesopotamia. These "artificial hills" raise the priests closer to the heavens. (Roth, p.183) The same is true for the structures found in Mexico, an ocean away yet strikingly similar in appearance and function. Other structures took on a more curvilinear form like the Great Wall of China or the Hopewell Indian burial grounds in the Ohio Valley.
Egypt built the pyramids of Giza as beacons on the landscape that herald the importance of the pharaoh and afterlife to their culture. (Roth, pp. 196-201) In the East, the difference in how they see the world is evident in their structures. They look for balance – yin and yang, light into the darkness – but the overall model remains, a society’s belief in the afterlife affects the landscape around them.
Architecture itself is often critiqued in relation to commodity, firmness and delight. That is; does the building fit its intended use, is it built well for its function and/or environment and is it pleasing to the eye or senses. Commodity and firmness are more easily assessed as they can be interpreted through interaction with the space. Does it work for its use? Yes or No. Is the building and its selected materials still standing? Yes or no. Delight, however, can be a subjective field and more difficult to discern. To assist here it seems as though basic human nature has similar desires despite cultural differences. Rhythm, proportion, texture, light, ugliness (beyond the surface), ornament, color and sound all impact our perception of delight. The universality of some human desires are represented above by the numerous buildings created by many different cultures, yet each can be seen as breaking down the earth into human scale and strongly being affected by a culture's thoughts and beliefs of gods and the afterlife. Do these buildings work in commodity and firmness? Yes as most (minus Terra Amata) can still be viewed today, thousands of years later and their function discerned. And each is still "delightful" in terms of the breakdown by Roth. Ancient civilizations created architecture that, still to this day, hold true to the inspection of commodity, firmness and delight. (Roth, pp.67-116)
The ideals represented in this opus are easily translated into my other class work. In lighting design we are beginning to look at how colors can affect spatial and emotional qualities of a space. Cooler colors typically tend to expand a space while warmer colors tend to create a feeling of restriction or enclosure. It has also been tested and shown that these are relative norms across many different societies and cultures. There seems to be much universality to human nature.
In studio we are beginning programming and planning of the upfit of Greensboro Day School middle school into Revolution Mill. Last week we met with both the Mill’s representatives and Middle School to being to understand the cultures of each space. In programming and planning, we will work to take the modern/urban middle school culture and create a link with the historic nature of the mill. To effectively do this, we must be able to analyze both independently, understand their individual qualities and requirements in their own terms. We aspire to create a space that, in the end, will withstand the values of commodity, firmness and delight.
No comments:
Post a Comment