The Role of Architecture in Addressing Different Social Ills - Literature review Example

1. In “Architecture or Revolution,” Le Corbusier argues that architecture is better than a complete revolution because it plays a critical role in addressing different social ills that are happening because of vast social and technological changes. In this case, architecture originated as a means of not merely resolving the needs for work, residence, or play, but for using tools in improving the quality of human lives. Furthermore, Le Corbusier indicates that talking about these origins was and is a modern activity because human beings consciously or unconsciously mold society through these tools, wherein these tools also mold their values, beliefs, attitudes, and practices in their different fields and in their own homes and families (277). In “Authoritarian High Modernism,” James Scott agrees that architecture can respond to various social problems during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Like Le Corbusier, Scott believes that architecture rises to the challenge of social changes due to technological and economic progress. Scott also asserts that studying the origin of architecture was and is a modern activity because it fits the constant desire for social benefits and social solutions. His difference with Le Corbusier is his specific focus on high modernism that has its strengths of trying to improve the social fabric and enabling the social participation of modernist thinkers, while its weaknesses are ruthlessness in advancing modernist ideals and disastrous effects, when political controls are weak or deficient. 2. In “Ornament and Crime,” Loos criticizes the use of ornament in architecture. Loos asserts that using ornaments buildings is a crime of the degenerate (20). In order to be culturally developed, he emphasizes that architects must remove ornaments from their buildings (Loos 20). Furthermore, Loose argues that ornamentation wastes time and energy. Architects must focus on function, not ornamental form, to create buildings that have true functions for users. Finally, Loos thinks that to vie for ornaments is not natural of higher intelligence. Ornaments are superficial and wasteful exercises for him. Semper feels differently in “The Textile Art” because he argues that textiles and buildings have the same origins- the need to turn invisible open space into visibly enclosed spaces. Whereas Loos finds ornament as unnatural, Semper asserts that ornamenting the body and the space through architecture is natural to people’s desire for art (254). Despite these differences, Semper and Loos agree that ornaments can give happiness to their makers that cannot be undervalued. Loos understands that art that is meaningful to its maker has place in architecture (24), while Semper celebrates the beauty that artists gain from using ornament as symbols for their identities and aspirations (255). Loos understands that, to some extent, ornaments can have value, if the destroyer of art cannot put more relevant substitutes for it. 3. In “Architecture or Revolution,” Le Corbusier believes that mass production or technology give tools for improving human conditions (284). He asserts that construction benefits from new methods and materials, while architecture can use technology to address social problems (286,288). He notes that technology may create dehumanized laborers, but he thinks that human beings can resist this approach to mass production through taking control of these tools. In “Principles of Bauhaus Production,” Gropius embraces mass production that frees craftspeople from manual, repetitive behavior. He asserts that even craftspeople can use technology to advance new models and prototypes that continue to meet functional needs. He does not feel the threat of technology that Le Corbusier is concerned of. In “Utopia or Oblivion,” Fuller believes that technology will resolve various environmental and social problems. He argues that humans living in mobile homes do not have traditional time or space limitations. He is different from Le Corbusier because he has a more revolutionary approach to the concept of architecture. He demands new ways of conceptualizing human living. Fuller is also different from Gropius because the latter has not yet considered the use of futuristic models in designing new cities and buildings. Gropius and Le Corbusier, nonetheless, may feel excited in seeing Fuller’s floating cities because it underlines the role of architecture in resolving social problems, such as congestion of cities and pollution. 4. Authoritarian high modernism places full confidence in sustained linear progress through the development of scientific and technical knowledge and skills, extension of production capabilities, greater satisfaction of human needs, and more control over human and environmental nature (Scott 89). It is authoritarian because it tends to undermine or remove politics from its considerations and it intends to refashion nature itself (Scott 94). The underlying principles of authoritarian high modernism are starting from scratch, breaking away from tradition and history, and the desire to strongly tame human and environmental nature (Scott 93-94). Colonial regimes that desire social experimentations and intellectual modernist socialites benefitted from authoritarian high modernism because they wanted to control many aspects of social life with good intentions, while the losers are those who wanted to preserve tradition and history because they could not cope with vast changes in their beliefs, values, and practices (Scott 97). The physical characteristics of authoritarian high modernism are standardization, central control, and rational approach to economic and physical construction. The Squibb Building by Ely Jacques Kahn showcases authoritarian high modernism through its white exterior that rationalizes the need to blend in with other light colored buildings, while the intricate entrances, lobbies, and stairways convey the need for control over the inner space. The Squibb Building uses technology also for satisfying diverse human needs for simplicity and beauty. 5. In “The Jacobs House,” Wright explains that the ideal affordable housing prototype is built in one operation because the building of the outside completes the inside already. He removes the following aspects of the house: visible roof, garage, basement, interior trim, light fixtures, ornament, plastering, gutters, and other mechanical fixtures that complicate costs and structure. Loos’ house with one wall has the same efficiency. Like the Jacobs house, it does not have ornaments and aesthetic considerations. The similarities in material choices are use of wood and cement, while Loos may not need to include paper and glass like Wright. The assembly is different because Wright wants a one-operation assembly, while Loos has internal structures in his prototype. The intended residents are different to some extent. Loos wants a house for different purposes, though he also thinks that his design will satisfy low-income residents, while Wright designs the Jacobs house for low-cost residential purposes. 6. The Robie House and Dymaxion House do not have similar forms because the former has an axial organization with focus on horizontality, while the Dymaxion House is a hexagonal house with a modular interior space. Their contexts are the same, nevertheless, because they are designed to become simple, efficient structures. The Dymaxion House has a simple bathing unit, for instance, that saves water and energy, while the Robie House has no external windows, facades, and visible front door. These houses are not after ornaments or blending in with other architectural works, but in creating an efficient home for its users. Furthermore, they both use technology to create a simple livable space. The Dymaxion House is fully suspended to become earthquake- and storm-proof, while the Robbie house arranges symmetrical areas through asymmetrical divisions to provide privacy for owners, and yet openness to look out through its long and designed horizontal windows. The Dymaxion House, however, is more technology-driven in its desire to be mass produced and to promote self-sufficiency for its owners. It seeks cost-efficiency and safety for different users. 7. The Empire State Building stands in contrast to the scale of Mall of America (Minneapolis, MN) that has a horizontal layout. The physical context of the Empire State Building is to become the tallest building of its time, while the Mall of America also wants to stand out among other malls and entertainment centers. The temporal contexts are the same for these two buildings with emphasis on grandness on specific dimensions: height for the Empire State Building and strategic commercial integration for the Mall of America. The forms of design are different. The Empire State Building is designed for maximizing work spaces. The Mall of America is designed to combine consumer, recreational, and work spaces. The Mall of America has a massive scale in terms of unpredictability inside it with different shops and amusement parks and facilities, since it seeks to offer novelty and diversity to its consumers. If the Empire State Building wants to be a tall fortress, the Mall of America seeks to become the ultimate pleasure fortress. Read More