I find it interesting (and encouraging) to see that the majority of posts to this thread state some enduring value or need for beauty or aesthetics in architecture and for our profession as architects. Yet how often do we hear many even the very top 'star' architects when lecturing with Powerpoint slideshows of their work, if they use the word beauty at all, do so as if either it was unimportant or somehow a side effect of good functional programming and problem solving.
Caffey responds above, "Modernism as a way of thinking asks that we suspend visualization and search for deeper structures, order and relationships than appearance." We need to define our terms. What modernism are you referring to? There is a misunderstanding of what the early modernism actually was proposing. The modernism of the International Style, for example, was not the simple elimination of 'style' in favor of pure functionalism (i.e. form following function). Even Hitchcock in the classic book with Johnson,
The International Style since 1922 was not proposing this. Yes, there were those such as Hannes Meyer back then who went so far as to propose that there was no need for proportion and aesthetics in modern architecture. But even Hitchcock states that this view is unbalanced and that there is no one-to-one correspondence between form and function so that it allows some free play that lies in the domain of style in which to allow for both creativity and functionalism. Yes he believed the 'style' that arose from this was grounded in a functionalism which severed ties to traditional and eclectic forms. But that there was a style from this was not denied. And the idea of not being concerned with "appearance" is also not true of the early modernists, certainly not for Le Corbusier, for instance, who was a painter and used painting and cubism as a means to architectural design. In fact, Corbu was noted for being a "visual" architect. The architectural historian, Michael McMordie has pointed out that Wright, Mies, Gropius and Corbu, while rejecting previous styles, yet did their modernism "within a tradition that still demanded style. Gropius' definition of beauty was less than precise, but he was still clear that architecture must be governed by aesthetic aims."
It does seem the profession now is lost in a confusion of self-identity on this topic. This really goes to the heart of the question, "What is architecture?" The common answer to this is that it is the "art/science of building." OK, so not all buildings are architecture then, right? Most agree to that. Those that are architecture somehow have this idea of 'art' added to them, has been typically how it was understood. This may be a somewhat crude/limited definition, but it does have some explanatory power. While architecture is a big field with many sub-disciplines, didn't most of us want to be architects because we loved to draw, loved the art side of it but we also had a scientific or engineering bent also?
As has been pointed out by some in the field of architectural aesthetics, the problem may not that we can't define beauty (yes, that is still a problem) but that the problem is that we can't define function, the very thing we think we have a handle on. And it seems our greater reliance on technological progress may have blinded us from the fact that design is not a deterministic exercise where if we just input enough data into the front end we can generate the proper solution and the back end. And so we go on with parametric systems and algorithms, etc, all trying to take the designer out of the picture and hence arrive at a more 'authentic', less kitschy, design. There are two (at least) problems with this. One is that we can't even define function at the front end to provide the inputs completely. Is function just the physical criteria? What about behavioral criteria? What about functions that change throughout time like change of owner and use? Does the building then lose meaning? Or is there a residue of meaning that doesn't reside in its functional aspects? The other problem is that there is no way to define how a given function should be translated into a particular form; theoretically speaking, all we can do is to evaluate given forms as to how they perform functionally (of course based on our biased determination of the functional criteria we have prioritized. Hence the need for intuition/creativity.
Kant and Hegel give us some clues as they struggled with issues of aesthetics philosophically, but this posting has already gotten too long for now....
------------------------------
Kenneth Dahlin AIA
Architect
Genesis Architecture, LLC
Mount Pleasant WI
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-10-2017 18:10
From: Benjamin Caffey
Subject: Beauty- Not in the Eye of the Beholder
Modernism as a way of thinking asks that we suspend visualization and search for deeper structures, order and relationships than appearance. Beauty emerges commensurate with the commitment of the architect, and is authentic and more inclusive than an add-on.
Nostalgia for beauty is misplaced, it can be and has been an expression of power and control, the aspects that have meaning being particular to a dominant culture.
With scarcity of resources and their waste untenable, new ideas of beauty and authenticity must evolve. It's no longer a question of stagnation but of survival.
------------------------------
Benjamin Caffey AIA
Harley Ellis Devereaux
San Francisco, CA
------------------------------