Summary
The twenty-first century has seen serious development in the field of architecture. Architectural developments can be traced back to ancient’s kingdoms. The Egyptian Empire came up with pyramids which still remain wonders of the world even today.
The architectural designs of the pyramids show a high level of skill put forth by the experts who were involved in their construction, given the fact that the pyramids still exist currently after hundreds of years only confirm the expertise of the work.
The Late Han Empire was also known for very unique architectural designs. The modern architectural designs can be traced back to the Roman Empire. This empire was able to come up with architectural designs that reflect what we have today. The current architectural developments are attributed to these ancient architectures.
Criticism in architecture is very important. The above ancient empires were able to succeed in architecture because of criticism. The leaders of these kingdoms would constantly put the architectures and the engineers under pressure and criticism in order to advance in the architectural designs of various buildings within the kingdom. Some of the current buildings are so unique that it is impossible for one to believe that it exists unless one sees them.
Criticism has pushed architectures and construction engineers to the limits. They have come out strongly to show their prowess. They are determined to show the world that they have the capacity to come up with buildings, some of which seem to defy nature. The building below demonstrates this.
The above buildings show a unique building that apparently is defying the natural forces. It is strange that the above building cannot pass without critics identifying some mistakes on it. Although it is an amazing building that is pleasing to the eye, and one would be amazed how one could have come up with the building, some critics will single out a number of mistakes in the building and recommend further improvement.
Modern Design
Initially, the main aim of the architectures was to make the exterior design of the houses as appealing as possible. Criticism was by then based on the physical appearance of buildings. Architectures made concerted effort to come up with beautiful designs. The following figure shows one of the modern architectural design that demonstrates how architectures have gotten committed to coming up with strange structures. As a way of satisfying the critics, architectures have tried to ape some of the common objects that would not appear to be like a building. The figure below shows a building that resembles a cap.
Elements of Criticism in the Contemporary World
A number of critics have come up strongly to criticize buildings on various fronts. Frank Lloyd Wright is one of the earliest critics of architecture. This critic never managed to complete his degree, but came out as one of the most astounding critics of the architecture of all time. Various scholars, architectures, and structural engineers have come up to praise and criticize his work because of a number of reasons. Clergies have criticized his morals.
Frank Wright was also a philosopher who supported his arguments with a lot of theories and philosophical arguments. In most of his work, he would insist that morals are more of a lifestyle and that it comes and passes just like fashion. He maintained that ethics was better placed to protect professionals like architectures than would morals. His philosophical principles earned him love and hatred in equal measures from various quarters.
Various architectural critics have gone through his work and criticized it in their process of criticizing some of the modern architectural works. In this study, the researcher will focus on only three famous critics. They include Charles Jencks in his work Modern Movement in Architecture, Nikolaus Pevsner’s Pioneers of Modern Movement, Reyner Banham’s Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. The three scholars will make the basis of this research.
Elements of Function
Architectural criticism is always based on a number of factors. When criticizing a piece of literature, it is important to focus on specific factors. According to Banham (1980, p. 78), criticism should always focus on elements that can be seen even by laymen. It is therefore very common phenomenon that most critics always focus on elements of function. The following elements of function should always be put into consideration.
Elements of Architecture
According to Pevsner (2004, p. 57), it is important to put into consideration some of the elements of architecture. Interior design makes the most important aspect of a building. A building can be very attractive, but the comfort lies in the interior of the house. For a long time, criticism was based on the physical attractiveness of the building. However, as architectural advancements were made on the exterior part of the houses, it became apparent that there was need to improve the interior parts of buildings. Critics came to realize that comfort of a house is based in the internal parts of buildings, and not on its exteriors.
Although the physical designs of the exterior parts of the house are important, it is also important to critics are keen on how some of the interior architectural elements could be improved. The walls make part of the most important parts part of the interiors of a building. Walls always speak a lot about the building. According to Pevsner (2004, p. 83), critics always insist that walls have a huge impact on the perception that an individual will have about a house.
Frank Wright stated in one of his writings, “Of all the internal components of a house, the walls have the largest psychological effect on individuals, followed by the floor and then the roof. When in a house, one cannot avoid looking at the walls. The walls always scream for attention, and therefore it is impossible to ignore it. It is therefore important to take care of the walls and make it reflect what it should reflect, based on a number of factors. Color and design make the most important aspect of a wall.
A wall design and its color should be based on the functionality of the building, and the wish of the owner. For instance, critics have always insisted that walls within a health facility should have a color that will be peaceful in the eyes of the viewer, in this case the patient. The design of the wall should be simple and not disturbing. This can jeopardize the rate of healing of the patient (Banham 1980, p. 112). The walls in the building below May therefore, not pass as an appropriate wall in a hospital.
The first reason for this is the color. In hospitals, the most appropriate color would be white and cream. They are peaceful and cheerful colors. The brown color in the figure below is too dull to be in a hospital. The walls shown in figure three could not be appropriate for the hospital either. The structure seems so strange and it would get one into thinking how the design was made. This may not be advisable for a healing individual who should not be subjected to a lot of thinking.
This wall below will be excellent in an office set up. The walls are very unique, and with the wooden material, the room’s temperature will also be regulated. The shape is also very attractive. The windows provide enough light within the room. The sizes of the windows are also passes out as an attractive design and match well with the wooden wall.
The floor is also very important. As was stated above, floors make an important aspect of the floor. The floor should not be a slippery. The floor should accommodate both the physically challenged people and able bodied people. The floor should therefore allow for the movement of the wheel chair. It should also be safe enough to allow for free movement without possibility of putting risks on the individuals.
According to Jencks (1973, p. 79), the floor should be accommodative of chairs, tables and all other items that may be needed within the floor. The items placed on the floor should be stable, and all possibilities of it falling should be eliminated. The floor below passes as a good floor. It is easy to clean, and the color matches well with the floor and the windows.
Elements of Composition
Elements of composition have also drawn a lot of criticism from the three architectural critics focused on in this study. Frank Wright also stated that the composition of the house should take into consideration a number of factors. According to Pevsner (2004, p. 29), a standard residential house should include a standard kitchen, a bathroom, a toilet. The sizes of these rooms should depend on the family size, or the number of users.
The arguments put forth by Jencks (1973, p. 72) about kitchen makes a lot of sense. These scholars state that the location of the kitchen should be as far away from the washrooms as can be possible. The washrooms should be located in a position where they can easily be kept clean, and that it should have any negative impact on the living and dining rooms, and the kitchen.
Elements of Form
Architectural critics have also put focus on elements of form. According to Jencks (1973, p. 118), the space within various compositions of the house should always be put into consideration. Space is one of the most important factors that should always be considered. The space of each of the house components should be taken seriously.
Banham (1980, p. 92) says that the dining hall should be slightly smaller than then living room. The two rooms should also be close enough to make it easy for individuals to move from one room to another. The bathroom’s space should be able to sustain other components like a bathtub. The toilets should be accommodative of the physically challenged individuals, especially if it is meant for public use.
Moral Elements
Most of the contemporary architectural critics have had issues with the works of Frank Wright for what they describe as lack of morals. In his works, Frank emphasized on ethics at the expense of morals. However, Pevsner (2004, p. 117) says that ethics and morals go hand in hand. This scholar claims that ethics is inseparable from morals.
One of the moral elements that should be considered is the beauty of a building. When trying to bring out the beauty of a building, morals should always be put into consideration. Some architects always emphasize on aping objects. However, this should be done putting into consideration the morals that should be considered. The following building is very beautiful, but is open to vary many misinterpretations.
Reflection
Frank Lloyd Wright is one of the most celebrated American architecture of all times. The works done by this great scholar and an engineer has had great impact on the lives of many of the current architectures. It may be true that his designs and architectural principles may not be in use today. However, he is credited as the pioneer of the radical architectural designs. He broke off with some of the leading professional architects of his time because of their conservative approach towards architecture. He insisted that it was an act of cowardice for a professional architecture to stick to traditional design that is commonly approved for fear of making a mistake (Pevsner 2004, p. 78).
This scholar observes that Write insisted on coming up with unique designs that are able to meet the changing environmental changes. Although he was considered a successful and very daring architecture, Wright earned a lot of hatred from a number of individuals who did not approve of his approach to architecture, his beliefs and principles in life, especially given the fact that he was already a writer and would deliver lecturers to students occasionally.
He suffered a lot when his house (which he referred to as Taliesin) was set ablaze in 1914, killing several individuals related to him. This did not weigh him down, although the arsons came again and again. He built incarnation of the original Taliesin, just to prove to his detractors that the skill in this field was coming from within and that it was not something that could just disappear because some individuals did not approve of him. Scholars have come out strongly to criticize the work of Wright.
Although some of the scholars have a strong conviction of his work and believe that he was an icon who has a massive impact on the development of modern architecture, some have condemned his work and philosophy, referring to him as an insupportable windbag and a social rebel. From clergy to politicians and creditors, Wrights raffled feathers with various individuals. His morals and financial habits were considered deplorable, and his opinions too radical. At this stage, the researcher will focus on what some of the contemporary scholars and architects have written about Frank Lloyd Wright.
Charles Jencks, in his book ‘Modern Movements in Architecture,’ focused a lot on the works of Frank Wright. This scholar based his work on modernism and post-modernism. According to this scholar, post-modernism is a radical shift from modernism. This scholar appreciates the fact that religion plays a role in various aspects of society. Some of the religious beliefs tend to be subjective to society, while others are objective.
Like Wright, Jencks observes that religion is very strict when it comes to morals. This scholar notes that morals should come ahead of ethics. Ethics may not make any sense if morality is not maintained. Maintaining morals creates an opportunity for an individual to appreciate that ethics should exist. This scholar maintains that that moral is not a lifestyle. He says that although Wright’s work has had a massive effect on post-modern architecture, his principles towards morals may not be supported in the current social context. According to this scholar, these philosophies were not supported then, cannot be supported and now, and it will not be very easy to support them in the future.
However, this scholar gives a lot of credit to the radical approach and commitment of Frank Wright in coming up with radical designs in architecture. Jencks notes that it would be very difficult to apply the principles of Frank Wright in the current electronic economy.
Nikolaus Pevsner is one of the renowned scholars who have reviewed the work done by Frank Lloyd Wright. In his book ‘Pioneers of the Modern Movement, this scholar tries to give attention to various scholars and professionals who have participated in the postmodern movement. Unlike other critics, Nikolaus Pevsner was able to live during the times of Frank Wright. Having experienced the lifestyle Mr. Wright lived, he was in the best position to criticize the work Wright. This scholar observes that there has been a radical shift from modernism to post-modernism.
This scholar observes that the works of Frank Wright have had a great impact on the current designs of houses. This scholar notes that the beauty of a house is embedded in the natural surroundings, the terraces, roofing and the cantilevered roofs. He also emphasizes the importance of the interior parts of the house, most importantly the interior space of the rooms. Pevener points out the fact that Wright had a great impact on modern architecture. His achievement is obviously visible in modern designs. He decided to go against the traditions, as would be expected of the then architecture. However, his work was heavily influenced by other architectures such as Louis Sullivan.
However, Pevsner notes that the way Wright criticized the work of Louis Sullivan demonstrates that he does not appreciate the importance it had on him. He only picks negative aspects of the work of Sullivan. Although Pevsner considers this as destructive criticism, this may be considered as constructive criticism due to a number of reasons. By finding faults in the work done by Sullivan, it is easier to make the contemporary architects understand the mistakes made by Sullivan and possibly avoid them. This is constructive because he brought a challenge to the modern architects to consider coming up with something better than what Sullivan had done. (+)
Reyner Banham is another scholar who has written extensively about the work of Frank Lloyd Wright. In his book, ‘Theory and Design in the First Machine Age’, this scholar reflects on the modern age designs. This scholar notes that there is a difference between the current designs and what used to exist before.
According to this scholar, the architectures during the time of Wright did not have the opportunity to use the current sophisticated architectural tools and machines. This scholar appreciates the philosophies put forth by Wright. He notes that Wright was brave enough to withstand criticism from various quarters. This made him come up with principles that have revolutionized the field of architecture. However, Rayner does not approve of some of his principles. (-)
It is a fact that some of the plans, ideas and architectural drawings of Frank Wright are going to be immortal. This is because they have defied criticism, and have been able to stand the test of time. It is also important to stand by one’s principles. It is wrong to pretend. Wright was very categorical in protecting his principles. Although many did not approve of some of his beliefs, he came out strongly to defend them. This demonstrates that he was principled. (+)
The works of Wright did not only affect professionals in the field of architecture. He was able to impact various other fields, some of which are not related to architecture in any way. Some of these fields include religion, politics and morality. This brings out an all-around man. (+)
Putting the work of Frank Wright under criticism can take various fronts based on a number of factors. Various individuals will rank Wright differently based on different criteria. Having gone through the works of Pevsner, Bonham and Jencks, I would rank the work of Wright as follows.
References
Banham, R 1980, Theory and design in the first machine age, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Jencks, C 1973, Modern movements in architecture, Anchor Press, Garden City.
Pevsner, N 2004, Pioneers of modern design from William Morris to Walter Gropius, Yale University Press, London.