Hearn and Hill: A Debate on the Essence of Architecture Essay

In spite of the fact that architecture belongs to the kind of arts which has its own rules well, established and agreed upon, in contrast to, say, literature, there are still some points on which debates are being held every now and then. Since beauty is the concept which does not fit the frames once set, and cannot agree with the standards to which people drive it, the arguments concerning its purpose and means of expression are continuous and thought-provoking. Whether they have some similarities and differences between them is the topic of the given essay.

Hearn emphasizes that architecture theory is strikingly different form the rest of the theories mainly because of its activeness, contrasting with the rest of the theoretical studies:

Properly speaking, the architectural theory is active in outlook whereas the other types of writing are contemplative. Because theories of architecture are concerned with the way architecture ought to be, they are usually couched as apologias for a particular outlook.¹

Another idea which Hearn is speaking about is the notion of cultural appropriateness in creating an architectural masterpiece. He emphasizes the necessity to adhere to certain cultural peculiarities of the century and the style in which the building is going to be created so that the construction seemed most harmonious with the overall atmosphere and could look appropriate in the environment 2which it is going to be put in.

Put in another way, the enduring theory is about the quest of satisfying form and cultural appropriateness in buildings.²

With all respect to the point of view of the master, it is quite desirable to search for the opponent views introduced in the books. Although the art of architecture is the art of stable forms, the opinions about these forms can be quite vivid. Thus, the points on which the two authors disagree are going to be valuable material for this research as well.

While Hearn considers a building as the thing created for the purpose of being used, and the person who is using it is the universe around which the architecture itself revolves, Hill thinks that the essence of the building is the idea which stands behind it, and which is the installation of the ideas and the images that make the century; this is where the irony is concealed, according to Hill: “Ironically, an architect’s experience of architecture is more akin to the contemplation of the art object than the occupation of a building.”³

Another difference in the reflections of Hearne and Hill on the idea of architecture is the perspective from which they consider the art form. According to the ideas spoken by Hearn, architecture exists outside time and context, beauty shown in the most explicit way. There are no epoch measures that can be applied to it, nor are there any influences of the political life to mankind that can turn the constant run of architectural progress.

On the other hand, Hill suggests something strikingly different, calling the art of architecture to serve a man’s ideas of the social system existing. His ideas are rather persuasive, Hill speaks the point in a rather impressive manner, making it clear that architecture is bound to be more than stone-cold art.

In all spheres of production is a central tenet of the Capitalist system. However, the reputation of Functionalism is now so tarnished that it deters serious investigation into the ways in which architecture is occupied and inhabited.⁴

Despite the numerous arguments on the essence of architecture and its impact on social life, it is rather wise to agree that, like any art, it is apt to reflect the social problems, but not to give the answers to them. Whatever changes people’s life may make, there is always some room for pure art. Such an idea, solving the heated debates, is more than reasonable in the heated discussions of the kind.

Reference List

Hearn, Millard Fillmore. Ideas that Shaped Buildings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.

Hill, Jonathan. Occupying Architecture: Between the Architect and the User. New York, BY: Routledge, 1998.

Footnotes

1. Millard Fillmore Hearn. Ideas That Shaped Buildings. (Cambridge, MS: MIT Press, 2003), 12
2. Millard Fillmore Hearn. Ideas That Shaped Buildings. (Cambridge, MS: MIT Press, 2003), 13
3. Jonathan Hill, Occupying Architecture: Between the Architect and the User (New York, Routledge, 1998), 78
4. Jonathan Hill, Occupying Architecture: Between the Architect and the User (New York, Routledge, 1998), 79