Introduction
Architecture can be seen as an art than as any other practical matter. This is because it abridges the meaning of an item and its being through the concepts of historical and current symbolism and realism while bringing out the in-depth socio-cultural aspects of the work. It acts more as an index of the creator’s mind whose interpretation is solely dependent on the viewer. Such elements as smoke signifying presence of fire, clouds meaning rain are all architectural impressions historically and currently used in designs and works of art. The various creations can therefore be considered as symbolic as well as realistic architecture.
Elements of Architecture
Conveyance of Meaning
The function of a work can be revealed to the viewer rather than be inferred through symbolism. This is a case in which something can be said to look like another that is obviously known (Goodman, 1985). For example, a structure can be made to look like a dungeon, a hotel or as a school. It can be said that the structure tends to ‘speak’ to the observer (Valery, 1957).
Expression of Meaning
In this case a structure reveals a certain mood through its appearance. The expressed qualities can be those of gloom, royalty, lightness or even heaviness.
Relational Element
The relationship of a structure can also gives its meaning in which case, the surrounding and its relationship with it such as the decoration and its stylistic features gives the functional meaning of the structure and a sense of order as observed by Donougho (1987).
Symbolic Element
This is the use of iconography where an icon is used to convey information. It must however be reinforced that architecture is not keen on the use of representational art although this can not be ignored especially in the bid to marry the historic elements of architecture with the modern through scholasticism.
Understanding Symbolism
Symbols have been used in architectural work for their ornamental and numerical value visibly or in hidden form. The current trends however, as Clark (1987) observes, are tending from iconography (artistic form) to iconology which considers the general values embodied in the artistic form from a world view including the general attitudes and values.
In unearthing the meaning behind the use of symbolism in architecture the findings of anthropologists have been used in which the general structural arrangement was used to decipher the cross-cultural meaning in a community. The use of this method however gave very little hint on the reality which left the interpretation of the symbolism complicated. An example is the Indian circular-arranged huts whose symbol might have been interpreted to mean comfort, although someone else might have taken it to mean a sense of insecurity. As such, anthropological findings required theoretical approach of account which could be philosophically, psychologically or aesthetically oriented, as Donougho (1987) observes. This leaves very little truth of the architectural work communicated other than what is seen.
Symbolism in Communication
The thing behind the hidden symbols in architecture therefore is the unknown message communicated through the language unknown to the observer. What remains for the modern architect is to find out whether the symbol in the art has any relevant linguistic value in it. That points at a fact that not every architectural work, whether historic or modern, has linguistic worth as a communicator. Whether a code in a structure hints at anything other than its civic ordinance must be sufficiently backed for authenticity.
Although architecture has all along been considered as a language of communication, it goes without question that there is need to understand the message being conveyed, the target audience and finally the source of the information before we can qualify the architectural work as communicating or not. This indeed highlights the limitations of architecture as modes of communication since they may not clearly reveal the message, the vocabulary or translation to other known languages so much unlike the analogical and homological approach. According to Donougho (1987), much is yet to be done to give architecture the linguistic value given the afore-mentioned short-comings a fact that could be behind the struggle between symbolism and realism.
Current aspects of Architecture
The Hybrid Aspect
The modern or current architecture has all its roots in the classical architecture. It has been transferred as well as borrowed from different places to suit the specific needs and demands of different societies. As intermingling occurs in the world through globalization are the changes in architecture.
Taking the example of Australia, the society was indigenously nomadic with structures of temporal nature until the 19th century when the British and western invasion introduced the western culture and architecture. This currently is witnessed in the structural designs as well as their way of life and language which are mainly British. The current architecture and symbolism is therefore what can be termed as hybrid since it is a mixture of traditional works of different socio-cultural backgrounds and ideologies.
The Realism Aspect
The other distinguishing feature about the current architecture is the element of realism. Realism stemmed up in the 19th century during the time of belief in all knowledge derived from scientific methods of solving human issues. This brought the rejection of the subjective and imaginative architecture in favor of the objective realism which brought the objective rather than the imaginative description of the known and observable world through painting. Realism is therefore seen as a divergence from theorized autonomy which understands architecture and demonstrates its clear distance from a degraded and redundant life, as suggested by Hays (2000), which was evident in the use of bright colors over a white background to reveal depth and brilliance paintings.
According to Hays (2000), realism reveals architecture as a natural and direct reflection of its socio-economic foundation. This makes architecture easier to analyze due to its objectivity as compared to the subjectivity of the historical architecture. The ability of an architectural work to communicate can therefore be easily seen in realism rather than in utopian architecture.
The Scholastic Aspect
The connection between symbolism and realism as architectural tools is scholasticism which is an attempt by the medieval architects to bring together ancient classical architectural philosophy with realism of the medieval time.
According to Fahlbusch and Bromiley (2001), scholasticism was resisted by the reformists who wanted to do away with the ancient traditional practice which according to them, did not match the change in air at the time. It goes without question that bridging the medieval and ancient architecture faced challenge of resistance to change from both ends. The conservatives of the ancient not wishing to forfeit the joy derived from the ancient imaginative architecture while the reformist architects pushing for realism and the objective architecture. This was the first scholasticism.
The second one was witnessed in the 16th century as a result of Protestantism which at the time insisted on the return to the original bible language.
Scholasticism has witnessed several stages through the years to the recent neo scholasticism which brings in relativity of architectural transformation and seeks to restore the medieval architecture. It brings together the subjective and the objective architecture. This marriage seems to get favor due the need of compromise as well as the desire to preserve the ancient architectural facts although with difficulty.
Scholasticism: Realism to Symbolism
As aforementioned, scholasticism tends to take architecture back to the medieval and ancient-time architecture which was subjective and imaginative in nature as opposed to the objective and analytical current architecture.
The scholasticism presents a struggle pushing the present day realism back to symbolism. This historically stretches across many cultures and social groups ranging from the secular to the religious world. In his work, Cabe’zon (1998) seeks to highlight some important characteristics of scholasticism that brings out its analytical form. He refers mainly on the cross-cultural tradition of the Catholic Church. Some of the characteristics include: an Immovable sense of tradition, specification of the sacred language, proliferative tendency, completeness and compactness, epistemological access to the world, systematic approach, rationalism and self-reflexivity. A good example is the cavernous and cinderblock construction of the Most Precious Blood Church which was built in 1954.
There has been obstacles both ideological and social cultural which are represented by ideological rationalism and a globalized economy. However, there has been withering of Catholicism due to continuous erosion from the impending forces of secularism, consumer culture and the bad picture of the due to priest sex abuse scandals.
Although the above mentioned concepts of refer to the Catholic Church, it is true that they cut across many cross cultural architecture in the world. They can form a basis for studying other cultural aspects because concepts can not be separated from one another and neither can they be treated independently (Ignacio, 1998).
Arguments may arise in the authenticating architectural work as to whether or not to accept it. The heart of the matter is that as much as the current trends of the world are, the needs for an objective scientific work should be favored as it has a rationalistic approach but the strong force of the symbolic architecture can not be ignored. Symbolism serves as a pointer in the present world to the ancient world and serves as a storehouse accommodating the present and the past in a tolerated yet firm way. It gives the foundation for the study of cross-cultural architecture and helps in bringing out the linguistic aspect of architecture.
Referring to the Australian example, we see a general trend that has seen the transitional move from a nomadic and rather temporal kind of life to a more settled and permanent life style through cross-cultural interaction. looking at structural designs the society has seen the development from the temporary wind breaker shelters(the wiltjas) made of paper bark to better round shaped and grass thatched houses as the family sizes increased. The construction material in this case varied from the whale bones to animal limb bones for framework depending on the availability of the material as some could use mud and grass for water proofing their dome-shaped houses.
The advances have seen to the development of structural design from the spinifex shelters made of spinifex and hummock grass and originally common in the western desert to the development of the stone houses by the indigenous stone engineers by use of stones in building weirs, fish traps, canals, ovens as well as ceremonial stone layouts. This led to the camp architectural designs as the need to stay in larger groups came. The camp towns were made using barks, bags, tin metal, wood and corrugated iron sheets. the developments gave a hint to the indigenous architects of the 20th century who incorporated traditional cultural symbols and styles with the modern residential architecture. They seek to bring together identity and architecture through the aboriginal ancestors.
This view can be enhanced as we consider the Brambuk cultural center in Australia which through its architectural design gives a focus into many years of tradition and culture. The structural design reveals the culture of the indigenous surrounding people through the undulating roof style with the cockatoo symbol typical of the Koori communities which have the characteristic totemic symbol. The architecture also unites the ancient tradition with the modern through its modern timberwork in its finishes. The architectural work gives a smooth relational effect with its surrounding natural setting.
Eleanor Rosch, a renowned meditation mistress argued that members from different cultures have tended to group similar objects in similar manner suggesting the mental representations of the basic objects. On this argument it can be deduced that architecture offers a good platform for understanding the cross-cultural differences and uniqueness while still bringing out the unifying elements of human sociology through symbolism.
The joy of architecture is its acceptability and conformity with the prevailing trend while preserving tradition.
It must also be noted that the historical distance between the ancient architecture, medieval times, the scholastic time and the scientific age play a very important role in the determination of the acceptability of an architectural work. This goes beyond individual appeal to the work to the relevance as well as the significance of the information being relayed to the audience.
Historical effect of medieval architecture
It might not be proper to end my argument without reference to the historic changes that faced the religious circles of the historic time. According to (Duby, 1981), the changes that were occurring during this time came in as a culture shock from mainly the west particularly from the French exploits and revolutions. The serenity and orderliness of the time was threatened by the coming of the preachers of the ‘truth’. The threat was equally leveled on the Christianity order of the time which had upheld poverty as the key to salvation. The anxiety left many with unending question of who to be in charge of the sovereign authority to rule the world: whether the church or the reigning king. The opposition created an easy avenue for the ‘false prophets’ to spread their agenda which out rightly opposed the sitting authorities of the king and the church.
It is important to note cultural changes came in suddenly and within a very short historical time such that there lacked a smooth transition as it is characteristic of many pre historic and historic events. This could be the reason of continued resistance to adopt either of the architectural strains namely: the symbolism and realism. This gives an easy avenue for the flourishing of the scholastic architecture as the other two oppose each other.
Conclusion
Amidst all the confusion and anxiety, the south European’s Romanesque art found a comfortable place and became , by the end of the twelfth century, the most convincing visual propaganda using the Gothic art cathedrals (Duby, 1981) as their powerful tool resulting in the Catholic church.
What is termed as the world of architecture can be seen through this view, as a peaceful world that was disturbed by a rude wave of change that left it in chaos that up to now has not fully settled even with the efforts of the subtly compromising scholasticism. The verdict that can be passed, subject to criticism, is that anyone whose wish is to understand architecture and the sociological structures and relationships as well as the trends of thought should first take time to explore carefully the complexity of culture in an elaborate manner. Of particular interest is to understand the place of scholastic architecture in our present society a fact that can no longer be brushed away as it abridges the symbolic and the realistic architecture.
References
Cabe’zon, J. I. (1998). Scholasticism: cross-cultural and comparative perspectives. State University of New York. New York.
Clark, K. (1960). The Nude. Penguin. Middlesex.. Pennsylvania.
Duby, G. (1981). The age of the cathedrals: art and society 980-1420. Taylor & Francis. Chicago.
Fahlbusch, E. and Bromiley, G. W.(2001). The encyclopedia Christianity. Eerdmans.
Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of World-making. Hackett Indian- Apolis.
Hays, M. (2000). Architecture Theory Since 1968. MIT Press. Columbia.
Valery, P. (1957). Eupalinos or the Architect in Dialogues: Collected Works of Paul Valery. Vol 4. Princeton University Press. Princeton New Jersey.