|
Theory of the design. The
architecture is the art and science to design buildings. In the last
centuries, the architects not only took care to design the buildings, but that
also designed cities, seats, tree-lined avenues and parks, and objects of use in
the constructions, like the furniture. Nowadays, the professionals and
architects who project and plan the urban space are the city planners,
constituting themselves in a specialty different from the architecture or the
civil engineering, which denominates urbanism, whereas the professionals that
furniture and other objects create, it knows itself them like Industrial
Designers. According to Vitrubio, in Century I A. d. C., says that the
architecture rests in three principles: the Beauty (Venustas), the Firmness (Firmitas)
and the Utility (Utilitas). The architecture can define to me, then, like a
balance between these three elements, without exceeding no to the others. It
would not have sense to try to understand a work of the architecture without
accepting these three aspects. Vitrubio says: "the architecture is a science
that arises from many other sciences, for that reason the history of the
architecture has enough importance, without a doubt is very important to be able
to have enough aspects and knowledge of the constructions of the different
prehistoric cultures. The theory is the result of that reasoning that
demonstrates and explains that the forged material has been turned to be like
the proposed aim. Because the architect merely practitioner is not able to
assign the sufficient reasons for the forms that he adopts; and the theory
architect also fails, taking hold the shade instead of the substance. The one
that is theoretical and also practitioner, is able to not only prove the
convenience of its design, but also to take it to the execution.
I can say that the architecture is a human product whose
mission is to order and to improve our relations with the surroundings. Also it
is necessary to investigate how the products arise from the man. the question
arises to me there: which is the intention of the architecture; and I respond
myself; "the life consists of changing activities that demand changing
surroundings, and therefore, the atmosphere will appear to us of different way
depending on our immediate condition. In order to consider this relative and
variable relation between the man and the atmosphere. The architecture has been
materialized according to different styles throughout history: gothic, baroque
and neoclassic, among others. Also it is possible to be classified according to
a more or less homogenous style, associated to a culture or determined
historical period: Greek, Roman, Egyptian architecture. The architectonic style
reflects certain values or social necessities, independently of the work that is
constructed (houses, factories, hotels, airports or churches). In any case, the
architecture does not depend only on the aesthetic taste or canons, but that
considers a series of practical questions, closely related to each other: the
election of the materials and its work putting, the structural disposition of
the loads and the fundamental rule of the use to which the building is destined.
The humanity is a peculiar species. When we spoke of its conquests, most of the
times we make it referring to bloody and destructive expeditions single-breasted
uniform jackets to us. But once in a while, the humanity also produces works of
impressive beauty, destined to last during centuries to make us remember to all,
which, when we want, we can use, our effort and talent to construct wonders.
More than no other thing, they are these works those that they unequivocally
identify to us like humans. They represent to us before we ourself... and also,
if sometimes in the future any visitor goes to our blue planet, they will be
without a doubt these wonders those that constitute our main signs of identity.
The birth of the architecture goes bound to the necessity of the primitive man,
already agriculturist, to be based. The first constructions, after first wood
attempts, hojarasca, canes and cords, had fundamentally of being circular cabins
constructed with pieces of mud cooked to the sun and vegetal covers.
A great architecture at the prehistoric time, religious or
eminently ceremonial existed, next to which they appeared great architectonic
sets dedicated to the man and his activities. One was an architecture destined
to being Vista from the outside, developing in his facades the language of the
classic orders. However, it was considered that the architecture had an inferior
rank to the one of the other arts, dice his manual character. In my case the
history of the architecture, arises suddenly, because the historical process
slow and is continued, and in him has been developed, developing and
materializing the different architectonic styles. If it is spoken of a radical
rupture makes reference to new expositions very different from the previous ones
but, they are the result of a evolution intimately related to a change of
mentality; and it will be indeed this change of mentality, this new underlying
idea, which allows to differentiate the different styles simultaneously that to
perceive the unit of each one of them. It is evident that, like it happens in
any human dimension, the development hits the tradition, and in the case of the
architecture, also does with the practical exigencies, the nature of the
materials and, mainly, the contradictions of the own system then, since no
system completely fulfills its concepts specific of interrelation of the
different parts, and since each one tends to its car exaltation, this own
exaltation ends worsening so much the contradictions that finally the system
will crumble little by little. The necessity to shape the longed for binding
forces made to a great extent forget the properties the materials that were
treating; thus, one was used the stone, rigid material, as soft and flexible
organic matter with the representation and use in the tectonic arts of the human
body and the forms animals, because the alive matter incarnates the present
vital forces in all the things. After to have made a brief description of the
history of the architecture from prehistory to blunt, my impression has been
totally satisfactory. Nevertheless, a series of aspects exists that have
troubled to me. In the first place, the exposition of the evolution of the
architecture is peculiar, since it considers like an inevitable change,
consequence of a change of mentality, instead of presenting/displaying the
evolution like a series of technical solutions to the necessities that are
considered. Also something more of specificity in the explanations of the
architectonic bodies lies down in lack, since their characteristics are dealt
with little depth, resulting excessively in the forms of life and their beliefs.
One of the reasons that it has more impelled to the architecture throughout
history has been the ostentation desire: buildings that are the pride of a town,
which they reflect status personal or collective, or palaces for kings and
emperors, constructed like symbols of its power. In general, the privileged
classes always have been patron of architects, artists or craftsmen, and their
orders have become, sometimes, in the best artistic legacy of their time. At the
present time, their work carries out the great multinationals, the governments
and the universities, that carry out their function of a less personalist form.
Through history the most stirring works of the architecture - temples, churches,
cathedrals and mosques are born of religious motivations, and serve to create a
propitious place to the dialogue with God, or to indoctrinate the faithful, or
so that these celebrate their sacred rituals.
Another one of the moving bodies has been the security
feeling: the most lasting structures were constructed like defensive elements,
the walls or the castles. One of the reasons that it has more impelled from my
point of view is: to the architecture throughout history it has been the
ostentation desire: buildings that are the pride of a town, which they reflect
status personal or collective, or palaces for kings and emperors, constructed
like symbols of its power. In general, the privileged classes always have been
patron of architects, artists or craftsmen, and their orders have become,
sometimes, in the best artistic legacy of their time. At the present time, their
work carries out the great multinationals, the governments and the universities,
that carry out their function of a less personalist form. The complexity of the
modern life has caused the proliferation of constructive typologies. In our
days, the architecture specially is dedicated to the design of collective
houses, commercial buildings of offices, centers, tourist supermarkets, schools,
universities, hospitals, airports, hotels and complexes. In any case, the
project of a building never is made of isolated form, but paying special
attention to its interactions with the surroundings. As much the architects as
their clients are conscienced of this problem and they use as urbanism to avoid
negative impacts on the old zones of the cities. The architecture also must take
care of the internal equipment of the buildings and its facilities. In the last
decades complex conditioning systems have been invented, electrical systems and
sanitary, prevention of fire, artificial illumination, elements of circulation
(like corridors, mechanical stairs or hydraulic elevators). |
