Masters of the Structural Aesthetic PDF
Preview Masters of the Structural Aesthetic
Derek Thomas Masters of the Structural Aesthetic Masters of the Structural Aesthetic Derek Thomas Masters of the Structural Aesthetic DerekThomas CapeTown,WesternCape SouthAfrica ISBN978-981-10-5444-0 ISBN978-981-10-5445-7 (eBook) DOI10.1007/978-981-10-5445-7 LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2017946476 ©SpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd.2018 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthis book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained hereinor for anyerrors oromissionsthat may havebeenmade. Thepublisher remainsneutralwith regardtojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations. Printedonacid-freepaper ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore Preface Attheendofmyfinalyearinarchitecture,Ihadthegoodfortunetobeawardeda travel scholarship to any place of my choice. The focus of the study had to contribute to the understanding of architecture as being the art of philosophical embodiment and of intuitive thought. Efficient buildings are often without archi- tectural value, just as an initially pleasing building can be inefficient and quite possibly impractical. On my study tour to Italy, I immersed myself in finding out more about Pier Luigi Nervi who had managed through his intuitive skills and architectural sensibility to mix just the right proportion of both, but more signifi- cantly,towhatextenthewasoperatinginsyncwithNature. WhileexploringtheworkofProfessorNerviinmoredepth,Iresearchedhisnew structural techniques and its potentialities. I realised at the time that Nervi was becoming an icon of the twentieth century for his achievements in both structural andconstructionalengineering,aswellasinarchitecture.Thisviewwasreinforced byErnestoRogers(1957)aboutNerviasexpressedinAPortraitofPierLuigiNervi (quotingLeonBattistaAlberti):‘HimIcallArchitect,who,byasureandwonderful Art and Method, is able, both in thought and invention, to devise, and with execution, to complete all those Works, which, by means of Movement and great Weights,andamassmentofBodies,can,withthegreatestBeauty,beadaptedtothe usesofMankind.’OfallthecommentatorsonNervi’sapproachtodesign,starting with ‘a basis of scientific certainty, but transcending through intuition’ and his ‘disciplinedandprecisemind’,Rogers’clarityofobservationstandsout. As though to confirm how elusive, even subjective, a unified evaluation of the structuralaestheticcanbe,evenamongstthoserecognisedasauthorities,therehave beendiscordantviews.InOveArup:MasterBuilderoftheTwentiethCentury,Arup stated that Pier Luigi Nervi had said that ‘the outward appearance of a building cannot and must not be anything but a visual expression of an efficient structural andconstructionalreality’(Jones2006).Arup,however,initiallydisagreedthatthis maxim could be the ‘main criterion of architectural merit’. It did not fit many v vi Preface obvious famous works (he stated) such as Le Corbusier’s Ronchamp Chapel or severalbuildingsbyMiesvanderRoheorOscarNiemeyer,anditoverlookedhis long-heldbeliefthatsizeandscalearealwaysrelevanttocriteriaofmerit.‘Nervi’s own obvious interest in form is notalways the visual expression of structural and constructional reality’, Arup observed in 1955, and he went further: ‘ Formal and spatial relationships on the one hand and structural rightness on the other can conflict: the idea that correct structural and the best possible aesthetic solutions areoneandthesamethingmust,I’mafraid,beabandonedtogetherwiththeolder philosopher’s dream about the harmony and ultimate identity of truth, goodness, justiceandbeauty’. Due to the rising ‘flamboyant rhetoric and incontinent generalisations [that] easily attracted indefensible attention... [Arup] who had denounced the idea that correct structural and the best possible aesthetic solutions are one and the same thingwasforcedtoreiterateoneyearlater:‘IamnotreallyattackingNervi—heis onthesideofangelsinthismatter—Iamdefendinghimagainstthosewhousehis words to defeat his spirit’. He added that building ‘is an art within a limited framework within which certain rules must be obeyed. Nervi’s kind of logical build up in a scheme is to my mind the essence of good engineering and good architecture alike. Architects forget about the more sordid aspects of life because they—quite legitimately—get involved in the aesthetic aspects of their work’ (Jones 2006). This turnaround can be construed as an endorsement that indeed structure and the aesthetic are indispensable allies in the design of the best in architecture, as evident in the works of the ten master architects presented in this narrative. This alternative evaluation of Nervi’s work applies equally to the role of architects and the products of their thought and invention down the Ages and is the starting point for this narrative which explores ten masters of the structural aestheticandtheirarchitecturallegacies. The history of architecture acknowledges the legendary role of architects who have led the field and through their example have brought about significant para- digmshifts.Architecture,likeart,reflectsthechangingculturalmoodofthetimes and is marked by movements, for example, the Renaissance, or Modernism and even the avant-garde. According to Iversen (1993), Alois Riegl claims that ‘the changeintheartisticformsandaestheticsareprettymuchrelatedwiththechange ofthewaypeopleperceivetheworld.’ The role of the structural engineer is paramount in realising the designs of the architect.‘Theaestheticsofawelldesignedstructureisindeedinherentinitsvery existence and therefore, when visually expressed clearly and honestly makes its ownaestheticcontribution’(Khan1980). Morein-depthscientificknowledgeofthenatureandpropertiesofmaterialsand advancedtechnologyhavegiventothemodernworkmanimmenseadvantagesover hismedievalbrother-craftsman.‘Theeffortsofprimitivemanintheconstructionof Preface vii dwellings must have been at first determined solely by his physical wants. Only afterthesehadbeenprovidedfor,andmaterialsamassedonwhichhisimagination might exercise itself, would he begin to plan and erect structures, possessing not only utility, but also grandeur and beauty’ (Statham 1911). Computer-aided tech- nologyhasbroughtaboutsignificantchangesinthedetailsofthetrade,ortheartof building,althoughstonesandbricksusedhistoricallyandconcrete,andsteelnow, stillformthemoresolidpartsofalledifices. Theessentialfocusofthisbookisthestructuralaestheticsoftenseminalworks of architecture and those architects and engineers responsible for them. This requires a holistic rather than a simplistic evaluation from a wider perspective that should take into account innovative digital design aids, structural innovation andadvancedconstructiontechnologies. A question arises as to whether structural honesty and integrity impose oppor- tunityorconstraintonthebuilderssincethroughtheirlimitations,materialsassuch have encouraged design ingenuity related to their particular properties and struc- turalpotentialities.Historyshowsthattherearenumerousiconicbuildingformsin basic materials, such as mud or clay, before concrete and steel freed the imagina- tions of the architect and structural engineer to design buildings that demonstrate theintrinsicpotentialofeithermaterialwithhonestyandintegrity. Thestudyofgeometryrelatedtoshapeandform,spaceandmotionfromavisual standpoint,hasbeenthesubjectofmuchinterdisciplinaryresearchintothefunda- mentalproblemsofneuroscience(Sangarietal.2011).Sotoohavetheideasfrom thebiologicalsciencesaffectedarchitecturalthoughtandpracticewhereNatureis presented as the main source, currently known as biomimicry. In the sphere of genetic preference, there is strong evidence that evolution is not restricted to biologyasweassociateitwithCharlesDarwin,butcanbeobservedinhumankind’s cultural selection. According to observers such as Richard Dawkins, a reality in cultural proclivity exists that relates to ideas and theories, elements that he calls ‘memes’. This hypothesis cannot be summarily brushed aside in determining differingselectivenessbetweenculturesintheArtsandhasabearingoncognition andthusonwhatconstitutesdistinctpreferencesindesign(Distin2005).Exploring thepsychologicalargumentfurther,arthistorianGombrichargues‘theremaybea transcendent aspect of art, a realm of values that great works of art incorporate, ultimatelyone’sresponsetothesevaluesisbasedonconditionedtaste...andnoton the application of methods or rules.’ He concludes that ‘aesthetics, as rules or methods for discussion of aesthetic quality, cannot capture the values of art.’ (Richmond1994). Ontheroleofcladdingofbuildings,‘Sometheoristsdenouncedecorationofthe underlyingstructureasarchitecturallyimproper,asevidencedinbuildingsthatrely ontheexternaltreatmentappliedtothesurface,wheninfactarchitecturalpurityis of a much higher order’ (Sparshott 1994). Others observe that the experiential aspect of appreciating architecture is as important as the architecture itself, viii Preface questioning why certain architectural experiences stay with us whereas others vanish(Danielsson2011). Representedinthisbookontheaestheticofthestructureinarchitecture,across sectionofleadersinthefieldofthestructuralaestheticfromancienttimestopresent dayareidentifiedashavingmettheessentialdeterminantsandphilosophicobser- vations provided by recognised commentators. The selected protagonists are: The Roman master builders (2BCE–4CE), the Gothic architects (1300–1500), Filippo Brunelleschi(1377–1446),AntoniGaudi(1852–1926),LeCorbusier(1887–1965), Pier Luigi Nervi (1891–1979), Oscar Niemeyer (1907–2012), J€orn Utzon (1918–2008),FreiOtto(1925–2015)andZahaHadid(1950–2016). Structural architecture leads to that synthesis of static-aesthetic sensitivity, technicalknowledgeandmasteryofexecutionwhichproducedmasterpieces ofthepast. PierLuigiNervi,1958 Keywords Structural aesthetic; Biomimicry; Fractal design; Thematic transformation; Parametric design; Sense of place; Cultural proclivity; Cognitive associations; Symbolicdesign;Visualharmony Preface ix Fig.1 Elementaldeterminants x Preface References Danielsson,C.B.(2011).Experiencingarchitecture–Exploringthesouloftheeye (pp.95–101).Stockholm:TheRoyalInstituteofTechnology(KTH). Distin, K. (2005). The selfish meme: A critical assessment (pp. 2–5). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Iversen, M. (1993). Alois Riegl: Art history and theory (p. 13). Cambridge: The MITPress. Jones,P.(2006).OveArup:Masterbuilderofthe20thcentury(pp.195–196).New Haven,CT:YaleUniversityPress. Khan, F. R. (1980). Structuralaesthetics inarchitecture and itssocial andtechno- logicalrelevance.InArticleinZeitschrift:IABSEcongressreportAIPC=IVBH, Kongressbericht,Nov.(p.136). Richmond, S. (1994). Gombrich’s critique of aesthetics. In Aesthetic criteria and thephilosophiesofscienceofPopper&Polyani(11thed.).Amsterdam:Rodopi B.V. Rogers,E.N.(1957).TheworksofPierLuigiNervi(vi,ix,x,xi)(PrefacebyPier Luigi). Sangari, A., Mirkia, H., & Assadi, A. H. (2011). Perception of motion and archi- tectural form: Computational relationships between optical flow and perspec- tive.Wisconsin:UniversityofWisconsin. Sparshott, F. (1994). The aesthetics of architecture and the politics of space. In M.H.Mitias(Ed.),Philosophyofarchitecture(p.13).Amsterdam:Rodopi. Statham,H.H.(1911).Architectureanddome.InEncyclopaediaBritannica(Vols. 2&4).
The list of books you might like
