Manifesto

What Happened to Architecture?

Society 1

Introduction Architecture is much more than physical structures, though the exact as to what

architecture is, is rather more difficult to define. Through the following writing I aim to

search in to the question of architecture

To try and discover what the essence of architecture is. To assist me on this journey

I shall draw from the work of the others who have written on the subject such as Le

Corbusier and Paul Shepheard; and their focuses such as the fire, the kilt and human

gathering.

Society The Oxford English Dictionary states that society is: ‘the sum of human conditions

and activity regarded as a whole functioning interdependently’1. The earliest form of

society found of us (homo sapiens) is primal hunting, a group with a common cause-

the necessity to eat!

The beginning: 35,000 years ago the southern regions of France and Spain were

inhabited by one of our earliest direct descendants- Cro-Magnon man.

Cro-Magnon man lived in small societies consisting of a few families, the exact size

depending on the numbers of men needed to hunt in the area. Neighbours would join

together to help hunt for larger animals such as reindeer, which it would not be

possible to hunt as an individual.2

The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (date) believed strongly in the

sentiment of the Palaeolithic man, referring to him as the ‘noble savage’3.

Rousseau’s basic beliefs were that the primitive man was the natural state of the

human condition, saying that civilization of society causes man to ‘curb and frustrate

his natural instinct, repress his true feelings.’4 He hypothesised that man is born pure

and corrupted by civilized society, once man has entered civilization it is not possible

to return to the innocence and naivety of the primitive man.5 It can be surmised

therefore that in the eyes of Rousseau there is a greater sense of architecture within

1 Oxford English Dictionary, p1006 2 The 1995 Grolier Multimedia encyclopaedia 3 Bryan Magee, 'the story of Philosophy’ pp126-129 4 ibid 5 ibid


Society 2

the life of a primal hunter, than there is within the architecture of a modern

civilization.

Le Corbusier on the other hand believed that man had essentially not changed from

Palaeolithic man: ‘There is no such thing as primitive man; there are primitive

resources. The idea is constant, in full sway from the beginning.’6

This antithesis’s the idea of Rousseau’s ‘noble savage’ the architecture of then and

now are the same, it’s just the style which has changed.7

I can relate to this deepened human instinct to gather and form ‘a society’ from an

experience I had while visiting Pompeii. When there like most you walk around the

ancient ruins meeting small numbers of other tourists as you all negotiate your

various paths through the city. However as I walked down one street in particular –

Via del Versuvio as I recall- on my particular vector towards the Teatro Grande I

noticed at the bottom of the hill a large gathering of people, initially –as most

probably would- I assumed it to be one of the many large guided tours of the ruins.

Nonetheless as I drew closer to the crowd I realized that it was not a tour but a

collection of people who had all decided to stop and rest, all at the same point within

this vast city, but why? As I entered the crowed the reason why was presented to me

in the form of a humble tap of running water sat within the centre of the crossroads.

This singular object was the draw that had brought together a group of people of

different ages and nationalities together with its common cause – the need to drink,

the tap caused them to have a sense of place.

Had in this 2000-year-old classical city I found the most prominent piece of

architecture- the tap?

“The centre of the village has a well and through its reflection wishes could be

realised.”8

The well becomes a place of gathering, a place for conversation and the exchanging

of news the fetching of water being the excuse which allows this conversation to

happen.9

6 Le Corb, Towards a new architecture p70 7 Le Corbusier, op. cit. p71 8 Per Olaf Fjeld, Sverre Fehn on the thought of construction p50 9 Per Olaf Fild, op. cit. p50


The Fire 3

The Fire To associate the fire with being architecture is an obvious one, but I feel an important

one none-the-less. For thousands of years the fire has played a vital role in mans

existence; providing heat, light, cooking and safety from attack. To Cro-Magnon man

mentioned above the fire was the centre of the tribe; the society would form around

the fire.10

Since this era fire and water have been key to our existence, as put by Per Olaf Fjeld

when referring to Sverre Fehn: “Fire and water have always been the focus for the

places where people gather. These elements are opposed in character and are by

there nature social.”11 The fire gives points of light after darkness and its very

presence creates the ‘room’ of which we inhabit within nature.12

Even now the fire has an overwhelming power over people- though I fear that this is

more through nostalgia than through an appreciation for the spiritual essence of the

fire. Frank Lloyd Wright believed strongly in the importance of the fire, especially

within the home. He would design his buildings to focus on the fire; ‘the fire is the

heart of the home’;13 though in many modern homes the fire is no longer the focus,

the focus has been moved – usually to the Television, and I don’t feel that the

television is architecture in the same way the fire is.

When planning the Unite D’habitation, in Marseille, Le Corbusier tried to address that

even then, the focus of the home was changing. He believed that the hearth was the

centre of the home, both of the home as physicality and the home in the sense of a

family unit.14

“Fire, hearth, living-room, kitchen – they all cluster around the same idea. The

family group is clustered round it too.”15

10 Cro-Magnon ref 11 Per Olaf Fjld, op. cit. p24 12 ibid. 13 Find quote 14 Le Corb, Marseille Block p19 15 ibid


The Fire 4

African aboriginals still hold the fire as being very important, even though

temperatures in the bush can easily exceed 40 C, when out working or tracking they

will still light a fire where they stop- in spite of temperature- this is as it gives them a

sense of place and belonging, as well as the securities that having a fire brings – this

is true architecture, and to be able to speak to the bushmen to find out more about

the importance of the fire would be a great thing.16

To help understand the complexity of establishing what architecture is we can look to

the humble chair. The chair in its self is a clear and identifiable object – you see a

chair and know it’s a chair. However the chair is not prescriptive, there is not a set of

criteria which if met will instantly identify a chair; - it has four legs, so does an

elephant and a chair can have 3 legs and still be a chair; it has a back, so does a

bench; you sit on it, the list of comparisons for this one is endless! There is only one

notion as to what makes a chair a chair, and that is that a chair has chairness. There

is an underlying instinct that no matter how abstracted the chair is it will be

identifiable as a chair, there are no criteria- just an instinct.17

This is very much the same with architecture, there isn’t a set of prescriptive criteria

which if met make an architecture, just an under lying sense of ‘what I am

experiencing now is architecture’.

What is architecture? I like the image Paul Shepheard Evokes in his essay ‘Three exhibitions in the search

of architecture’ he talks of Coleridge and Schiller standing in a Teutonic forest trying

to establish where the gothic came from.18 Here it is not the quest for the gothic I’m

interested in but his description of the forest- he describes it as a cathedral. This

image I think is apt in two ways. The physical attributes of the forest can be likened

to a cathedral; the long tall trunks ordered along a path form the columns siding the

nave. The branches of the canopy fan out across the path to form the vaulted ceiling

to the nave.

16 Ray Mears Bush craft 17 John Fredricks Learning and Changing 18 Paul Shepheard, ‘What is Architecture?’ p12


What is Architecture? 5

The way man interacts with the forest also forms an architecture, how he uses it to

his advantage- to inhabit it.

“Within himself everyman is an architect. His first step towards architecture is

his walk through nature. He cuts his path, like a writing on the surface of the

earth. The crushing of grass and brushwood that gives way for his strength is

an interference with nature, a simple definition of man’s culture.”19

The way a space in the forest is cleared for inhabitation creates a ‘room’, a clearly

identifiable extent which may later be reinforced by the placement of objects such as

the fire. The clearing created and the beaten paths there to leave a sign for others to

follow, once many use the same paths and clearings they share an interest and form

either actively on inertly a society.20

The other way the forest can be likened to the cathedral is in a more spiritual sense,

reminding us of our primitive origins, the ghost of our former home; the forest holds

within us a genius loci. I think forests are architecture.

“…just let me mention the kilt. The original garment is a twelve-foot by 6 foot

plaid that can be warn around the waist and thrown over the shoulder, secured

by belt and broach, during the day. At night the clansman lays the rectangle

out on the ground, lies down on it naked, and wraps it round himself to sleep

in.”21

In this passage Paul Shepheard uses the kilt to clearly identify an architecture,

moved on from the fire and social gathering the kilt holds with in it a similar

architecture; but what is the modern kilt? What architecture do we have now which is

as practical and vital to life as the clansman’s kilt?

19 Per Olf Fjeld, op. cit. p24 20 ibid 21 Paul Shepheard Op. Cit. p106



In attempting to establish this it can be hypothesised that the mobile phone is the

modern kilt, though heavily abstracted. The mobile phone can- on a psychological

level at least- provide many of the functions and securities to modern man that the

kilt offered the clansman.

The mobile clearly has many practicalities, communication, business and

organisation- which can be likened to the practicalities of the kilt (clothing, warmth,

etc.) however the mobile phone also has similarities to the kilt in the way it is

interacted with by the human user. The mobile phone offers people a sense of safety

and security, simply by being there in a similar way to wrapping oneself in a kilt

would. Many people use their mobiles as “symbolic bodyguards”22 producing them in

public places such as cafés and stations so as to come across to others as occupied

and thus appear less vulnerable.

The mobile phone goes back furthermore to the even more basic primate instincts of

‘grooming talk’. With the changes in the society of the post industrialised age people

no longer have ‘village green’ or ‘round the well’ conversations- conversations with

out purpose but usually result from people being in the same place at the same time

performing other tasks. The mobile phone can replicate these lost brief encounters,

the conversations with out a role.23

Man has also adapted the mobile to overcome his shortcomings, such as timidity for

example. Text messages allow people to communicate with others or in a forum

which they otherwise would not be confident or comfortable. An obvious situation

where this is commonly the case is in flirting or courtship- an act which in the long

run is vital to our existence- however in the world of the mobile phone people can

comfortably communicate with someone they would not in a face-to-face

environment. This phenomenon is resulting in the beginnings of many relationships

being based on text.24

This highlights the way in which man manipulates the mobile phone can be likened to

the kilt, both objects by themselves are somewhat mundane but it’s the creativity of

man which turns them into a useful and practical thing.

22 Kate Fox, ‘Watching the English: The hidden rules of English behaviour’ pp86-87 23 ibid 24 ibid



It would be wrong of me to write about what architecture is without in some way at

least trying to relate it in some way to our built environment. What is it that makes the

built environment architecture as opposed to a collection of built structures?

In order to assess this we have to assume a certain quality, a quality that

distinguishes between architecture in its lay sense- buildings are architecture- and

architecture in its true sense. What is this quality that causes the distinction? I think

we need to look back to our chair and its sense of chairness- architecture is the

same true architecture exudes a sense of architecture, a deep-set feeling and

emotion. This idea is similar to the way architectural quality is described by Peter

Zumthor in his book Atmosphere; his description of the ‘sense’ of architecture.

“what do we mean when we speak of architectural quality? It is a question I

have little difficulty answering. Quality in architecture does not – not to me

anyway – mean inclusion in architectural guides or histories of architecture or

getting my work into this or that publication. Quality architecture to me is when a

building manages to move me”25

Architecture is not a prescriptive or descriptive entity, it cannot be quantified or

measured, it is a feeling an emotion of experience. Something which when

experienced can be identified, but is not always present. Architecture is not limited to

built structures or even physical objects – an idea can be architecture as long as it

possesses the aura of architecture.

What happened to architecture? Is there any longer ‘architecture’ in our architecture? Especially with the dwelling man

has lost his link with nature and his surroundings. The dwelling is no longer an

extension of the body but more commonly ‘boxes’ into which he is inserted, detract

from his specific needs and requirements.

25 Peter Zumthor Atmospheres p11


What Happened to Architecture? 8

There are examples where this is less the case, such as Falling Water (Kaufman

House) by Frank Lloyd Wright, the house is sited on the rock where the Kaufman

family used to picnic- they found the place, embraced the nature then built their

dwelling around this.26

“As culture evolved, man divided time from nature. With leisure, nature became

subject to choice and judgement. The house became disassociated from the

earth’s activities, for the restlessness of man made the house geographically

independent. The house became a foreign element set on the land without

practical purpose. Its life no longer tied to survival and support for the

community;…”27

Nature for man is now optional, something enjoyed for the purposes of leisure, or the

aesthetic of a visual beauty through a window, hanging on the wall like a landscape

watercolour. Heat, light and water are ‘piped’ to where they are needed; the hearth

and the well are now objects of aesthetic ornament. The seasons, day and night

have all been tamed by man, no longer having power over him or the ability to

influence how he lives life.28

So what of ‘architecture’ now? Can we continue we continue with our present

approach of environmental disassociation, detaching man from his link to his

surroundings; has the definition of ‘architecture’ shifted, is architecture now

something else?

26 Frank Lloyd Wright 27 Per Olaf Fjeld, Op. Cit. p24 28 ibid


What Happened to Architecture? 9

Bibliograph

Fjeld. P. O, ‘Sverre Fehn on the thought of construction’ (New York; Rizzoli Publications,

1983)

Fowler. H.W, ed Sykes J “Oxford English Dictionary” [7th edition] (Oxford; Oxford University

Press, 1984 [1911])

Fox. K, ‘Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour’ (London: odder and

Stoughton, 2005)

Heinz, T.A., ‘The Vision of Frank Lloyd Wright’ (New Jersey: Chartwell Books inc. 2007)

Le Corbusier, ‘The Marseilles block / translated by Geoffrey Sainsbury’ (London: Harvill

Press, 1953.)

Le Corbusier, ‘Towards a New Architecture’, (New York; Dover Publications, 1986)

Magee. B, ‘The Story of Philosophy’ (London; Dorling Kindersley, 2001)

Shepheard, P. `What is Architecture?’ [4th edition] , (Massachusetts; MIT Press, 1999 [1st

edition 1994])

The 1995 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopaedia. (Online computer systems inc; 1993)

Zumthor. P, “Atmospheres’ (Basel; Birkhaüser, 2006)

Documents

Manifesto