Theories of Architecture IVth Year,

Theory of Architecture II, Department of Architecture,

School of Civil Engineering and Architecture,Adama Science and Technology University,

Mr. Sumantra Misra (M.Arch) PhD Research Scholar, Asst. Professor, Department of Architecture, School of Civil Engineering and Architeture, Adama Science and Technology University

For the past thirty five years ‘history of architecture’ has meant history of style, patronage and theory. We now have a pretty fair command of these subjects. There is a tendency now to look more deeply into the social, economic and industrial hinterland. – John Summerson, The UK Construction History Society innaugural Journal(1985)

IntroductionThe quest for understanding why the

architecture of any place or period developed as it did has led to many theories.

These have helped historians to understand the production and use of the built environment and helped to define organising principles for selecting and differentiating between the wealth of information.

But they have been challenged.

They can say as much about the historian, as identifying reasons for the emergence of particular built forms.

The theories generally fall into four main groups:

1. Rational, technological and constructional;2. Material, economic and social; 3. Religious, cultural and philosophical; 4. The spirit of the age (Zeitgeist).

Technical and materialist theoriesTends to seek answers either in

terms of new technological Or

Constructional developments, or as the result of applying logic to technological or practical problems.

The technical and rational explanation of architecture was an approach largely developed by French architects and theorists such as Laugier*, J.-N.-L. Durand* and Viollet-le-Duc*. Known as rationalists they also argued that merit in the architecture of their own day should come from giving priority to the logic of the essential structure or supporting elements of a building.

The second theory argues that architecture reflects the material, economic and social conditions of the time. It therefore seeks to set architecture in this context. Buildings are related to the social and economic system that has encouraged certain social relationships, methods of exchange and manufacture.

These give rise to particular patterns of patronage and consumption, techniques of construction, building types and planning. This focus on the material conditions, however, denies the role of the patron and architect and fails to account for the diversity of expression at any one time.

Religious and cultural theoriesThe theory that architecture expresses

the religious, cultural and philosophical ideas of the period implies that if we know enough, it should be possible to forecast what the architecture will be.

This implies a simple and direct relationship between architecture and these ideas, rather than acknowledging that all societies and their cultural manifestations are complex organisms.

For A. W. N. Pugin, all buildings reflected the society in which they were built, but the greatest influences on the various styles of architecture were religious ideas and ceremonies: every ornament, every detail had a mystical import.

The pyramid and obelisk of Egyptian Architecture, its Lotus capitals, its gigantic sphinxes and multiplied hieroglyphics, were not mere fanciful Architectural combinations and ornaments, but emblems of the philosophy and mythology of that nation.

A devout Catholic architect and theorist, Pugin had an idealised view of medieval history and architecture. He argued in True Principles of Pointed or Christian Architecture (1841) that:◦Constructional truth meant that the construction

of a building was evident and not concealed; ornament was used, but it did not obscure the construction and it was appropriate in form and meaning.

◦Truth to materials meant that all materials were chosen for their particular qualities and not painted to look like other materials.

Religious and cultural theories – Structuralism Structuralism is a more recent theory that

focuses on religious, cultural and philosophical ideas and derives from structural anthropology that Claude Lévi-Strauss pioneered in the 1950s and 1960s.

He was influenced by the theories of Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist, who argued that spoken language was a code that determines what messages are available and that it was a self-sufficient system with sets of rules independent of ‘reality’.

Structuralists have studied buildings not as isolated cultural artefacts but as part of a total system of ‘constructed’ knowledge involving the whole culture, its myths and rituals.

They have examined individual cultures synchronically, or at one point in time, as a single system of meanings like a language.

The culture was ‘read’ like a text revealing that buildings were inextricably interwoven with the people’s ideas, social structures and ways of life.

This approach has been particularly effective in studying vernacular architecture.

Climate, ecology, available materials, technical knowledge and the character of the local economy provided a framework of possibilities and constraints for what was constructed and a way of understanding vernacular dwellings and community buildings.

However, it was clear that the diversity of solutions, whether of specific layouts or forms, indicated there was also an important social and cultural input.

The theories of structuralists have added immeasurably to our understanding of buildings.

Architectural historians might also wish to investigate the tension between the forms as carriers of symbolic meaning and as a product of physical and technical constraints.

They would also want to undertake research into the historical sources of the design.

Zeitgeist (Spirit of the age)This theory came from the

German philosopher Hegel and provided a conceptual framework for understanding the historical development of art and architecture for the major part of the twentieth century.

Central to the concept of the Zeitgeist is the idea of history as a progressive process.

The process of history which gave rise to each period was an evolving ‘spirit’, which pervaded and gave unity to every area of human endeavour – religion, law, customs, morality, technology, science, art and architecture.

Every historian identifies and classifies material, and in the process common ideas and themes become apparent.

Those who accepted the concept of the Zeitgeist argued that styles such as neo-classicism in the mid-eighteenth century, modernism in the 1920s or deconstruction today showed themselves across the arts.

Because these styles were evident in architecture, painting, furniture, ceramics, dress and literature they were manifestations of the Zeitgeist and the similarities in the work of architects, painters, designers and writers were the result of living in the same period.

Another interpretation of this theory argues that although many styles may coexist at any one time, only one major style truly reflects the Zeitgeist.

The danger of this explanation is that it encourages the search for consistency in order to build a coherent picture. Anything that does not fit into this picture is ignored or undervalued, as it does not show the all-pervading Zeitgeist spirit.

ConclusionToday the most familiar theories and

approaches are being questioned. Architectural histories reflect the impact

of feminist, Marxist, structuralist, environmental, semiological and socio-political ideas.

The subject is responding to the linguistic theories of Derrida and others, just as much as it is to the social psychoanalysis of post-Freudian critics.