Reading Composition 3.

[1] Vertically, symbolism, culture, and era all play important roles in the building and architecture of a cathedral. Some cathedrals are completely balanced in harmony and symmetry while others are more off center and unique, but they all serve the same purpose; it is the culture that makes their architecture tell the story of their beliefs and purposes. Some of the cultural traditions of cathedrals are carried on from era to era, and then some new traditions are created. When all is said and done, they are put on display for all the community and the world to see.

My main cathedral to analyze is the Cologne cathedral of Germany. It is certainly a building of vast scale which demands immediate attention of anyone who lays their eyes on it. It is very 'upright' in in stance in comparison to it's surrounding city and also compared to the Salisbury cathedral of England. Salisbury is also shares very grand details of architecture, but in contrast to Cologne, it has lower, more relaxed structure that plays along with the green, soft, landscape. The entrances of the two are also different. Cologne has two large 'spikes' to declare it's entrance while Salisbury only has one. The exteriors of the two are very different from each other, but share the same style of Gothic architecture. I believe this is because of the space and the people surrounding the two. From the airplane views of the two, I gathered my own speculations of the cities that home them. The Cologne cathedral is in a very rural looking setting, similar to my view of Manhattan. There are rural type buildings, few trees, all gray of color, a river, large bridges, etc. As for Salisbury, it is surrounded by a grass lawn, trees, and warmer colored buildings. I believe this is the reason for the low, agriculturally involved architecture of the Salisbury in contrast to the Cologne which is in a city environment. It needs to be a strong symbol for all the hustle and bustle. Strange enough, as different as their exteriors are, the interiors are almost identical. They both share axial progression of initiation and contain clerestory windows so naturally illuminate the religious space. They have the details of vaulted ceilings and arches, both of which tie into the Gothic theme of the exterior architecture. Even thought these two cathedrals were built at different times and in different places, but still have numerous things in common. I think this happened because the architectural traditions of cathedrals are timeless and carry on from generation to generation. Therefore, the cathedrals share many of the same characteristics even when they're built years apart.

Amiens and Cologne are similar structurally and floor plan wise. One main thing they have in common are the two towers that indicate their entrances. Historians say that these towers represent certain regions. I believe this to be a valid point in different societies and would promote unity among these different regions considering they are set on the same cathedral. These two cathedrals stand in cities among other cathedrals (sister cathedrals) that also share the same characteristic making it a regional style that was adapted. The buttresses were also a common characteristic among these cathedrals. They were added for structural support making the buildings more complex, massive in scale, and also stronger structurally (I also believe to add delight). They also share the axial progression characteristic when entering. They also have vaulted ceilings which will leave the people in awe as they enter. Even though these cathedrals were built during the 'dark ages', they are so innovative and creative.

The Cologne cathedral and the Florence cathedral of Italy are probably the most diverse out of the cathedrals I have already discussed. The Cologne has numerous 'spikes' along with large towers. Florence has one small 'spike' and adds a dome into the new idea of cathedral architecture. Florence still carries Gothic characteristics along with it but adds the new inovative idea of a dome. It was truly a break through for a religious gathering space. All of these cathedral's main idea was verticality to the heavens. Adding a occulus to a dome takes that concept to a new level. It is like heaven shining down in on the people practicing worship and religion (just like the pantheon's dome). It is almost like Florence was trying to break away from the tradition and add something new to the old. Which is true, why create something that's already been copied and created before? The church still symbolizes the same thing it always had, it just uses the dome now, instead of the tower, to portray that.

[2] The whole purpose of architecture in the renaissance era was to focus on older building methods and forms to respond to societies functional needs (particularly Roman architecture that is still standing, Roth). This was because the Roman empire had just been destroyed, and Christianity was the only thing people could lean on. Life had changed drastically.

The area, of what can be seen, in this photo seems to be rather minimalist, just like historical homes, where function was the only thing that mattered and there was no such thing as delight. The woman seems to be standing in what looks like a kitchen. There is a carrot on the floor and she seems to be making something. The windows and door looks like they lead to outside. Roth says in 'Understanding Architecture' that the kitchen is typically in the back of the house which I assume is where the door in the picture leads.

In this time, the fireplace was the center of the home. Families where the center of society in this time. The 'Great Hall' is where everything happened in the household; sleeping, eating, entertaining, socializing, everything. Tapestries and screens provided warmth. The giant stone walls provided protection for the family. These structures showed zero axial progression, unlike the cathedrals previously discussed, instead, the rooms were almost put there with zero thought about any architectural elements such as balance and harmony.

Reading Comprehension 2.

[1] Hersey explains how greek art typically always contains sacred trees withgods and godesses in the branches. Also in Greece, there would be groups of trees or a tree in honor of a death and their remains would be accompanied by sacraficial matericals such as bones, horns, flowers, weapons, spears, and skulls. The temples colomns at the time were also made of wood, aka sacred tree trunks. I completely agree with these historical facts Hersey explains in this exert becuase I recall from History & Theory Design I, certain greek structures like the parthenon have symbols like flowers, swags, weapons, and skulls that were used as motifs. They are still incorporated in more recent buildings, not just in Greece, but everywhere to symbolize what the greeks intended them to symbolize.

[2] Personally, I feel motifs, frescos, and other architectural details would never be able to predict the future, but only tell stories of the past. No where on any historical architecture does it give any indication of internet as the source for our information. Yes, these historical pictures tell us details of the past which we then add to our history. These historical facts are then publicized on the internet and other such media, which then we can also discover.

[3] The pyramids of Egypt and the temple of Queen Hatshepsut are very different for the sole fact of culture and the difference between male and female. The purpose of the pyramid was to hold a powerful king, have large scale, for the top to glisten and "shine to all four corners of the earth". It is much simpler, it has no noticeable openings, and it is surrounded by flat desert. As for the temple of Queen Hatshepsut, it is built in to the side of a very large scale rock, therefore making it less noticeable and making it appear less powerful. The fact that it is not the most tallest thing around (the rock is taller) shows a more feminine characteristic, whereas the pyramid is the tallest thing around, which shows a masculine characteristic. The queen's temple has many columns and an entrance that draws the eye to it first when first looking at it. It has nothing shiny that is eye catching. The reason I feel she did this is because for one she wanted to do something different then the queen, she wanted to create her own afterlife name for herself, and two, to create something that was more feminine and let the king have his spot light.

[4]

Peristyle Temple from Greece

Temple of Horus at Edfu of Egypt

Similarities:

Columns, motifs, large scale, power, they tell stories, both are for religious purposes, same material

Contrast:

One made completely of columns while the other has actual walls with columns, larger scale drawings then the other, one entrance way vs. numerous entrances, one level of scale on one and numerous scales on the other.

Greece really focused on axial progression in their religous areas while Egypt did not.

[5] The Egyptian furniture pictured in Harwood seemingly looks light weight. I can tell the material is wood. The different variations of the legs and actual seat parts range from skinny to medium size. No pieces are bulky or thick which helps keep the pieces not so heavy. In contrast, the furniture at Geza is made of stone and is big and bulky, which obviously adds a ton a weight.

[6] The urns show the contrast of male and female which brings me back to the Queen's Temple vs. The Pharaoh pyramids. The pyramid is big because it was built for a mad and the temple was small because it was built for a woman. This picture is kind of the same way, the man is being served by the women showing more power to the male. Grecian culture did not fully value women, sole strength of their nation depended on the male. Women were used for child baring and serving pharaoh's and other important males.

Point : Theories

Many different themes and design concepts were discussed during this unit. I feel like this class has completely thrown me out of my comfort zone, but that's design; it is always changing and revolving making it hard for society to keep up. One

theme discussed was how architecture changes and reflects cultural aspects of the era it was created in. Just as Hall discussed this theory in his book, man uses space as an elaboration of his culture. For example, the Ferguson auditorium seats are rather close. This building was build in the 70's, during the 'hippy' era, when people had less desire for personal space. Today, Americans crave personal space so spaces are a lot more open.

Delight is one of my favorite themes discussed in this unit because it is the reason why I want to become a designer. I want to make people happy. I think it's amazing how a space, that isn't 'alive' can still have an 'alive' feel (follow?). The difference between a building and a piece of architecture I believe is boring verse pleasurable. One is art, and the other is just there. Like how de Botton theorized in the architecture of happiness, that a dark, dull room can make one feel sad while a bright "yellow-honey" room can bring one's spirits up. I believe this is a obvious concept of design that I only wish to enhance in myself.

"Well building hath three conditions: commodity, firmness, and delight" -Sir Henry Wotton. This statement applies to all buildings. Delight I have already discussed, but there are two other elements of architecture, the firmness and commodity. Commodity is the function of a building which comes from the needed purpose of a building. If you were to build a school building, obviously you need to make it functional for student, staff members, handicaps, parents, and such. A building can be designed to be utterly delightful, but can have zero functional space, therefore making the beautiful building useless. The last element is firmness. This basically means building the structure so it doesn't fall down. All three of these elements are key to successful architecture. You can't leave out one or the building is useless.

The use of nature in architecture caught my attention. Going back while doing our counterpoint project, I realized how nature was such an ultimate theme of so many buildings. For example, I had the pantheon, and the dome and oculus were two major architectural elements of this building. The purpose of the dome and oculus was heaven and the sky. The dome was giant, giving the feeling of power, and the oculus let light flood in giving the illuminating feeling of heaven. This whole concept was built on the sun and it's luminescence. As for the dome, this brings me to the concept that size does matter. The goal of these builders were to communicate power and greatness, and large scale speaks that. The pantheon was built in a city, so they needed something big to not only communicate greatness, but to stand out in a place full of other buildings. These qualities of this building is what makes it so architecturally famous today.

Unit 1

Inspire to create something bigger then what was created before.