By: Cole Hartke
When the world of architecture sees a building as just a building, a place that is used and its looks I believe in what Semper says “the body of a building may be perceived as though it were literally a physique. This brings us back to Semper’s privileging of the joint as the primordial tectonic element as the fundamental nexus around which building comes into being, that is to say come to be articulated as a presence in itself.” (Frampton) A building just doesn’t have to be an inanimate object; life can be all throughout the design. When someone walks into a structure they should be immersed in what the place has to offer, with not just with the looks but with the feel of it also. “that inanimate objects may also evoke “being” (Frampton) When an architect designs a structure it should not be just a place but a part of them. it’s the ideas that run through a person’s mind that come out and is an extension of the designer. What is designed is the life of the designer and when people come to enjoy the structure they are immersed in the designer and their ideas creating life in a space more than something nice to look at. To tie this theory back to the use of tectonics, the life of a building is directly related to not only what you see inside, the beauty of the scenographic elements with that of the structure. There is beauty and life in every-thing that is on the planet it just takes an effort and a bit of design to extract it’s true and full potential. The structure that is shown can and should be a great addition to the design but it can’t just be shown, it has to work with the overall concept of the design, because if they don’t tie into the building then they are not tectonic they are just an extrusion of the structure to the exterior or interior of a building. After the reading of the article Rappel A L’ Ordre I came across another article that supports he theory that if have been stating in the previous paragraphs. “Harrison and Howard report on a mapping study of urban components an image ability and conclude that mist urban residents do not have strong personal attachments to particular places.” (Geoffrey, Bunt, Lorens)This quote from the article supports my discussion of how buildings need to have life. An attachment should be made between the person designing a building and the people that the building is there for. There has been an essence of not having an attachment to a building because this is just an object to them. It is easy to discard something that isn’t alive or has any attachment to the emotion of someone. A real design that has life and can touch a person’s inner emotions can leave a lasting effect on the person. An attachment to a building is formed by how they feel in a space or what takes place in that place. Being part of an urban setting most of the structure are usually public or no residential, because of this it makes more sense to why they would not see a building with a strong emotional attachment. They visit these places and they know that they are there but don’t always get a feel for what they are doing and all of that relies heavily on that designer and his job as an architect.
Frampton, Kenneth. “Rappel A L’ Ordre, the Case for the Tectonic.”
Broadbent, Geoffrey, Richard Bunt, and To-mas Lorens. “Meaning and Behavior in the “Built Environment.”