Ten Books

Vitruvius wrote the Ten books De Architectura in 37 bce in the roman empire serving as a militant engineer and architect. Vitruvius should be consumed by any person who has any interest in the sequence, evolution and origins of architecture. However heavily these books may have impacted architecture at the time, these opinions and positions should be considered lightly due to the relative age of the work. These books are among some of the oldest manuscripts to understand and express the progression of Architecture. The Ten Books bring clearer insight into what the methods and practices of Architecture were like closer to their original inceptions. Vitruvius also emphasized the differences that existed in his research of Greek, Anglo Saxon, African and Eastern traditions of Architecture. Today, Architecture has rich and diverse technological and aesthetic sensibilities associated with it around the world. Many of the uses and aesthetic understandings have evolved from the foundational notions of classicism. Indeed the ideas of Vitruvius represent a religious perception toward Architecture as a spiritual and divine provocation on earth. There exists today many exceptions to this idealism toward architecture in general. It remains important, however, in all respects of designing and building to consider beauty, function and strength. The realities of creating anything are nearly limitless. Vitruvius set forth, in some ways, the original constraints of people. Besides limitless resources and time, architecture can only find its ultimate balance through the refinement of its bounds: what is possible with natural physics, how pleasure can be drawn from the appearance, and the degree to which function can serve us entirely.

I agree the concepts of beauty, structural integrity, and utility will remain forever present in the design of Architecture. However, it is clear we can no longer dilute our vast understanding of architecture to be fully represented according merely to three ideals. I can conceive of many new ideals of architecture that are just as important if not more important universally. As a society we are desensitized to the vast network of problems that envelope us and as a result humor and action are the only escapes. Architecture is a reflection of the lives that occupy it. War, play, graphic images and popular culture have always impacted the ways Architecture manifests itself through the varied minds that add touches. If not for activity itself, architecture could not materialize itself in any metaphysical way. Space and time are the extents that we as humans are able to perceive the things we experience. Through this, activity is a driving aspect, vital to Architecture.

Additionally, money narrows the scope of what architecture has been and what it will be. Currency is unequivocally an aspect necessary to architecture today. In the days of Vitruvius and until present, architecture has always been a means for the rich and powerful to express their visions and usurp their wills upon the common peoples. There are many examples of architecture serving the common people and even being expressions of the the most underserved populations. Regardless, the nature real estate as an asset has established architecture as a product that will perpetually be bought and sold for profit. The degree to which Architecture can capture ideas and provocations through its life rests in its ability to nourish itself with funding.

Finally, technology has evolved as an integral part of architecture. The machines used to design buildings have evolved as spatial units themselves and occupy a firm and perpetual place in the fabrication of anything physical. Whether it be 3D printing, machine learning, logistical machines, or computers, technology is a pillar of architecture. Activity, Currency and Technology have fast, wild and chaotic tendencies. In order to keep up with the pace of society Architecture must be messy in its hectic attempts to solve problems by utilizing every option that is offered and possible within the constraints of activity, currency and technology. If one were to reflect on the present nature of life and of the changing world we occupy it is possible to see how different activity, currency and technology are available, fluid and individually manipulatable - this offers a huge opportunity for Architecture to expand into every reach of people’s lives, for better or worse.

Considering the inclusivist vs. exclusivist, and formalist vs. anti-formalist arguments, do you think architecture includes all built structures?

The question of exclusivity or inclusivity is one that has plagued Architecture since its inception. Deciding whether any given building is or isn’t architecture seems to dilute the collective magnificence of Architecture and projects it toward elitism. It seems to me this argument also serves to promote architecture as a lofty kind of art and profession and implies that something can be unappealing, lacking spiritual or artistic quality and in general lost in its design intent. It is possible that architecture might not be seen intravenously in all buildings, but it is true that all buildings are a form of architecture with exclusivity or inclusivity aside. These nomenclature only serve to categorize Architecture in a light that is both too basic and antiquated in its research. Inclusion and Exclusion have vastly different linguistic understandings at present and aesthetic, formal or even functional qualities of exclusivity and inclusivity have lost their value. Inclusivity and Exclusivity have greater social and political importance in the exclusive or inclusive qualities of Architecture.

Regarding the arguments of formalist versus anti-formalist Architecture, it is clear to see that Architecture has many deep rooted formal agendas it seeks to mediate. Architecture cannot be simply contained within a singularity or its proposed parts. Architecture is too much a holistic approach to creation and it involves the cohesion of many different problems and solutions. Formalism will always hold a place in architectural discourse for its obvious value that it offers in presenting architecture as a beautiful and visually pleasing art form. Of course no one likes ugly buildings in their neighborhoods. However, the question of whether something is or isn’t architecture based on its formal or anti-formal qualities is absurd. Architecture can be an art so deeply understood that it rejects all aesthetic qualities and searches for beauty in its hidden structural development or its technical resolution in energy efficiency. It can no longer be said of Architecture, as we understand the failures of high ticket flashy formal or anti-formal projects, that formalism or the rejection of formalism, can be a driving factor in the decision of validating a building as architecture.

Ethically speaking, is it possible for a built structure to be “good” though not aesthetically gripping? What are other moral obligations architects would have to consider?

It is very much possible for a building to be ethical or good and without it being aesthetically pleasing or formal in its focus. The grander obligation to society, the environment and to the collective psyche of what Architecture is, benefits more from morally just buildings rather than those objects which are nice to look at. Historically the periods in which architecture flourished as a formal and aesthetic art form often were most riddled with corruption, negligence of a diverse set of users, an imbued exclusivity and often were left to degrade and become decrepit as functionality and use were lost to time. In our day and age, it is more important than ever to consider the lofty goals of architecture to be those associated with real change and not with philosophical attempts at deriving the most perfect square or circular geometry in plan or edifice.