"Beauty is in the phi of the beholder"

     When a person sees a building for the first time it is a natural reaction to judge it's beauty. This sense of beauty is atributed to our idividual perseption. As architect students we are tranied to analysis a building further than our own personal taste. We may not like the way a building looks on the outside but we can absorb other qualities of a building that are beautiful. So what is beauty exactly?
     Beauty is often related to human physical attraction. This quality of attractiveness can be broken down into a phenomenon found in nature.  The golden ratio, or phi, is a mathematical constant that is used in art, architecture, fashion, music, geometry, and many other facets because it always produces harmonious proportions. The human body is a prime application of phi. For instance the golden section, which is based on the golden ratio, gives order to our face. Our eyes, nose, chin, and mouth all corrospond to the golden ratio. When a person smiles it makes their face more inline with the golden ratio opposed to a frown which has the negative affect.  Even the ear uses the Fibonacci spiral, another variation of the golden ratio, to obtain it's shape. The attractiveness we find in other people has the same mathematical basis for the attractiveness we find in architecture.
     Architecture atributes a majority of its beauty to proportions and order. Architecture must use proportion somewhat different than that of painting or sculpure; architecture must consider the human scale. For with out human occupancy what value does architecture have? Lewis Kahn compairs architectural beauty to poetry, he says "Beauty is an all-prevailing sense of harmony, giving rise to wonder; from it, revelation. Poetry. Is it in beauty? Is it in wonder? Is it revelation?" I believe that any form of architecture has the potential to be beautiful, but great architecture must instill wonder and revelation to those who embody it.

I am a man NOT a number! - viewing architecture through human perception

           Often times when I am at parties with other architecture students we get into our own little world and discus the intricacies of architecture. Some times we will discuss the current project we are working on for studio, we use words like architectonic, datum, and functional space vs poche space. when other people over hear what we are talking about they call us "pretentious assholes" or "architecture nerds." What people say about us may be true or untrue, but one thing is certain: as architect students we must not forget whom and for what purpose we design buildings for.
           Of course the knowledge we learn in architecture school is vitally important to our future careers but that knowledge alone will not make us good architects. It is my opinion that a good architect must have a strong understanding of the human condition. What kind of space makes us as humans feel safe at night, exited to come home, or comfortable after a long day? Pallasmaa say's "It is time that we considered whether forms or geometry in general can give rise to architectural feeling. Are forms the real basic elements of architecture at all? Are even such elements of building such as walls, windows or doors the real units of architectural effect?"I believe that the real unit of architectural effect is a building's ability to provoke a sensation or mood.
 

Vitruvius: The Education of an Architect

         Matthew Frederick, author of 101 Things I learned In Architecture School, said "An architect knows something about everything. An engineer knows everything about one thing." I believe that Vitruvius was trying to emphasis this theory in "The Education of an Architect." Vitruvius goes into great detail why an architect must be well rounded in academics. He starts by listing the obvious qualities architects must have: ablity to write, draw, do geometry, have knowlage of history; then he discribes some qualities that may seem outlandish to archetectural education. Amonst these qualities Vitruvious lists knowledge of music, medicine, law, and astronomy. Vitruvius argues that these qualities are just as important to an architect as his ablity to draw.
          Vitruvius's reason behind an architect having a liberal education is that "An architect ought to be an educated man so as to leave a more lasting remembrance in his treaties." An architect's work, no matter what it is, will have a greater significance in relation to man, if he has worldly knowledge. By studying astronomy an architect can accurately predict the sun's pattern in relationship to his buildings.  By studying medicine an architect will be aware of such things as water quality and unhealthy climates in which to build. By studying music an architect will understand rhythm, acoustics, and in vitruvius's case the correct pitch of a cable on a catapult.
          The description of an architect's education, as Vitruvius sees it, is as true in 25 BCE as it is in modern day architecture firms. Matthew Frederick sums up Vitruvious's theory by stating "An architect must know enough about each discipline to negotiate and synthesize competing demands while honoring the needs of the client and the integrity of the entire project."

Response To The Problem of Architecture.

 After a thorough read of "The problem of Architecture" I found that Scruton raised some important questions about architectural theory. First off what is the difference between architectural theory and architectural aesthetics? WBDG.org (whole building design guide) describes aesthetics as "the branch of philosophy which studies concepts of beauty." WBDG goes on to say that aesthetics are "theories of beauty that vary over time and reflect preferences which, when widely agreed upon are called taste, and which also reflect more basic currents of thought in societies." In my opinion aesthetics are the center point of what architectural theory is based on. In addition to distinguishing theory from aesthetics Scruton asks what is aesthetic preference in a purely philosophical stand point? Why do we as humans value particular aesthetic qualities over another? I believe that our aesthetic preferences are what make us human. Each person has there own set of beliefs and will therefor have different inclination to what is aesthetically beautiful. 


In this exert Scruton talks about the dangers of treating architecture like sculpture. By evaluating architecture only from its exterior skin you are robbing the building of its representational value. The program of the building should be where all ideas about the design start. A building that is aesthetically pleasing but fails to meet the functional qualifications is worthless. To conclude a building must be scrutinized on both its aesthetic and its functional qualities in order to insure a solid design.