Implications for a Comparative Approach

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

character that is typical of only the Roman and post-Roman ones. In other words, we see all different historical manifestations of architecture through the lens of the Roman experience. So, when we talk about Mayan architecture or Khmer

architecture, the word “architecture” is, to a certain extent, misleading, for its meaning in our society has been so fundamentally defined by the Roman

experience that even speaking of “Mayan architecture” or “Khmer architecture”

already gives a distorted interpretation of these phenomena, just like talking about

“Incan law” or “the Babylonian market”. Recognizing architecture as a Roman invention is a first step toward defining the premises for a comparative approach to architecture: to understand what a certain society demands from buildings and allows buildings to do – what built matter is asked to do in a certain cultural context.

Recognizing the Roman origins of our architecture also allows us to understand that architecture is not a “natural” activity based on pure necessity. Architecture cannot be taken for granted; it cannot be considered a shared notion, independent

(5)

(6)

(7)

Introduction: What is a ‘Global History of Architecture’?

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

periods in relation to their contexts. Understand how these examples can continue to be relevant for us today and know how to use them as precedents for your design work. (This does not mean you have to memories ‘all the buildings’ or ‘all the books’).

- Develop your critical thinking and be able to write confidently about architecture. This will include being able to correctly cite a number of reputable sources (primary and secondary) to support your argument. (not Wikipedia, google, etc). I don’t expect perfect English.

- Confidently search both online and in libraries for information about buildings, from the past or present, that you are interested in. Know where to look to get the information you need.

(14)

Banister Fletcher’s ‘Tree of

(15)

HIGH/LATE MEDIEVAL (‘GOTHIC’) – 1000 - 1490CE ISLAMIC GOLDEN AGE – 700CE – 1490CE

EARLY MODERN/RENAISSANCE, ‘REBIRTH’ – 1490CE - 1600CE

BAROQUE/ROCOCO PERIOD, ‘AGE OF DISCOVERY’ – 1600CE - 1730CE

LECTURE 1 INTRODUCTION WHAT IS A “GLOBAL

HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE”

ANYWAY?

(16)

EARLY MEDIEVAL (THE ‘DARK’ AGES) / BYZANTINE – 470CE - 1000CE HIGH/LATE MEDIEVAL (‘GOTHIC’) – 1000 - 1490CE

ISLAMIC GOLDEN AGE – 700CE – 1490CE

LECTURE 2

ENCOUNTER WITH THE PAST

THE RENAISSANCE AND ANCIENT ROME

(17)

LECTURE 3

ENCOUNTER AND THE MATERIAL

IMAGINATION

(18)

LECTURE 4

ENCOUNTERS ACROSS THE MEDITERRANEAN THE MEDIEVAL WORLD

(19)

LECTURE 5 EUROPE’S

ENCOUNTERS WITH THE ”NEW WORLD”

THE AGE OF DISCOVERY

(20)

LECTURE 6

BAROQUE EUROPE AND ENCOUNTERS

WITH THE “EAST”

THE EMERGENCE OF THE FIRST WORLD

HISTORIES OF ARCHITECTURE

(21)

“CHINESE” GARDENS,

”INDIAN” TEMPLES AND THE SUBLIME

FOLLIES OF THE EUROPEAN PICTURESQUE ARCHITECTURE,

(22)

LECTURE 8

“EMPTY LAND”

EUROPE’S VIOLENT ENCOUNTERS WITH THE ARCHITECTURE

OF TERRA INCOGNITA

(23)

LECTURE 9

ENCOUNTERS WITH ANTHROPOLOGY THE HUNT FOR THE

COMMON ORIGIN STORIES OF ARCHITECTURE

(24)

LECTURE 10

ERASING THE ‘OTHER’

THE EMERGENCE OF A GLOBAL

ARCHITECTURE IN PRINT

(25)

LECTURE 11 HOW DID WE GET

HERE?

RESOURCES AND IMPERIALISM IN GLOBAL HONG KONG

(26)

week notice)

500-word research prehistory proposal, with preliminary annotated bibliography of 2-3 sources.

Friday Sep 27

15%

A research “prehistory” writing project related to Y2 and Y3 studio work. Friday Dec 13

40%

(27)

- Ask AI to write your text (not fine)

- Ask AI to look up an academic resource on a particular building/idea, which you will then read yourself (fine)

- Ask AI to find all the resources on a particular building/idea and give you a quick summary (not fine)

*For searching academic resources, I prefer Perplexity. It is more accurate. Chat

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

Write”, San Rocco 4(2012): 180–194.

George Hersey, The Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1988), 1–29.

- Introduction to research resources (see moodle for links) - Introduce and discuss Assignment 1

(32)

Write a 750-word description and analysis of a space in Hong Kong that elicits a strong reaction in you, positive or negative. Begin by documenting your initial impressions of the space as you experience it for a) 1-5 seconds; b) 1 minute; and c) 15-30 minutes (or even an hour if possible!).

When you sit down to write your assignment, begin by briefly introducing the space – where it is located, its function, etc. From there, communicate to the reader the key qualities that you observed during the three aforementioned periods of time. What do you immediately sense or perceive about the space? What qualities of the space and its design take more time to emerge? Think carefully about the kinds of adjectives you might use in your description of the space.

From there, use your initial impressions to lead into a preliminary architectural analysis of the space as it relates to time. What are the specific architectural dimensions and elements—material, structural, scalar, visual, etc.—that make the space memorable over time, and in your opinion? Are there ways in which these elements also draw your attention to the impact of other forces/agents that may be acting upon the space, such as climate, light, or the presence of other people, and the “making” of a world?

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

(49)

(50)

(51)

(52)

What can be the meaning of the architectural motifs we use today, when their original meaning is lost?

Can the formal language of architecture survive beyond and outside the context for which it was invented? Should it?

AGREE/DISAGREE?

(53)

according to its contemporary meaning inspired by monotheism); the Romans simply had to perform a complicated set of rituals that punctuated both their calendar and their landscape (Sabbatucci, 1988). Not to repeat these procedures meant to destroy the equilibrium, to put the entire community in danger and to regress to a condition of brute violence. This performed religion touched all aspects of life: Romans had a ritual (and a terribly precise one) for every little thing. The correct execution of these rituals was essential…

…For the Roman religion, places were directly linked with rituals, without the mediation of any myth, and so Roman architecture did not need to say anything abut the ceremonies it hosted. There was no narration associated with places – no concept, no figure – only a content, literally something

(54)

depository of platforms for rituals, machines for visualizing the divine in a given geographical context, devices that needed to be corrected in order to assure the precise execution of those very same rituals. The landscape was consequently adapted in order to comply with the requirements for a highly codified communication with the gods.”

(55)

machine of vision. The templum defines where one looks out from, what one looks at and how one looks at

this (the Roman templum is not an object to look at in the way that the Greek temple is).

(56)

The nature of these conversations with the gods does not seem that different from that of the attempts to communicate with aliens in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The aliens land in a very particular area of earth’s landscape (Devil’s Tower, Wyoming); the Americans try to communicate with them through the unending repetition of hyper-formalized (and super-silly) keyboard melodies. The whole thing has a decidedly archaic Roman tone that is somehow similar to that of the description of the inauguratio of King Numa as narrated by Livy (1, 18, 5–10).

V

The Romans used construction as a means to ensure the correct repetition of rituals. The religious obligation to repeat complicated ceremonies in precise locations led the Romans to modify those very same places in order to avoid possible mistakes in the performance of future rituals. The interpretation of ritual was thus encoded into the physical organization of the place. By doing this, the Romans invented architecture.

This (quite uncommon, quite counter-intuitive) use of built matter as a tool with which to control human activity appeared simply because the Romans could afford no mistakes in their dealings with the gods. Following their characteristic combination of pragmatism and formalism, the Romans simply built obstacles to the potential misinterpretation of the landscape. Architecture thus emerged as a relatively practical tool for avoiding religious mistakes. In the gloomy atmosphere of ancient Rome, architecture became a technique for the correction of landscape aimed at the precise repetition of ritual gestures: a technique for the repetition of gestures by means of physi- cal constraints, a technique for the control of movement by means of immobility, a science of obstacles.

The result of such a hyper-conservative relationship to their original terrain is the production of an entirely artificial (formalized) landscape.

Out of the pure fear of possible misunderstandings in the future, the Romans ended up completely redefining the original geography they had initially aimed to preserve.

Roman architecture was an attempt to control the future, to make sure that the future would be precisely like the present and the past, and that the equilibrium of the present and the past would be main- tained. Roman architecture was explicitly built against the future to reduce possibilities, to prevent mistakes. It was a technology of repeti- tion born from a desire for correct execution.

Devil’s tower, WyomingDevil’s Tower, Wyoming

By coupling rituals and places, gestures and spaces, the Romans opened up the possibility, to put it in contemporary terms, of relat- ing space and programme to one another. Places were connected to gestures by means of construction; spaces were used to produce gestures, to enact behaviours. Here, the specific field of interest of Western architecture – the relationship between spaces and human activity – was clearly defined. The Roman technology of repetition was the starting point for innumerable further investigations of the relationship between spaces and actions. This link between spaces and actions, through time, underwent all kinds of different interpre- tations and, in the end, finally allowed architecture to perform as a mechanism by which to produce events:

In 1966, I first heard of a brief moment in time – the Constructivists in the Soviet Union, 1923 – where the most intimate details of daily life became the legitimate subject of the architect’s imagination. I could not resist my late participation – to think of architecture not as form, but as organization, to influence the way lives are lived, an ultimate form of script writing (Koolhaas, 2004).

It is possible to write this, and it is possible to criticize the violence embedded in 19th-century architecture as is done in Foucault’s Surveiller et punir (1975), only because of the mutual influence of space and gestures introduced by the Romans. From this point of view, Jeremy Bentham, the Constructivists and OMA are nothing but Roman epigones. Architecture can be understood as a device for producing innovation, as the Constructivists did, only because it was originally invented as a device for producing repetition.

VI

If we now return to Loos’s conclusions after these provisional con- siderations, what should we think? Do we still build like the Romans?

The answer is twofold: yes and no. Yes, contemporary Western architecture still considers the relationship between spaces and gestures (now understood – in a secularized version – as programmes) as the obvi- ous centre of the discipline; but no, the relationship between gestures and spaces is no longer abstract the way it was in Roman architecture.

Indeed, Western architects abandoned the abstraction of Roman architecture shortly after achieving its unsurpassed masterpieces with Bramante and Vignola. Starting with Serlio’s demented idea (in Book VI) that the gentleman’s house should look different from

0

5 10 km

Palestrina

Alban

Hills Monts Lepini

Tyrrhenian Sea

Perspective view from Palestrina’s sanctuary upper terrace

Perspective view of Palestrina’s sanctuary upper terrace

Axonometric view of Palestrina’s sanctuary (Kähler, modified by author)

Palestrina

Perspective view from the upper terrace

Perspective view of the upper terrace

Axonometric view of Palestrina’s sanctuary

(Kähler, modified by author)

190

The nature of these conversations with the gods does not seem that different from that of the attempts to communicate with aliens in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The aliens land in a very particular area of earth’s landscape (Devil’s Tower, Wyoming); the Americans try to communicate with them through the unending repetition of hyper-formalized (and super-silly) keyboard melodies. The whole thing has a decidedly archaic Roman tone that is somehow similar to that of the description of the inauguratio of King Numa as narrated by Livy (1, 18, 5–10).

V

191 By coupling rituals and places, gestures and spaces, the Romans

opened up the possibility, to put it in contemporary terms, of relat- ing space and programme to one another. Places were connected to gestures by means of construction; spaces were used to produce gestures, to enact behaviours. Here, the specific field of interest of Western architecture – the relationship between spaces and human activity – was clearly defined. The Roman technology of repetition was the starting point for innumerable further investigations of the relationship between spaces and actions. This link between spaces and actions, through time, underwent all kinds of different interpre- tations and, in the end, finally allowed architecture to perform as a mechanism by which to produce events:

VI

0

5 10 km

Palestrina

Alban

Hills Monts Lepini

Tyrrhenian Sea

Axonometric view of Palestrina’s

sanctuary (Kähler, modified by author)

Palestrina

190

Encounters of the Third Kind. The aliens land in a very particular area of earth’s landscape (Devil’s Tower, Wyoming); the Americans try to communicate with them through the unending repetition of hyper-formalized (and super-silly) keyboard melodies. The whole thing has a decidedly archaic Roman tone that is somehow similar to that of the description of the inauguratio of King Numa as narrated by Livy (1, 18, 5–10).

V

191 ing space and programme to one another. Places were connected

to gestures by means of construction; spaces were used to produce gestures, to enact behaviours. Here, the specific field of interest of Western architecture – the relationship between spaces and human activity – was clearly defined. The Roman technology of repetition was the starting point for innumerable further investigations of the relationship between spaces and actions. This link between spaces and actions, through time, underwent all kinds of different interpre- tations and, in the end, finally allowed architecture to perform as a mechanism by which to produce events:

VI

0

5 10 km

Palestrina

Alban

Hills Monts Lepini

Tyrrhenian Sea

Axonometric view of Palestrina’s

sanctuary (Kähler, modified by author)

Palestrina

Perspective view from and of the upper terrace of the Temple of Fortuna Primigenia, Palestrina, 204 BCE, Pier Paolo Tamburelli, 2008.

(57)

(58)

(59)

(60)

organization of the place. By doing this, the Romans invented architecture.

This (quite uncommon, quite counter-intuitive) use of built matter as a tool with which to control human activity appeared simply because the Romans could afford no mistakes in their dealings with the gods. Following their characteristic combination of pragmatism and formalism, the Romans simply built obstacles to the potential misinterpretation of the landscape.

Architecture thus emerged as a relatively practical tool for avoiding

religious mistakes. In the gloomy atmosphere of ancient Rome, architecture became a technique for the correction of landscape aimed at the precise repetition of ritual gestures…”

(61)

(62)

appropriated and inhabited; only if it is free from desires of its own can it accept external desires; only as a hollow container, as an empty

receptacle, can it be filled: only a dry sponge is capable of absorbing events from the outside. Here indifference means generosity, and

anonymity means richness. Or, to put it in other terms, abstraction is the precondition for realism; reduction is the precondition for curiosity;

formalism is the precondition for attention; classicism is the precondition for a non-Eurocentric architecture…”

(63)

Can the formal language of architecture survive beyond and outside the context for which it was invented? Should it?

What universal principles of good design can we learn and apply from Greco-Roman Classical architecture? Can we, indeed, imagine a non-Eurocentric‘Classical’ architecture?