Thematic Theories of Architecture

Thematic theories are treatises which aim at the fulfilment of one principal goal,
usually at the cost of other customary goals of building. Theories which aim at
fulfilling simultaneously several goals, perhaps all the goals that are known, are
discussed on the page Theories of architectural synthesis.
Paradigm (=style) of architecture:
Doric, Ionian and Corinthian style and
their varieties in ancient Greece and
Rome
Romanesque and Gothic styles.
Renaissance, baroque, rococo, neoclassical style
Large constructions: bridges and
halls. "Structuralist" styling (=which
emphasizes the structure).
l'Art Nouveau. Personal styles of
architectural geniuses: Gaudi, Le
Corbusier etc.
Functionalism.
Systems Building from prefabricated
components
Ecological architecture (energy
collectors etc)
Symbolic architecture.
Postmodernism and Deconstruction

Basic presentation of its theory:

Vitruve: De Architectura libri decem. It was mainly
documentation of earlier architectural traditions.
Medieval anonymous tradition of trade guilds has not
survived to us; minor fragments are the following:
Villard de Honnecourt and Schmuttermayer.
Alberti: De re Aedificatoria. Serlio, Vignola, Palladio...
Galilei: Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno
a due nuove scienze. Hooke, Bernoulli, Euler...
Viollet-le-Duc: Entretiens sur l'Architecture. The book
showed logical basis for new form languages but it did
not create them yet. Notice also Owen Jones and John
Ruskin.
The teaching of Gropius and Bauhaus. Adolf
Loos. Neufert (1936): Bauentwurfslehre
The lectures and exemplars given by Mies van der
Rohe and others.Habraken.
Eco-philosophy by Henryk Skolimowski was one of
the pioneering works.
Norberg-Schulz: Intentions in Architecture, Jencks...
Robert Venturi: Complexity and Contradiction in
Architecture

Some of the theories in the table are now certainly outdated and have little interest to a
modern builder, but some contain still valid information about important goals of
building, notably on the questions of functionality, construction, economy and
ecology. The last-named, still valid theories can be seen as building-specific branches
of the general goal-specific theories which pertain to all types of products and are
listed inParadigms Of Design Theory.

Vitruve
Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, the author of the oldest research on architecture which has
remained till this day, worked during the reign of emperor August. He wrote an
extensive summary of all the theory on construction that had been written so far: Ten
Books on Architecture (De architectura libri decem). He seems to have been a learned
man, he had a thorough knowledge of earlier Greek and Roman writings that have
now been lost. There is a list of these works in the introduction of book VII; most of
them described a temple. Two of the writings were about proportions, and as many as
nine writers spoke about the "laws of symmetry", which in modern terminology
mostly mean the systems of module
measuring.
Vitruve's book consists almost only
of normative theory of design. His
rules are usually based on practical
points or reasoning; sometimes he
also motivates them by saying that
this has always been done, i.e., with
historical tradition.
Vitruve discusses not only one
theme but several practical goals of
building, each one of these in a separate chapter of the book. The treatise can be seen
as a collection of parallel thematic theories of design. Vitruve gives no method for
combining these into a synthesis, he only presents a classification (I:3:2) of all the
requirements set for buildings:
durability (firmitas)
practicality or "convenience" (utilitas)
pleasantness (venustas).
This remained a model for almost all posterior research of architecture: buildings are
researched mostly as combinations of characteristics, rather than as holistic entities. In
the course of time, a particular, rather independent theory was developed for every
group of characteristics, as we will see later.
The aesthetic form rules of Vitruve influenced greatly all subsequent writers. The are
based on Greek traditions of architecture, and also on the teachings of Pythagoras (ca.

532 BC), according to which harmony is created by applying the proportions of whole
numbers. This was based on earlier observations of the tuned strings of instruments
and also on the proportions of the human body; and now Vitruve wanted to apply the
same proportions to architecture as well. The supreme criterion was, however, the
estimate the public gave of the work. A building was beautiful if its appearance was
pleasant, it was in accordance with good taste, and its parts follow proportions (lat.
proportio) and the "symmetry" of measures (the unusual definition of symmetry is
found in I:II:4).

The Middle Ages

Most documents remaining from the Middle Ages have to do with the monastery
institution. The convents erected a great number of buildings. However, their archives
contain surprisingly few descriptions of buildings or projects. There are numerous
building contracts, but usually the building is only defined by stating its size and that
it shall be made "according to the traditional model".
On the whole, there was little interest in mundane values like the qualities of
architecture. "There's no accounting for tastes" (lat. de gustibus et coloribus non
disputandum) was the rule of thumb of Scholastics, which did not favour the
development of the theory of arts (however, you could see St. Augustine on this).
Fortunately, the libraries of the monasteries preserved at least some fragments of the
architectural
theory of
antiquity.
The practice of
architecture was,
first of all, based
on tradition
dating back to
antiquity, and,
starting from this
tradition, both
the Romanesque
and the Gothic
building style
developed over the centuries, presumably with hardly any or no literary research. The
only documented presentations that have remained till this day are the "sketchbook"
by Villard de Honnecourt from 1235 and the "Booklet on the right way of making
pinnacles" (Bchlein von der Fialen Gerechtigkeit, picture on the right) by Roritzer,
printed in Regensburg in 1486.

When the knowledge of Latin and even literacy

degraded, the importance of traditional knowledge in
building increased. Traditional knowledge was learned
by doing, in the guidance of old masters, and it was
probably not written down anywhere. But tradition
could be rather binding and precise in the closed guilds
of builders. It also became rather homogenous
throughout Europe because builders apparently moved
from one town to another, depending on where the
building sites were.
Since the beginning of the 13th century, craftsmen in the
building trade started forming guilds (German:
Bauhtte). These guilds probably gathered a great deal
of traditional information related to construction, but it
seems to have remained a professional secret of the
guilds and the masters, and they preferred not to publish
it. Even if it was written down, these notes have been
lost.

Classical Theory of Forms

Renaissance brought about a new interest in the feats of antiquity, especially in Italy.
Ancient works of art and survived buildings became objects of study, and a search for
writings dating back to antiquity
started.
In 1418, a copy of Vitruve was found
among the manuscripts of the
monastery of St. Gallen. The word
about the manuscript spread fast to
the circles of architects in Italy and
was soon met with enthusiasm there.
Leon(e) Battista Alberti (1404-72)
belonged to universal geniuses of
Renaissance; he was a gifted
playwright, mathematician and
sportsman. As the person in charge of the constructions commanded by the Pope, he
had the occasion to write one of the greatest works of the theory of architecture: De re
aedificatoria (On Building). Most of it was completed in 1452 and printed in 1485.

Like Vitruve, Alberti wanted his book to include all that was needed in the design of
buildings and all the knowledge that was generally known and applied at that time.
But what he emphasized most was the decoration of building exteriors which was a
usual task of architects at that time. That is because a great number of modest
medieval churches and dwellings had to be modernized in such a way that at least
their facades would be representative and fashionable. The architectural style of
imperial Rome (like the triumphal arch above) was usually preferred in these
renovations.
To give structure and decoration to facades, Alberti developed a clever system of
classical pilasters and architraves which could be superimposed on any earlier smooth
surface. Alberti used the name "ornamentum" ('equipment', 'decoration') for these
architectural elements.
On the right, you can see an example of this "ornamentation": the church of San
Francesco in Rimini. Parts of the original, plain building are still visible, because the
commissioner, Lord of Rimini Sigismondo Malatesta, died in 1466 before the work
was finished.
For a long time, the classical
system of the "orders" (on the
right) became the most visible
contents of architectural
theory, although it also
emphasized the composition of
building masses and rooms and
the concepts of proportion and harmony. The classical style is aptly called 'mannerism'
in some countries.

Writers after Alberti complemented their

works with still richer illustrations, in which
the precision and glamour of classical form
details was brought to perfection. Theory
books of architecture started resembling
fashion magazines. The purpose of the works
was usually to present the "rules of art" to
designers in as easily applicable form as
possible, and the reasons were only briefly
commented on. This purpose was often stated
in the name of the book, too. For example, the
name of the work by Sebastiano Serlio
was Regole generali di architettura, picture on
the right.
Giacomo (Jacopo) Barozzi da Vignola is
another distinguished author. In his
bookRegola delle cinque ordini (1562) he
wanted to present the "concise, fast and easily
applicable rules of the five column systems."
But what Vignola was presenting was not in
fact rules but outright standardized columns and decorations. The basis for their
measurements was the module measurement used by Vitruve, i.e. the eighth part of
the diameter of the pillar served as a
measurement unit. A typical picture on the left.
In the foreword, Vignola tells how he came by
these "rules of art":
"In order to be able to set up the instructions for
the Doric system, I used the Marcellus theatre
as a model because it is praised by everyone.
First I measured the main parts; but if some
smaller part would not obey the [Vitruvian]
proportions of figures -- which may have been
caused by the imprecision of the stonecutter or
by other occasional reasons -- I made it follow
the rule." (From Germann 116.)
Vignola based his design instructions on four
things, which were:

 the idea of Pythagoras that the proportions of small integers meant harmony
the proportions and other instructions provided by Vitruve
the example set by earlier buildings and
general good taste, whatever that meant when interpreted by each writer.
I quattro libri dell'architettura by Andrea Palladio (1508-80) is the father of modern
picture books of architecture. It contains little theory but all the more pictures on
buildings skilfully designed by Palladio. They were there for even less literate
architects to copy.
It is not surprising that Italian architects took the architecture of
their Roman ancestors as their ideal. Likewise, it is natural that
French theorists were more critical. The first of them, Philibert de
l'Orme (ca. 1510-1570) proved with measurements that in the
Pantheon the Corinthian columns were dimensioned according to
as many as three different proportions. He therefore rejected the
doctrine of the absolute beauty of measures and explained that the
measurements of a column depended on whether the column was
large or small in size or whether it was placed high up or
downward in the building. This meant that the actual form of the
column did not alone determine its beauty; the final impression of
beauty was only created when somebody was looking at the
column. This principle which later developed into perceptive
psychology inspired de l'Orme to continue the list of ancient
column models with his own inventions (there is one example of
such a column on the right).
According to the model provided by Renaissance theorists, general
presentations of the classical rules of architecture were issued
especially by teachers of schools of architecture. Works printed in
France were widely read in other countries, too. The most
important of these were:
Franois Nicolas Blondel: Cours d'architecture (1675)
Claude Perrault: Ordonnance des cinq espces de
colonnes (1683)

 Jean Louis de Cordemoy: Nouveau trait de toute l'architecture (1706)

Marc-Antoine Laugier: Essai sur l'architecture (1753)
Jacques-Franois Blondel: Cours d'architecture (n.1770)
J-N-L. Durand: Prcis des leons (1802-5)
Julien Guadet: Elments et thories de l'architecture (1902).
Alongside with listing classical "orders" of columns, the writers analysed other formal
characteristics of architecture, such as the balance, scale and rhythm of building
blocks, rooms and components. Requirements of usage and maintenance were covered
fairly briefly.
Many of the theorists of architecture successfully tried out their hypotheses in the
buildings they designed. However, they knew no method for inspecting systematically
the results provided by these experiments. That is why the classical architectural
theory progressed fairly slowly and eventually failed to correspond to the
requirements of modern society.

Construction Theory
From times immemorial, available building materials and tools have determined or at
least modified building forms, as can be seen in many surviving examples of
vernacular architecture which have been created without the help of architects or
theory. Examples:
Building material:
Amorphic material: soft stone,
snow
Sheets of skin or textile, and
poles.
Logs of wood

Ensuing architectural form:

Spherical vaulted construction: the igloo, trulli (South Italy),
nuraghi (Sardinia)
Cone shaped tent-like constructions.
Box shaped construction

The era before written construction theory produced some admirable buildings. For
example in Mesopotamia a stone vault with a span of over 20m has been standing
well over two millennia and exists still today. Because its shape exactly duplicates that
of a catenary curve, we can assume that its design was based on the invention that,
whenever a catenary is turned upside down, the original stretching forces become
replaced by compression only and all sidewise forces remain absent. This means that
the shape can be copied to stone masonry which is well able to resist pure

compression but not stretching tension. It thus seems probable that the builders used a
mechanical analogous model instead of those mathematical algorithms that we use in
modern construction. The method certainly necessitated some verbal instructions
which today would merit the name "design theory" even if it was never written down.
The semi-circular vault was known to ancient Romans, while its theory was still in
rudimentary level as Vitruve has only one sentence to say about it:
"When there are arches ... the outermost piers must be made broader than the others,
so that they may have the strength to resist when the wedges, under the pressure of the
load of the walls, begin to ... thrust out the abutments (VI:VII:4).
Not a sentence has survived to us about the theory or the models which were used in
erecting the magnificent vaults of medieval cathedrals. The treatises that survive are
of somewhat later origin: Le Thtre de l'art de charpentier (1627) and Le secret
d'architecture dcouvrant fidlement les traits mtriques (1642) by Mathurin Jousse.
The former deals with wooden constructions and the latter with stone vaults. Both
describe mainly traditional structures and do not yet present any tangible theory for
their design. However, as the shapes of gothic vaults often resemble fragments of
inverted catenaries, we perhaps can assume that the catenary model (see above) was
known to some architects.
In antiquity and in the Middle Ages, architects designed not only the layout and
decoration but also the construction and stability of the buildings. Architects were also
in charge of the construction work itself. From Alberti onwards, architects tended to
specialize in the "disegno" of buildings, i.e., the design of the exterior and the layout
of the buildings. Therefore, the mechanics of materials and construction started to
become a field of study of its own. The methods of creating mathematical models and
verifying them through experiments were adopted from Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642).
Galilei himself already put the method to practice in the field of construction in his
work Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze (1638, a
graphic from it is on the right). Our modern construction theory is a fairly direct
successor of the theory on the solidity of constructions presented in it. Unfortunately
the research of constructions was detached from the rest of architectural theory for
centuries, and even a separate guild of engineers was created.

The name "engineer", which comes form the

Latin word ingenium = "genius" or "a product
of genius", "invention", had already been used
in the Middle Ages for skilful architects. Now
this word was adopted by Marquise de Vauban
when he founded a building department,
Corps des ingnieurs, in the French army, in
1675. In that time, it was usual for military
engineers to design castles, town plans and
even churches. This new profession
specializing in construction questions got
organized fairly quickly and in 1747, a special
school, Ecole des Ponts et Chausses, was
founded in Paris.
Central figures in developing the
mathematical construction theory were Robert
Hooke (1635-1703), Jakob Bernoulli (1654-1705) and Leonhard Euler (1707-1783).
All of them published several books. From Euler onwards, the theory of elasticity of
structures developed side by side with mathematical theory.
On the other hand, new innovations of practical building were made and published in
books, e.g.:
Pierre Boulet: l'Architecture
pratique (1691)
William Halfpenny: The art
of sound building(1725)
Francis Price: The British
carpenter or a treatise on
carpentry (1733)
William Pain: The Builder's companion, and Workman's general
assistant (1758)
The publication of theoretical progress and inventions started also in building
magazines in the 19th century. Thus the most important publisher of the theory of the
reinforced concrete technique used to be the journal of Francois Hennebique's
construction company, Le Bton arm.

The most consequent applications of construction theory are today large edifices like
bridges and industrial halls. The shape of any large construction must be simple and
healthy, or else the costs skyrocket. Examples of lofty constructions which also are
great architecture created by engineers are the bridges of Maillart (on the right) and
many exhibition or athletics halls. On the left, a restaurant building with a span of
30m, constructed by
Weidlinger and Salvadori.
The situation is slightly
different in the design of
modern office or residential
buildings. Their architecture is
not as much dictated by
constructional principles. The
reason is that modern building
materials, notably steel and reinforced concrete, are so strong that almost any
architectural form is equally feasible. Anyway, many architects have wanted to create
distinctively structural or "constructivist" forms; Curt Siegel (1960) presents an
excellent overview of these in the book Strukturformen der modernen
Architektur which is also the source of a couple of graphics here.

Personal Styles
Since the times of Renaissance, all the renowned architects and theorists in Europe
had taken it for granted that the "form language" of new buildings, i.e., the systems of
columns and decorations had to be copied from antiquity, where they had already been
brought to perfection. The only thing designers of new buildings then had to do was to
combine and modify these elements in order to fit them to the practical requirements
and resources of each commissioner.
Some sporadic protests (e.g. the defence of the Gothic style by Goethe: Von Deutscher
Baukunst) had been heard. But they did not affect the mainstream of design.

The first theorist who

set out to create a totally
new system of
architectural forms
independent of antiquity
was Eugne Viollet-leDuc (1863). In his
bookEntretiens sur
l'architecture (lecture 1,
p.29), he states that
"what we call taste is
but an involuntary
process of reasoning
whose steps elude our
observation". "Authority
has no value if its
grounds are not
explained" (p. 458).
Given the fact that the
foundations of modern
architecture cannot
possibly be the same as
those prevalent in
Greece 2000 years ago,
Viollet-le-Duc saw as
his mission to develop a
new architecture which
would be based, in the
same way as Descartes' philosophy, only on facts and reasonable conclusions reached
on the basis of them. Examples of his deductions (idem):
"A door ought to be made for the purpose of going into a building or going out
of it; the width of such door ought therefore be accommodated to the ... number
of persons who have occasion to go in or out; but however dense a crowd may
be, the persons are always under seven feet in height; ... To make a door five
yards wide and ten high is therefore absurd."
"A column is a support, not a decoration, like a frieze or an arabesque; if then
you have no occasion for columns, I cannot understand why you furnish your
facades with them."

"A cornice is intended to keep the water from the face of the wall: if therefore
you put a projecting cornice in an interior, I cannot but say that it is
unmeaning."
Viollet-le-Duc tried to put his theories to practice in his own design as well. In it, he
was carried on to bring the theoretical logic of the constructions so far that few people
would consider the product beautiful. On the right, you can see a sketch of a concert
hall which would be built of brick and cast iron elements. On the left, there is a detail
of steel constructions in which a striking impression of beauty has been created by the
clever design of the indispensable diagonal trusses. The decoration has thus a rational
foundation, as Viollet's theory
dictates.
Although Viollet-le-Duc could not
create a timeless architectural style
himself, he showed others the
philosophical foundation and
method that they could use to
develop even radically new form
languages.
Owen Jones was another important
writer that inspired young architects
to create new formal styles. He
studied the methods of exploiting an
eternal source of architectural
forms: nature and especially the
forms of plants. The result of his studies became the first design instruction on the use
of ornaments originating in nature: Grammar of Ornament (1856). One of its 37 rules
(no 13) states that "flowers or other natural objects should not be used as ornaments",
instead acceptable are "conventional representations founded upon them sufficiently
suggestive to convey the intended image to the mind, without destroying the unity of
the object they are employed to decorate." And rule 35 says that "imitations, such as
the graining of woods, and of the curious coloured marbles [are] allowable only when
the employment of the thing imitated would not have been inconsistent."
After the Gothic style, the first architectural style independent of the tradition of
antiquity in Europe was l'Art Nouveau. Its origins included the philosophy of Violletle-Duc and the rules and examples of Owen Jones but no considerable theoretical
research was done by the creators of this style. It may even be that, because of the
world war, the hegemony of "Jugendstil" became so short that people never got as far
as to do research. In art, it is often so that the works of a new style first come about

without any explicit theory, guided by the intuition, and only after a few years do their
principles become clear to such an extent that they may be worded.
The example set by l'Art Nouveau encouraged some of the most skilful architects of
our century to create their private form languages. The first of these was Le Corbusier,
who also presented a short written foundation to his system of proportions (based on
the Golden Section) in the book Modulor (1951). Its fundamental perceptive
psychology base was presented already 1923 in the book Vers une architecture:
"Architecture is a brilliant, orthodox and original jigsaw puzzle of masses combined
in light. Our eyes were created to see the forms in light; light and shadow reveal the
forms. Cubes, cones, balls, cylinders and pyramids are primary shapes that light so
excellently reveals; the picture they give to us is clear and perspicuous without
indecision. That is why they are beautiful forms."
Alongside with l'Art Nouveau, Le Corbusier based his style on the study of natural
forms of plants. Characteristic of Le Corbusier is that buildings are understood as
giant sculptures (see e.g. the
Ronchamp chapel, on the right).
As a contrast to many other creative
talents, he also tried to write down
the theoretical postulates that he
followed in his creation, although this
research was mostly done rather
subjectively, without verifying how
the new doctrine or the ensuing new
forms were received by the general
public of architecture. He published in 1926 a paper Les 5 points d'une architecture
nouvelle where he declared the cardinal rules of "new architecture". They were (as
explained by Kenneth Frampton, 1980, p. 157):
1. "Pilotis" or columns elevating the building body off the ground,

2. The free plan, achieved through the

separation of the load-bearing
columns from the walls subdividing
the space,
3. The free faade, the corollary of free
plan in the vertical plane,
4. The long horizontal sliding window
or fentre en longeur,
5. The roof garden, restoring,
supposedly, the area of garden used
up by the house.
Le Corbusier illustrated his "5 points" by
pairs of sketches (above) where the
traditional model was shown on the right and the new style on the left.
The theoretical proposals of Le Corbusier, and also his sculptural buildings, received
at first much attention among Functionalist architects, but fresh theories were soon put
forward by other authors. Some of these pronounced an exactly opposite notion: the
core and crux of architecture is not the sculptural pattern, but instead the building
interiors. These can be seen as "negative solids", as voids which the artist divides,
combines, repeats and emphasizes in the same way as the sculptor treats his "positive"
lumps of substance. The most notable treatise on this topic is Architecture as space by
Bruno Zevi (1974).
The "personal styles" of architects are not necessarily based on laws of nature or on
logical reasoning. More important is that they exhibit a coherent application of an idea
which also must be so clear that the public canfind it out. An advantage is also if the
style includes symbolical undertones.

Functionalism
The intended uses of new buildings have certainly influenced their architecture long
before the emergence of first architects or theories. Examples of this can be seen in
ancient vernacular buildings:

Intended use of building:

Arrangement of building,
as generated by the use:

An independent family; co-operation with

neighbours is coincidental
A group of families in collective housekeeping
A family and domestic animals.

One room detached house.

A group of sleeping rooms around a central
kitchen/dining room
A space for people and another space for the
animals in close connection.

Many of these ancient tacit traditions of building became documented already in the
first treatises of architecture. The usability of buildings is one of the three
cornerstones of Vitruve's theory, and he writes tens of pages about it. From
Renaissance onwards it did not receive as much attention from researchers; most of
them just mention in one sentence this requirement. At the beginning of the 20th
century, some more extensive studies on it appeared, e.g. the following:
Louis Sullivan (1856 - 1924): Ornament in architecture (1892)
Otto Wagner (1841 - 1918): Moderne Architektur (1895) among others
F.L. Wright (1869 - 1959), several short writings.
Despite the influential slogan of Sullivan, "Form follows function" no coherent theory
of functionalism was created before the 1920s when it started to unfold in the Bauhaus
school headed by Walter Gropius (1883-1969). The results are well presented in the
book Bauentwurfslehre (1936) by ErnstNeufert who worked as an assistant to
Gropius. On the right is an illustration from it, showing functional space needs in a
hospital.
"Function" of the building
meant to the first developers
and supporters of the
Functionalist theory mostly
the physical requirements
(primarily dimensions) that
were necessary to carry out
the practical corporeal
activities in the
building.Psychological needs
of the great public were
largely ignored. When it thus became necessary to refer, for example, to the concept
of "beauty" it was usually defined on the basis of the functionalist doctrine, for
example as being equal to good functionality or to high quality of fabrication. Gropius
defined:

'Beauty' is based on the perfect mastery of all the scientific, technological and formal
prerequisites of the task ... The approach of Functionalism means to design the objects
organically on the basis of their own contemporary postulates, without any romantic
embellishment or jesting (The Bauhaus Book no. 7 pp. 4 - 7).
If a layman happened to have other ideals of beauty and he or she wanted to have
more decoration on a building, these wishes were often disregarded as "bad taste". A
manifesto by Adolf Loos (1908), Ornament and Crime, had great influence on
architects. Loos declared that people who liked ornamentation (for example, if they
wore tattooing) were either immature, primitive or even antisocial. In contrast,
cultivated people prefer unadorned, plain surfaces, he said. Accordingly, functionalist
architects avoided decoration of buildings and favored simple geometric forms.
Functionalist architects understood how essential it is to base their design on empirical
research. Many findings of these studies are still valid and widely applied even by
those architects who have long ago abandoned the rectangular formal language of
functionalism. However, research on the psychological needs of building users was
slow to speed up, which was regretted by several of the pioneers of Functionalism
(like Sullivan, Gropius and Breuer) in their more mature age. For example, Alvar
Aalto wrote in 1940 in the journalThe Technology Review:
During the past decade, Modern architecture has been functional chiefly from the
technical point of view, with its emphasis mainly on the economic side of the building
activity... But, since architecture covers the entire field of human life, real functional
architecture must be functional mainly from the human point of view. ... Technic is
only an aid ... Functionalism is correct only if enlarged to cover even the
psychophysical field. That is the only way to humanize architecture. (Aalto 1970, p.
15 - 16).

Systems Building from prefabricated

components
In accord with the vigorous tradition of handicraft of Bauhaus, Functionalist architects
tried to respect not only the functional requirements of the consumers but also those of
the construction industry. They soon learned that the productivity of building was
greatly improved when as many building components as possible were produced in
permanent factories, instead of making them on the building site in awkward places
and in unpredictable weather. The economy of mass production, in turn, advocates
designing the products so that they do not vary too much. The corollary regarding the
completed building is that it should be composed from identical components as far as
possible. At least the components should have uniform dimensions and if there must

be variation between them it should be of a kind that creates minimal problems for the
factory.
The theoretical basis for architecture using prefabricated
identical components was largely adopted from the science
of normative economics about which a description is found
elsewhere. The philosophy is very much the same as was used in
industrial conveyor belt production of cars, for example. There
were even architects who wanted to turn this into an aesthetic
ideal. The new prefabrication-oriented style of architecture
propagated itself not through an explicit theory or treatises, but
instead through the medium of exemplars, bold novel designs by
innovative architects. Among these perhaps the most influential
was Mies van der Rohe, director of Bauhaus from 1930 to 33
and of the department of architecture at the Illinois Institute of
Technology from 1939 to 1959. He had designed all the main
buildings of the school and had ample opportunities to profess
the philosophy behind their architecture. His catchphrases "Less
is more" and "next to nothing" describe his attitude to surface decoration.
Most of Mies' followers were gifted with less subtle taste of detail and the
prefabricated style of building soon became known as "match-box architecture". The
design of many a suburb was largely dictated more by the radius of the crane than by
the needs of the future inhabitants.
Above it was said that several Functionalist architects wished to have more research
on the psychological needs of customers, but the work was slow to catch on. Only
lately some architects have realized that for gathering people's preferences there are
easier methods than surveying large populations and translating the findings into
theoretical standards. Particularly in the context of systems building there is a unique
possibility of inviting the future building users to participate in design so that they
select suitable prefabricated components among the range that has been prepared by
the architect. The method is discussed under the titleCollective Design, and in many
countries it is already in operation in the commercial production of one-family houses.
For high-rise apartments the method is not as common, despite of the proposals
published by N.J.Habraken (1972).

Ecological Architecture
Making a shelter from bad weather was certainly one of the earliest goals of building,
and it has also later affected the building forms. Some examples:

Climatic incentive:
Excessive cold
Excessive heat
Too hot in daytime
and too cold during the night

Ensuing architectural form:

Airtight, isolating outer skin.
In the centre a source of warmth
Large roof to give shadow;
large openings in the walls to allow ventilation
Thick heavy walls

In the Western countries room air conditioning is now so common that we have almost
forgotten the above foundations of architecture, see e.g. Mechanisation Takes
Command, by Sigfried Giedion (1950).
Nevertheless, lately the ecological imperative has again come to surface, the natural
resources of earth dwindling and the people in developing countries starting to
contend their share. Henryk Skolimowskiwas one of the first to examine the practical
conclusions from the situation. There is not yet much literature on the principles of
ecologically sound architecture, but more is certainly in preparation. It goes without
saying that the theory of ecological architecture can be based on the findings
of industrial ecology which lately
has made great progress.
The physical appearance of
ecological architecture is often
dominated by large sloping panels
which gather solar energy. These are
placed on the roofs and along the
southern walls. As a contrast, the
cool side of the building is
characterized by the absence of large
openings, and the windows on this
side can be covered for the night. A diagrammatic example of such a building is seen
on the right, from the book Energiaksikirja[Energy Handbook] (1983).
Another approach in ecological design deals with building materials and aims at
minimizing the use of not replenishable raw materials. This means preferring such
building materials as wood, stone, earth and recycled material like used boxes and
barrels, and naturally it necessitates a peculiar style of architectural design as well.

Building as a Message
The oldest notes on architectural symbolism preserved until this day were issued by
Vitruve (I,II,5). The instructions told about a suitable (lat. proprius) style of
architecture for the temple of each god. The style suited to the temple of Mars, the god

of war, was the austere Doric system, whereas the graceful Corinthian style decorated
with leafy branches corresponded to the flexible nature of Venus, the goddess of love.
On the right, you can see a drawing from the 15th c. by Giorgio Martini reflecting
Vitruve's idea.
Allegorical symbolism was popular in several fields of medieval culture, but
hardly any original writings exist on how this symbolism was precisely
understood in architecture. What is known is that some church buildings
were built to symbolize either the "vault of heaven" or "heavenly Jerusalem".
In other cases, the model was the temple of Solomon or the liturgical
calendar. The pillars of the church were put there to symbolize the prophets
and the apostles. Proportions were sometimes considered important not
because of their beauty but because of the numeric symbolism hidden in
them.
During Renaissance, symbolism suited to
church buildings was developed further.
Palladio (IV,II) thinks circular forms are fitting
for churches because they symbolize the unity,
infinity and justice of God. Others thought that
proportions and forms of the human body were suitable
for a church because, according to the Bible, the human
being had been created in an image of God. Giorgio
Martini explored this idea in the sketch on the left.
Etienne-Louis Boulle (1729-99), teacher of architecture
at the Paris school of construction engineering (Ecole des
Ponts et Chausses) presented rather original ideas on the
symbolism of building. He told his students to design
"talking" (Fr. parlant) architecture, i.e., for example, the
house of a saw owner had to be designed to resemble the blade of a saw. "Buildings
should be like poems. The impressions they create to our senses should produce
analogous feelings to those produced by the use of those buildings." (Arnheim 1977,
275).
In the 19th and 20th century, architectural theorists did not write much about
symbolism, but architectural design got a number of symbolic models of forms of
buildings, which became conventionalized. Wayne O.Attoe (1979 p. 23...31) has
written the following list of them:
Mathematical analogies -- geometrical shapes (cone, ball etc.)- proportions

 Biological analogies -- organic shapes (shell, mushroom etc.)- vigorous

(expanding) style of construction
Romantic architecture (which appeals to feelings)
o exotic language of form
o ancient morphology
Linguistic analogies
o architecture = words + grammar
o expressionism and symbolism
Mechanical analogies (a building is a machine)
Ad-hoc analogy (a building is a combination of such material which can be
found on the site)
Stage analogy: the building is a stage of life.
Gnter Bandmann gives in the book Ikonologie der Architektur (1951, p. 60 ... 61) the
following list of typical architectural symbol-vehicles and of the methods of their
study:
The architects' intentions of creating symbolic works are often best visible in
the first sketchy proposals for the building.
The builder's intentions regarding symbols and signs are sometimes explained
in his letters to the architect and in his selection between alternative proposals.
Symbolically salient properties of buildings include:
o The physical position of the building in respect to neighbours and to the
rest of the community.
o The orientation in respect to compass bearings (especially churches,
where the entrance normally faces west).

o The decoration of the building, especially on the western and eastern

facades.
The typical symbolic forms for various types of communities can be found by
studying extensively the historical periods and geographical areas where these
architectural forms occur. The next question iswhy a certain form was so
popular in certain communities.
The phylogenetic development of a certain architectural form (i.e. its
development from a building project to the next one) can be worked out by
historical-morphological studies. In such a study it may turn out that the form
was originally motivated by factual use of the building. Eventually this original
use may have ceased and thereafter the remaining architectural form may
gradually have accumulated symbolic meaning.
Architectural signs often refer to social or political relations. An introduction to such
studies can be found inPolitische Architektur in Europa vom Mittelalter bis
heute edited by Martin Warnke (1984).
Pentti Tuovinen (1985) has studied the symbolism used in architecture. He has
presented a fairly simple method to design the symbolism of the town. The model has
been adapted to the scale of town planning but its principle could probably also be
used in the design of the symbolism of one single
building.
Tuovinen (129...) states that expressive, that is,
explicit symbolism is one aspect in town planning.
It can be defined with words and designed by an
architect. In the process of design, this verbal
description is first turned into an "ideal model of
the symbolic system" and in the end, in his artistic
design work, the architect once more recodes the
message into the geometric form language of the
town.
Tuovinen (130) suggests that the ideal model of town symbolism be achieved in such
a way that the symbolic elements at hand are first made into a chart, see picture on the
left:
In the next phase, the combinations chosen for the chart are made into a diagram
showing the symbolic system; part of the example can be seen here on the right (ibid
132), the basis of the diagram is the schematic division of the town into quarters, into

which the symbols planned for the town are then inserted. In the end, the structure of
the symbols shown by the diagram is transferred to the town plan, to be eventually
carried out.
Rudolf Arnheim (1977) has studied the
subconscious symbolism of the forms of
buildings. "The strongest symbols are derived
from the most elementary perceptual
sensations because they are connected with
such basic experiences of the human
experience which serve as a basis for
everything else." (209) Arnheim found that
dynamic forms which referred to movement
were the most expressive forms of
architecture, whereas if architectural forms
imitate the forms of other objects too clearly (e.g. if a church is built in the form of a
fish), this is bound to disturb dynamics and expression.
Sometimes you hear people say that consciously planned symbolism is bound to
remain trivial and that in the end, it decreases the artistic value of a work. In fact,
psychological research of art has shown that "too easy" symbolism is not valued
aesthetically; in other words, the intensity of the aesthetic pleasure produced when
one perceives a symbolic message depends on the intellectual effort preceding the
moment of discovery.
The problem a researcher taking an interest in symbolism constantly faces is that the
capacities of individuals in the general public to interpret symbols vary a great deal.
Some symbols are "archetypal" or common to all people, but most of them are learned
in communal living, and these differ a great deal from one individual to another. The
problem is that a work of art should deviate from the expectation of the public to some
extent (otherwise it would be trivial) but not too much (then it would be
incomprehensible). In many art forms, this has meant that there are two genres of art:
"the art of the people" and "the art of critics". Another solution has been to design the
symbolism of works in such a way that it is "double coded": certain messages are
directed to the general public and others to art connoisseurs. Works are thus made
multicoded and multisensed in such a way that it allows different personal
interpretations.

Postmodernism and Deconstruction

In his bookComplexity and Contradiction in Architecture (1966),

Robert Venturiopposed to simple "matchbox architecture". He analysed numerous
esteemed historical architectural masterpieces starting from the works of
Michelangelo and noticed that Mies' motto was mistaken.
It was the other way round: "Less is a bore", said Venturi. Architects have always
pursued contradictory aims and it is this exactly tension that creates the final
enjoyable, exquisite result, Venturi explained. It would be too trivial to follow simply
and logically just one goal, for example the clarity of construction, as did
the structural school of architecture. On the contrary, many famous architects have
wanted to show their skill by hinting that all the rules are there to be broken.
Historical examples are the Baroque columns in the sketches on the left and the right
(from Siegel 1960 p. 9).
"I welcome the problems and exploit the uncertainties. By
embracing contradiction as well as complexity, I aim for
vitality as well as validity." "I like elements which are
hybrid rather than "pure," compromising rather than
"clean," distorted rather than "straightforward,"
ambiguous rather than "articulated," ... redundant rather
than simple; inconsistent and equivocal rather than direct
and clear." ... "I am for richness of meaning rather than
clarity of meaning ... A valid architecture evokes many
levels of meaning ... its elements become readable and
workable in several ways at once."
Venturi's aesthetics demands a lot of the spectator: if the
spectator is to read the message of architecture in several
parallel ways, he should know the conventional interpretations,
i.e., the main points from the history of architecture, in advance.
Architecture becomes thus an art which can be fully appreciated
only by other artists and educated critics, not by laymen -- a
deplorably usual case in modern art.
If the spectator is up to his task, he has expectations of the object of art. He relates the
work to known references: to other comparable works of art and historical styles. The
"competent" observer is also able to estimate if the work obeys these styles or if it
deviates from them on purpose; and if there is such a deviation, he knows that he is
supposed to find out the purpose and the message of the deviation. Finding this kind
of clues, especially if it is not too easy, is conducive to the feeling of "eureka" which
is one of the basic factors of aesthetic pleasure.
The pleasure is still more exquisite if, in addition, the clue is "double coded": for
instance that it simultaneously includes a boring, matter-of-fact statement and an

"ironical" hunch which tells that there is something hidden and unusual to be found
behind the "boring" element.
This trick has been used in music for a long time; it is not uncommon that a juicy
tango is simultaneously a parody of all previous tangos. The weaning effect used by
the theatre of Brecht serves the same purpose: it makes the spectator not identify
himself too trivially with the work and implies: "this is not reality, this is art" and thus
makes the spectator do some personal, aesthetic thinking.
Venturi exemplified his ideas with a witty series of sketches called "Entrances"
(1977). One of them is on the right. Moreover, he applied his theory to numerous new
buildings and thus became the founder of the architectural style called
postmodernism.
Deliberate contradiction received some philosophical
support in Jacques Derrida's several writings between
1967 and 1972, where he points out the inevitability of
ambiguity in all human activity and especially in written
texts. When applied to architecture (cf. Broadbent's
analysis of it, 1991), Derrida's ideas were taken to mean
that there is no need to aspire to consistent and harmonious general pattern for a
building. Instead, the principle of deconstruction (or 'deconstructivism') states that it
is all right if the architect lets the eventual contradictions in the builder's goals shine
through the finished design as well.
Even when the briefing documents (i.e. the building programme) include no apparent
contradictions, the trendy architect may concoct artificial contrasts in his creation, just
to make it more interesting. Typical contrasting features in avant-garde building in late
20 century were beams, detached rooms and other large building elements positioned
so that they clash or penetrate each other at odd angles, creating an illusion of a recent
collision with an aeroplane. On the right, Zaha Hadid's proposal for "Zollhof 3" in
Dsseldorf (from Broadbent 1991, 26).

Another
usual
trick was
to

manipulate the grid of construction which since Functionalism had become a

conventional instrument of design giving crystalline structure to modern buildings.
Typical for deconstructivists was to use simultaneously two (or even more)
interlocking grids which departed from each other by a few degrees. This created at
once a multitude of clashing points, each of them then presenting to the architect a
new and unique problem to be solved ingeniously. Regrettably, the building grid itself
disappears in the finished building, and consequently most of the sophistication
around it remains visible only for connoisseurs.