My manifesto is about good architecture and bad architecture. After I had study in this school for 3 years I had heard many teacher talk about GOOD architecture which they give us an example and tell us about BAD architecture which many of it will related to our work. Good architect for me is has 2 direction firat is good at programming or functional; I always wonder that which one is good architecture. Most of Great tect nowadays is famous from conceptual work so is that mean good architecture? And architect who work very good that is also not good?. Project dream house VI of Peter Eisenman is an example, Peter Eisenman is deconstruction style and he put his style in his work. In this project he tries to break out from the normally house which stand on same element is column, beam and wall. He twists, cut and move grid again and again until become final plan. But after built the owner found that the house is can't live with comfortable because he didn't concern about the programming inside and comfortable of people who living in that house. In this case Peter Eisenman can goal in the conceptual part but not goal in functional which he don't care about it. Is it meaning him bad? But because of this work is can make architectural moving forward but fact is it can't use. Is it meaning good? For me, this is about sacred and profane. Mostly, people think famous architect work good in every project because of people believe that they good. But in my opinion, everything is always having good and bad. Architecture too, famous architect work is should have bad thing be part of the work, it depend that we will let it go or speak out. I had read that architecture is have it era style it change from style to another style to make the character of them era, such as we know what the modernism style look like and after that is post modernism we also know what is it look like. But now we have only famous architect work which design by they own style, it is like they sign them signature. It is the question again that they have they style and character, then they use it in their work, is it good? But we have learn that every site have their own context but their didn't use that in their work. So that means it bad?
What about your opinion, what is good architecture?
I am a little confused by your manifesto. What is your argument? Be careful not to create any inflexible rules when you are stating the patterns that you are analyzing in relation to good/bad architecture. For example, there is NO implication that student architecture = BAD. Maya Lin was a better architect as a student then were most of her professors. There is also no rule that 'great' architects = GOOD architecture. Steven Holl recently completed a very famous house that is too hot for its inhabitants to live in. Also, while Peter Eisenman basically invented conceptual design, he has produced several Billions of dollars worth of architecture, and his ideas have helped shape almost every significant contemporary building. Finally, an architect or a firm will probably respond in their own way to the site and its conditions, which, as a result, produces a consistent aesthetic that can be called that architect's signature. Therefore, just because an architect has a very distinctive style does not mean that they are not responding to the context. In fact, most 'great' architects only developed their signature style out of their unique signature approach to the context (through theory, art, statistics, etc). Their unique styles are a result of their unique processes and unique approaches to analyzing the built environment. Anyone who copies their style will be producing pointless form, because it is not the aesthetics that matter but the ideas and processes that lead great designers to newer and more appropriate aesthetics.
ตอบลบ