Society sets the goals and assigns to the architect the job of finding the means of achieving them. This section of the article is concerned with architectural typology, with the role of society in determining the kinds of architecture, and with planning—the role of the architect in adapting designs to particular uses and to the general physical needs of human beings.
Bring fact-checked results to the top of your browser search. Theory of architecture The term theory of architecture was originally simply the accepted translation of the Latin term ratiocinatio as used by Vitruviusa Roman architect-engineer of the 1st century ce, to differentiate intellectual from practical knowledge in architectural education, but it has come to signify the total basis for judging the merits of buildings or building projects.
Such reasoned judgments are an essential part of the architectural creative process. A building can be designed only by a continuous creative, intellectual dialectic between imagination and reason in the mind of each creator.
A variety of interpretations has been given to the term architectural theory by those who have written or spoken on the topic in the past. Before every comprehensive treatise or published lecture course on architecture could appropriately be described as a textbook on architectural theory.
But, after the changes associated with the Industrial Revolutionthe amount of architectural knowledge that could be acquired only by academic study increased to the point where a complete synthesis became virtually impossible in a single volume.
The historical evolution of architectural theory is assessable mainly from manuscripts and published treatisesfrom critical essays and commentaries, and from the surviving buildings of every epoch. It is thus in no way a type of historical study that can reflect accurately the spirit of each age and in this respect is similar to the history of philosophy itself.
Some architectural treatises were intended to publicize novel concepts rather than to state widely accepted ideals.
The most idiosyncratic theories could and often did exert wide and sometimes beneficial influence, but the value of these influences is not necessarily related to the extent of this acceptance.
The analysis of surviving buildings provides guidance that requires great caution, since, apart from the impossibility of determining whether or not any particular group of buildings intact or in ruins constitutes a reliable sample of the era, any such analyses will usually depend on preliminary evaluations of merit and will be useless unless the extent to which the function, the structure, and the detailing envisaged by the original builders can be correctly re-established.
Nevertheless, the study of the history of architectural philosophy, like that of the history of general philosophy, not only teaches what past generations thought but can help individuals decide how they themselves should act and judge. For those desirous of establishing a viable theory of architecture for their own era, it is generally agreed that great stimulus can be found in studying historical evidence and in speculating on the ideals and achievements of those who created this evidence.
Distinction between the history and theory of architecture The distinction between the history and theory of architecture did not emerge until the midth century.
Even then, however, the distinction was seldom scrupulously maintained by either specialist. It is impossible to discuss meaningfully the buildings of the immediate past without discussing the ideals of those who built them, just as it is impossible to discuss the ideals of bygone architects without reference to the structures they designed.
Faced with the problem of discussing Athenian buildings constructed in the time of Vitruvius, he decided to discuss them twice, by treating them separately under two different headings. ErechtheumCaryatid porch of the Erechtheum, on the Acropolis at Athens. As a result of discussing constitutional law in terms of its evolution, every branch of knowledge especially the natural and social sciences was eventually seen as a historical sequence.
In the philosophy of architecture, as in all other kinds of philosophy, the introduction of the historical method not only facilitated the teaching of these subjects but also militated against the elaboration of theoretical speculation. Just as those charged with the responsibility of lecturing on ethics found it very much easier to lecture on the history of ethics, rather than to discuss how a person should or should not act in specific contemporary circumstances, so those who lectured on architectural theory found it easier to recite detailed accounts of what had been done in the past, rather than to recommend practical methods of dealing with current problems.
Thus, the attitudes of those scholars who, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, wished to expound a theory of architecture that was neither a philosophy of art nor a history of architecture tended to become highly personal, if not idiosyncratic.
By most theoretical writings concentrated almost exclusively on visual aspects of architecture, thereby identifying the theory of architecture with what, beforewould have been regarded as simply that aspect that Vitruvius called venustas i.
This approach did not necessarily invalidate the conclusions reached, but many valuable ideas then put forward as theories of architecture were only partial theories, in which it was taken for granted that theoretical concepts concerning construction and planning were dealt with in other texts.
Distinction between the theory of architecture and the theory of art Before embarking on any discussion as to the nature of the philosophy of architecture, it is essential to distinguish between two mutually exclusive theories that affect the whole course of any such speculation.
The first theory regards the philosophy of architecture as the application of a general philosophy of art to a particular type of art. The second, on the contrary, regards the philosophy of architecture as a separate study that, though it may well have many characteristics common to the theories of other arts, is generically distinct.Architecture - Theory of architecture: The term theory of architecture was originally simply the accepted translation of the Latin term ratiocinatio as used by Vitruvius, a Roman architect-engineer of the 1st century ce, to differentiate intellectual from practical knowledge in architectural education, but it has come to signify the total basis for judging the merits of buildings or building.
Architecture is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings or any other structures. Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of vetconnexx.comical civilizations are often . Org. Project Photography, Modern Architecture and the “School of Oporto”: Interpretations on Architecture and photography have maintained a close relation since Analysis of the PROA Magazine Case () | María.
Architecture is a broad subject, encompassing everything from skyscrapers to shacks. Virtually everywhere we go, we are surrounded by some sort of architecture on a daily basis.
Because of this, it should come as no surprise that architecture is such a popular subject in photography. Simone Rowat | Filmmaker & Researcher. Simone Rowat is an artist and filmmaker at Forensic Architecture. She graduated from the Fine Art Photography pathway at Royal College of Art with a previous degree from The Slade School of Fine Art at University College London.
Architecture Training and Tutorials. Learn architecture software including AutoCAD, SketchUp, and Revit Architecture. Tutorials cover drafting, rendering, modeling, and other skills you can use to design a house or building.