Introduction Draft Two
*(Need to input a stronger opening, a brief history on architecture)
*(Need to input a stronger opening, a brief history on architecture)
By looking back into the history of architecture, many periods/eras have failed because of the simple fact of many laymen not being able to understand the ideas and concepts of architects. In fact, it is because there are many periods that came after the Greek period that shows as proof to the statement that many lack the skill and ability to analyze and criticize designs in architecture.
*(Reference the massive change between Greek and other eras – Refer to art history)
Not everyone is born with the ability to differentiate the good from the bad of designs in architecture, especially with arts and design being subjective. Thus, what makes one building a success and another a failure? Where and how can we pin point the reason for a building to be considered a good or bad design? Additionally, a persons thought tend to change from time to time; the likes of today can be the hatred of tomorrow. So should there not be a specific rule whereby one could follow in terms of judging a design architecturally? In terms of judging design, there is a Vitruvius law by Marcus Vitruvius Pollio that states how one should judge a good design; but does it still comply with the world of today? Especially since he lived and died during the reign of Julius Caesar.
Additionally, we have to consider the thoughts of the users, the laymen, people who would actually be using the designed building. Do they even care about how and why certain things were designed a certain way? Or are they just indifferent towards designs in architecture and are just complacent? Assuming if they do care, what is the percentage of the people not from a design background who actually do spare a thought for designs architecturally? Surveys done have shown that people without the ability to judge wisely due to the lack of knowledge on the subject matter tend to misinterpret the meanings and intentions of designers. This is one of the factors of why architecture will come to an end without giving the general people enough time to react and retaliate as it is already starting to head towards the end without them even realizing as without the knowledge, people are naïve and unaware of what is actually going on in the world of architecture.
How about the designers, the professionals in the industry, do they strive to be better designers that can contribute to a better living or do the just strive to be better than the person next to them. Is the competition amongst the professionals’ one that will be improving our future living or one that would cause the death of architecture? Adding on, we know that Malaysian designers are very talented indeed, but what do they do to show it? Or are they even given a chance to show their worth? The blame game should not be put only on either sides as even the government plays a part, everyone does. With talented local professional designers, why is it that our country still feels the need for requesting help from foreign architects to design our own iconic buildings? The local architects were not even given a chance.
*(Reference to the KL Twin Towers)
Which leads back to, have the local designers even proven their worth to be able to design iconic buildings to put Malaysia on the grid line of the earth? And have the locals been supportive enough to help with the upbringing of the awareness towards Malaysian designs in architecture? As it is the locals who are the ones who will acknowledge the designs, it is their response that makes the difference. So are they responding well or just being robotically indifferent?
If one does not have knowledge about certain matters but yet is asked to judge it, surely and logically one would judge it using their most basic sense, which is sight. It is by our eyes that our brains are able to form a thought according to the visual that we see. By that, designers tend to manipulate the forms to create an interesting aesthetic approach that will please the eyes of many. Just by that, the logic of form following function which is to generate the building form according to its building program has been changed completely to a form which has no meaning but to just attract the eyes of people with high aesthetics. And the general public that is lacking in knowledge and ability to judge a building will be mesmerized easily and assumes that a building should be highly aesthetic to be declared as a successful building. Like a drop in a pond creates ripples, this creates a butterfly effect that anyone and everyone who does not come from a design back ground will automatically judge buildings merely by their aesthetical values.
*(Thus, the whole design process that architects go through, such as generating ideas and thoroughly considering many other important factors will have gone to waste. Eventually as designers too have to make a living, they will start designing buildings that are purely aesthetical rather than functional in order to supply the demand of the public; which will be asking for high aesthetic designs. This will gradually lead to the death of architecture as architects will no longer strive for functional ideals but rather produce soulless buildings that scream with high aesthetics. In fact, just because many have failed to see the intentions and ideas of architects has led to the failure of many great periods in the history of architecture. Thus leading to the need for more people to be able to think critically and analyze a building properly before condemning it as a bad design.) To be improved.
hmm, it definitely needs more improvement... which should and will be done by next week.
No comments:
Post a Comment