57 / 86
2016
פברואר
104
אדריכלות ישראלית
|
קטגוריית מחקר
פרויקט השנה -
57
|
At a time in which aesthetic solutions
are easily supplied by computers, one
might suggest replacing the anachronistic
question of “Is it beautiful” with “Is it right”.
That is, does it fit the declared purpose
in terms of the entrepreneur’s economic
calculations, customer needs, or the
designer’s aspirations? Is it at all possible
to speak of feelings and intentions when
computers produce realities?
The debate on aesthetics is an essential
chapter in philosophy, particularly with
regard to art, where angles range from a
‘universal aesthetic’, to a ‘personal aesthetic’
and from fine arts to applied arts.
Although practical in nature, architecture
is understandably designed to embody a
certain degree of creativity, or it remains
outside the “picture”. In this context, it is
worth recalling Louis Kahn’s frequently
quoted phrase: “What does the building
want to be, ”which clearly indicates that
the building is meant to express intention,
emotion, and desires.
The inherent connection between the
factual and the expressive is discussed
by art historian, Erwin Panofsky, who
pointed out three levels of creativity where
inter-connection is stronger than any
imaginary expression: pure forms; cultural
iconography; and content. According to this,
culture is not only a response to problems,
but a set of schemas embedded in early
stages of life that can produce an infinite
number of variants adapted to different
situations.
Following the September 11, 2001 memorial
concert in New York given by the Vienna
Philharmonic, American philosopher and
aesthetician, Nicholas Wolterstorff, criticized
the loss of the dimension of feeling, asking:
“Why is it that the philosophy of art can
no longer express touch and tears?”
Wolterstorff contends that the notion of the
‘aesthetic’ and especially the meeting point
between theory and practice that deal with
feeling, must be re-examined.
Such a meeting point naturally occurs
in schools of design and architecture,
where, deficient in professional knowledge,
students tend to inundate their projects
with subjective content, phrases like "it was
important to me" and "I felt a need" come
at the expense of functional rationalization.
Consequently, many teachers tend to
reinforce rational thinking, while diminishing
the importance of a subjective view. In
many cases, the actual result is a marked
abandonment of any aesthetic expression,
that until recently was considered the very
essence of art work.
The status of the aesthetic in schools of
architecture and design was discussed with
four professors - Hillel Schocken, former
Head of the School of Architecture at Tel
Aviv University, Micha Levin – Head of
research at Shenkar, Yael Moria - Head of
the Department of Interior Design, Building,
and Environment at Shenkar, and Zvi Efrat,
former head of the School of Architecture at
Bezalel.
Some interviewees claimed that the artistic
element is notably absent from overall
architectural work, but is naturally present
beneath the surface and, in some cases,
takes over the building. Others argued
that architecture today provides no room
for personal expression since it is no
more than an act of organizing theoretical
content in physical reality. That is, since
the instrumental aspect lies at the center, it
should be the sole reference. In this reality,
the aesthetic remains an expression of
changing fashion, primarily adapted to the
exigencies of public taste.
The conclusion of the research is that the
manufacture of industrial, mechanical
and duplicated architecture relates to
instrumental efficiency while ignoring
local multi-cultural traits, which generates
deficient spaces, thus diminishing the
traditional role of architecture as a reflection
of emotional expression.
The study suggests that in order to cure
architecture of its deficiency, we should
consider returning to subjective architecture,
instead of favoring objective instrumental
creation that lacks expression.
deficient spaces -
synthetic schools
of architecture
Asher Elbaz