WHAT IS ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY?

[Nold Egenter]

What is History of Architecture?
(discussion from another architecture list)

--"primitive, nomadic...until the modernization...etc."
(W. A.)
--"we stay here for a month, all 30 students, living in tents and old boathouses."
(G. J.)
--"Architects need to 'know' the past built form because they are the ones given the responsibility to 'imagine' the future built form."
--"History is not the 'past'. History is 'accounts' of the past by people who lived/live in the present.
(Z. A.)
--"The history of architecture is the written record of architecture."
(F. J. S.)
--"....we have to critically analyze the situation to get to the bottom of the situation...thus the why portion of everything which comes to our mind cannot be interpreted correctly if we do not study history."
(S. A.)
--"Architectural history is a record (in both documents, buildings, and other archaeological remains) of how problems were solved in the past, how buildings looked and were used, and how they related (or perhaps did not relate well) to their social and cultural contexts. I would think that a knowledge of architectural history would provide a wealth of ideas that can be put to use in contemporary architecture."
(M. S.)
--From 'history' and 'architecture' (dictionary), "one can simply say that the history of architecture is the chronicle development of the space, envelope, organization, and environmental interaction."
(F. S.)

As the heterogeneous answers show, the term lacks precision. Since it is the basic platform of the architect's perception of his own design principles it is 'theoretically' also responsible for the chaos of forms and styles of the cities and rural landscapes we live in.

The main problem is: it is not congruent with factual conditions. Conventionally, in the framework of the art historian, it is a term related to the history of urban civilisation, thus an elitarian term excluding traditional architectures worldwide. Its distinction from mere buildings is based on a high idealisation in terms of aesthetics and temporal and formal style. Or, even reduced to absolute subjective 'personal gusto'. Thus, architecture is dealt with in the questionable framework of art and aesthetics (among carpets and porcelain vessels), the scientific value of the 'history of the arts' methods being questionable. It also excludes the 'dwelller', the human being and the mutual impacts between the two.

In many places and on a global scale, new trends have started to do research into traditional or 'vernacular' architecture worldwide (Paul Oliver EVAW) with newly defined fields (ethnology of architecture, anthropology of habitat and architecture...etc.). This new type of architectural research will produce new insights, because it includes the temporally deep impacts and influences of architecture on humans from early stage.

Such a deep impact of architecture on humans could be related to a basic aesthetic formula: It implies the composition of categorically polar formal elements [(O/A) = coincidence of opposites] combining vertical and horizontal, or, in any direction mutually penetrating elements of 'coincidence of opposites'.

In a recent study I tried to show that in the framwork of a neolithic territorial demarcation system using fibrous settlement core demarcations an elementary form of aesthetics might have become important as a model for producing objects, building huts and organising landscape in economical contexts. This elementary type of aesthetics (categorical polarity, or, coincidence of opposites in one form) had become of great importance and became handed down as tradition in many cultures (China and other parts of Asia: Daoism, YinYang; India: Om; Ma'at, Ancient Egypt; Greece: early form of 'logos' [Heraclitus]; 'Coincidentia oppositorum' of European Middleages; Nietzsche: Apollinian and Dionysian).

In architecture it survived particularly on sacred architecture in many cultures, but with modernism it disappeared, gave way to the "pseudo-aesthetics" of geometry.

It may be noted that this insight is based on new attempts to use methods of architectural research which correspond to the factual temporal depth of architecture namely anthropology. The approach shows also that aesthetics was not intentionally conceived by early humans, but was 'discovered' as something which was a casual byproduct of producing fibrous bordermarkers, but became one of the most important cultural traits of humans and survived as vital traditions into our days: in the arts including music, partially in philosophy and in religions.

Modern architecture sacrificed this type of age old aesthetics to modern technology and its standardised production processes.

In this context please have a look at the slide show:
< http://home.worldcom.ch/~negenter/E/000index.html >
or on Japanese aesthetics (Anthropology of aesthetics: Culture as Identity)
< http://home.worldcom.ch/~negenter/418aDundeeTT.html >

[mx2]

There is nothing new about "Architecture without Architects"...look it up. And "vernacular", "traditional", "indigenous", local architecture has always been included in the History of Architecture particularly if you stop to realize "Architecture" was never a profession before recent Bauhaus institutionalization has corrupted it into some commodified version of "master building"...selling our services for "some blueprints for permit"...

mx2.5

[djswan]

[Nold Egenter]

djswan

thanks for your positive remarks. There is a plate in our site which shows the structure of the whole research field of 'architectural anthropology' as a new perspective of cultural evolution:
http://home.worldcom.ch/~negenter/004PosterAA4.jpg

The most important category is 'semantic architecture' which is described in various contexts in our site. The two URLs given in my last entry show factual examples as they appear in the cultural landscape, in ancient Near Eastern cultures, as well as in present rural Japan.

Regards,

Nold Egenter

[djswan]

Your welcome,

"The festive signs and symbols are prehistorical survivals which have disappeared in other cultures, essentially for religious reasons (Christianisation, Islamisation).
If we say anthropology"

I found this to be interesting, in one of your links.

Have we been hiding what makes us human? and if so Why?

Art certainly predates Homo Sapians.

[SDR]

"Art certainly predates Homo Sapiens." If art is defined as the work of intelligence, how (on Earth, anyway) is this possible ?

Or perhaps you define art differently ?


SDR

[djswan]

Skill acquired by experience, study or observation. Art.

Monkey see monkey do, and yes, old dogs can be thought new tricks, and even learn some on thier own.

Should we define intelligence next?

[SDR]

Ah. The broad view. And even elephants can be taught to paint. What a world !

Well, I'm all for continuity (Man out of Nature) and inclusiveness.

[Nold Egenter]

djswan

____________________
"The festive signs and symbols are prehistorical survivals which have disappeared in other cultures, essentially for religious reasons (Christianisation, Islamisation).
If we say anthropology"

I found this to be interesting, in one of your links.

Have we been hiding what makes us human? and if so Why?

Art certainly predates Homo Sapians.
_________________

I think our whole cultural consciousness is 'civilisational'. This is meant in a critical sense. It is a value system which puts up 'high values' of state/urban history with art and architecture, philosophy and religion etc. and devalues rural traditions within states ('folklore'!) or in other domains of the world ('primitive', '3rd world'!). This projects completely inadequate images which are partly responsible for the political and economical problems we are facing globally. In addition, many concepts fundamental to the civilisational image of culture are fictive, because they have been historically interpreted from verbalised texts without knowing the facts they were originally related to.

For the details see: <http://home.worldcom.ch/~negenter/004ZagrVortr_part2_E/004ZagrVortr_part2a_E.html>

In this sense architectural anthropology is a new access to cultural theory which might balance tensions created by civilisational cultural theories.

And, doubtless, art, or aesthetics, is one of - if not THE - basic principles of cultural evolution. If you understand aesthetics like the Chinese 'Yin-Yang' principle as 'categorical polarity', or 'coincidence of opposites' you can discover it everywhere, in our subjectivised 'high art' as well as in so called 'primitive forms of art' where it is ritually conserved by cyclically renewing its (often perishable) form through enormous stretches of time.

Thus architectural anthropology becomes a new culturally competent domain: 'cult-architect-ure' or 'archiculture'. There is a lot to discover!

Best regards,

[djswan]

Thank you, that makes sense.

They say the meek shall inherit the earth, according to folklore and theorized by science.

So as ego centric superior human being, I will partner up with the meek and have competitive edge.