-
Question: What is the Universal Importance of Architecture?
I’m not sure if you remember the segment on my old page where I used to ask architectural questions. Well of course, I’m bring that to this site as well. I think as a student it is fundamentally important to ask a lot of questions. I’d admit that a lot of things still confuse me about architecture. So to kick off the my questioning segment, I’ll start off by asking a question that has been on my mind for a bit of while now.
WHAT IS THE UNIVERSAL IMPORTANCE OF ARCHITECTURE?
I ask because I recognize architecture commonly bears regional or cultural significance, however under deeper contemplation the terms and definitions of culture are ambiguous and convoluted, leaving me to question culture and architecture. Architecture is a cultural product sharing the characteristics of art and music, whether fine of popular, as well clothing design. Architecture is a fashion and extravagance that associates with the cultural body which it emerges. Considering the locality of architecture how can architecture be universally importance? It mere paints the facade, layout the floorplans of the each region of the world.
I do, however recognize the significant of vernacular architecture, which itself bears cultural and regional importance, but it differs greatly from the typical architecture practices that find themselves led by the motivation of religious, political, and artistic ideals. The aims, goals, and accomplishments of vernacular are strictly geographic and ergonomic. The are logical responses to the conditions of the environment and needs of survival. In modern times, in develop countries, one can argue, that humans are hardly struggling to survive, thus architectural responses needn’t be as dire as they once were. However, my counter-argument is that we cannot fabricate cultural ideals to fabricate architectural responses that slip from reality into a world of imagination and idealism.
We have to consider that architectural services aren’t quite beneficial of all levels class, in any society. Most projects are for the private sector. Most architectural services are commisioned by inviduals, parties, entities, or corporations with considerable level of wealth. Thus, I can argue that architecture seems to serve mostly one side of society. Design is often a good indicator of those who have and those don’t.
I am aware the there are architects who are involve in empathic design. There are design-build studios in the American South and Midwest that intertwine what can be considered as charitable ethics and design together into one practice. These are architects producing work that seems to breach the grips of cultural ideals and serve a larger purpose. These are example of architectural practice bearing universal importance, however, these architects and their work remain a minority.
I took my jab at answering my own question however you could leave your answer to the question in the comment box below. What do you think is the universal importance of architecture?
